A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?Ethics are hard.
The trolley problem is a thought experiment, though. No one has ever encountered it in real life. No one ever will. What about other questions?
Should one shop for chocolate at local stores that only sell products by Hershey and Mars and Nestlé, thus supporting companies uninterested in protecting the rights of cocoa farmers, or should one shop for chocolate at Fair Trade retailers online such as Divine Chocolate or Sweet Earth Chocolates, thus ensuring that none of the money stays in the local economy? One could do without chocolate entirely, but then it's that much harder for the employees of both the local stores and the Fair Trade stores to earn their livings, and also one has no chocolate.
Should one support international treaties to reduce carbon emissions, thus protecting the environment, or should one support international efforts to bring everyone up to the same standard of living, thus reducing privilege? One could support both, but how to industrialize nations without dumping mountains of soot into the air?
Should one support the Occupy movement, because economic oppression is something very nearly all of us suffer from, or oppose the Occupy movement, because it fails to consider other forms of oppression? (Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street, anyone?)
Should one contribute money to the local food bank, thus feeding the local hungry, or to water.org or the like, thus giving water to the worldwide thirsty? It's an either-or; a dollar given to one charity cannot go to another. It's possible to contribute to both charities, of course, but there are people suffering from malaria and AIDS and neglected tropical diseases. Which do thirsty people with leprosy need, water or medicine?
One can give and give until one has, like the woman in Mark 12 41–44, given all one has to give, but there will still be more need than one can answer, and then one will have neither food nor water nor medicine oneself. How will that help?
Ethics are hard, people.
And none of the above takes into consideration that ethics are, y'know, hard. I've written on this before. I can't ethically shop at Walmart, because they treat their female employees like crap and they keep prices down by paying their suppliers' employees hardly anything, and I can't ethically shop at IKEA, because they treat the US the way the US treats Thailand. There's a furniture shop conveniently located on South Main Street in the town where I live: it's owned by a family, not a corporation, and as far as I know it's entirely staffed by that family, so they have incentive to treat their employees right. But when I move into my own apartment, where will I be shopping for furniture? Walmart or IKEA, because a queen-sized bedstead costs $450 at the hometown furniture store and a comparable bedstead costs $150 at Walmart.
I don't have any answers. I wish I did. It would be so much easier that way.
The one thing I'm sure of is that it is possible—it is necessary—for ordinary reasonable prudent people to disagree on ethical issues.
Take the example of reducing carbon emissions versus raising standards of living. It is vitally important that carbon emissions be reduced. It is vitally important that people trying to live on 1 USD a day improve their standard of living. Which is more important—well, if I passionately argue one side, and Jane passionately argues the other, either we'll both get disgusted and walk away or we'll come to a conclusion somewhere in the middle. Maybe the solution is to gift solar panels to the villages of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa—voila, electricity to people in need without raising carbon emissions more than necessary to make and transport the panels.
But we can only arrive at such a solution if all sides acknowledge that, hey, the other sides all have a point.
Contrast the current state of US politics. One side wants nothing to do with cutting carbon emissions. That's the same side that wants nothing to do with improving the lot of the poor in any country. That is not on. One side of US politics wants us to shop neither local nor Fair Trade, because that's the side owning and owned by the national and international 'free'-trade corporations. That is not on. One side of US politics opposes the Occupy movement, not because the Occupy movement is going about dealing with economic oppression in a way ignorant of other oppressions, but because the Occupy movement opposes economic oppression. It's like there's a second trolley on the heels of the first, and instead of sending it over the person(s) killed by the first trolley, sending it on the other track. That is not on.
That side is the side that's winning, because the side that takes ethics into consideration is divided on what to prioritize, QUILTBAG rights or women's rights, jobs or the environment, universal health care or making sure our grandchildren aren't paying for the decisions we make today, and how to go about achieving whatever we finally decide to make the number one priority. If we ever do decide. Whether to pick a number one priority is an ethical dilemma in itself, as is what that priority should be if there is one.
G. W. F. Hegel, roughly translated, defines tragedy as the conflict not between good and evil but between two competing goods. Hegel never met contemporary US politics, and contemporary US politics have apparently never met Hegel.
We could all use some more Hegelian tragedy in our lives.
My opinions? We tried TARP and it didn't work, the banks are sitting on the money, so let's try giving money directly to those in need via hiring them—a government job is still a job—and via bailing out those with underwater and not-much-above-water mortgages. We can't afford lowering taxes on the upper middle class and up right now, and it's not like the military-industrial complex isn't a jobs program. Contribute small amounts to many charities—philanthroper.com is excellent for charitable crowdfunding. Join Occupy and stand up for the people Occupy helps to oppress in hopes that Occupy will collectively stop oppressing
--MercuryBlue
The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.
Ok, I've read a lot of the literature on the net, and been down to Zuccotti park, and I understand that there have been some. . . well, less then stellar examples of humanity involved with OWS, but. . . who exactly is OWS oppressing?
Posted by: Rowen | Nov 28, 2011 at 04:38 PM
Ethics are indeed hard! I run into this because my work does a lot of China-related education, and people's opinions of China and the Chinese government are so wildly divergent. Watching the Chinese government's human rights abuses and work on desertification and solar energy and the Chinese people's work lifting themselves out of poverty even if the jobs they use are crappy jobs assembling iPads... do you want the factory to leave, because it's a soulkilling exploiter, or stay, because money is money and it's not like you're working at the soulkilling factory because you really don't want to go with the nice job down the street.
Posted by: Wysteria | Nov 28, 2011 at 04:58 PM
We tried TARP and it didn't work, the banks are sitting on the money, so let's try giving money directly to those in need via hiring them
I agree, but note that TARP was a distraction. The Fed printed, entirely on their own authority, more money than I want them to print now.
Posted by: hf | Nov 28, 2011 at 05:35 PM
Rowen: In my experience and that of everyone I've seen writing about it, Occupy is very white and rather male, and women and people of color have been trying to get Occupy as a whole to realize that it's not the 99% without women and people of color, but to quote the Angry Black Woman, "We’ve learned from slavery, Jim Crow, Tulsa, Rosewood, the Red Summer of 1919, the Watts riots, the Civil Rights Movement, & America’s belief in the lie of the Welfare Queen that we cannot trust in people who are not explicitly anti-racist." And to quote Shakespeare's Sister, "if your revolution doesn't implicitly and explicitly include a rejection of misogyny and other intersectional marginalizations, then you're not staging a revolution: You're staging a change in management."
This is not to say that Occupy does not have women (obviously it does; hi) or people of color (again, it does), nor to say that Occupy is not trying to deal with the racism and misogyny in its ranks (it is). Occupy is not in fact doing badly on these issues. But it's not doing well, either.
hf: ooookay. I can't think about this now, I've got class in a few.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 28, 2011 at 05:55 PM
Ethics are easy for people like me who know everything. ;) Ah, the hubris of the young. But anyway, give me an ethical dilemma and I'll solve it neatly for you. If you come up with a different solution I'll be happy that you are working on the problem from a different angle and trust that through our combined efforts we will both improve the situation of the planet.
Trolley question: flip the switch. choosing inaction is a choice that kills five people. choosing action is a choice that kills one.
Versions of the trolley question that make it more complicated than it is: First cross out all the bits where someone else makes a choice that has nothing to do with you (the babies on the track would grow up to be mass murderers. what they do 20, 30 years after you save their life is not your responsibility). then save as many lives as possible.
Versions of the trolley question that involve five people dying or killing someone not in immediate danger (you're a doctor and a stranger comes who just happens to be a perfect organ donor match, do you kill him?): It's not your place to decide. What you do is you present the case to the stranger as plainly as possible. If the stranger decides to give up his own life, he may do so. If not, that's his decision. This is different from the original trolley question in that in the original question you have no time to ask someone and your choices are binary: either kill one or kill five.
Chocolate: I boycott Nestlé. It's not about slavery chocolate for me, it's about substandard infant formulas being promoted over breastmilk in developing nations. But slavery is bad too. We don't have those other brands here. Nestlé makes everything from cereal to pudding and it makes the only mint chocolate available in my country. Nestlé is usually the only iced tea you can get at a restaurant. A lot of the time it is "Nestlé or nothing" and I choose nothing. The way you solve this is that when it comes to your attention that a company is engaging in practices that you find abhorrent, you no longer give them your money, unless it is an absolute necessity of course -- if I were on a desert island and there was nothing to eat but Nestlé then yeah sure. Sometimes you have to choose the least evil. The point is that you ask yourself "is my need/want for this product greater than my abhorrence of this company's practices?" That is a question that only you can answer for yourself. If you abhor Walmart for its practices but you cannot afford to shop anywhere else, then shop at Walmart. Do what you have to survive. Other people can boycott Walmart. It's not your fault that they're the only store in your area that sells food you can afford.
Fair trade chocolate: has not come to Hungary to the best of my knowledge and if it had I probably couldn't afford it. I buy chocolate very rarely as it is.
Reduce carbon emissions or increase standard of living? Um, both, though we may be operating from different perspectives on "standard of living". To me an increased standard of living, one to strive for, is one in which everyone has access to clean water and food and medical care, earns enough money to have all of their needs met and some of their wants. Not one in which everyone has an ipod. Also, if we don't reduce carbon emissions, all of our standards of living will drop.
Occupy movement - pass: it hasn't come to my country and I'd rather support local, unrelated grassroots movements. The 99% statistic isn't relevant to Hungary, but there are a lot of other problems over here that people are demonstrating about, some of which I agree with. I don't really have the time, health, or resources to support them very much, but I am paying attention and keep an eye out for local things I can do here and there.
But that said: a movement is better than no movement, better to work from within to improve diversity. Unless there's a parallel movement going on that you (generic) find more in line with your views, in which case join that.
Charities: research them, find some whose practices you approve of and split your donations of time/items/money as you see fit. In general, it's better to donate items locally to shelters and the like, because donations of goods can upset foreign economies (for example, in locations which receive a lot of used clothes as foreign aid, it is harder for local, family owned clothing businesses to stay in business and compete, whereas if you donate your used clothing to the poor within your own city, this is less likely to happen.) You can't save the entire world, but you can do something with the patch in front of you.
You also have to take into balance your own health and well-being: if you sell literally everything you own except one single outfit and go live on the streets and then die of pneumonia in the cold winter, you are depriving the world of years of charity and good works that you could have done. It's best to do all things in moderation. Give as much as you can, keep enough to retain your health and your ability to keep giving.
Where to buy furniture, since IKEA and Walmart are out? Second hand, estate sales. Also if you have any model homes in your area, find out what they do with the furniture once the model home sells. That furniture is usually sold cheap and it's only been slightly used by the people touring the house. Craigslist. Freecycle. Mattresses you should buy new, however. You don't know how many times someone's kid peed in that mattress, and you definitely don't want to know how many dust mites are living in it. Mattresses are expensive. If someone's getting rid of one, it's because there's something wrong with it. Perhaps the springs broke and will poke you in the back all night. But as for chairs, desks, tables, bedframes, washing machines? Craiglist, classified ads, and freecycling. It's cheaper than Walmart. :D
But suppose all of that fails and you cannot find an affordable piece of furniture that you cannot do without. In that case, as a poor person, shop at Walmart. You have to make a choice based on how necessary the item is and how dire your financial straits are. I hate to invoke PETA, because ew, but I remember reading PETA saying that the only person who should wear furs is a homeless person. I dislike PETA for a lot of reason, but I do agree with the spirit of that sentiment. I believe everyone should make the choice of fur/no fur for themselves and it's on their own conscience and is none of my business. But a poor person wearing a fur coat because it was donated to good will is in no position to choose to freeze.
And it's the same with Walmart, which we don't have in my country but we have Tescos. Lots of people in the UK boycott Tesco for their practices. In Hungary? Sometimes Tesco is the cheapest and if the choice is buying Tesco bread or not being able to afford bread then I'm buying Tesco bread. Also, despite Tesco's practices in the UK, I have to say that they have done good things for our local economy. It is common for people to set up tiny shops (big enough to fit the seller, and one or two customers total, maybe 2-4 square metres in size. These shops are stocked by the owner, who drives to Tesco in their car and buys lots of stuff and then sells them at a somewhat higher price to the people who can't drive to Tesco. These are small, family owned businesses. If we didn't have stores like Tesco, I'm not sure where these tiny shops would get their products or if they could survive as well as they do. So, I don't boycott Tesco. I don't mind if others do. For me, it's about affordable food. Luckily, there are some other companies (an Austrian one, a German one, and a French one) in our city that are also big rich corporations and they are priced competitively with each other, so I can have my pick. But sometimes I go to Tesco.
But we can only arrive at such a solution if all sides acknowledge that, hey, the other sides all have a point.
I couldn't agree with this point more.
I also think, that to a large extent it is inevitable that there will be issues that are nearer and dearer to our hearts than others. For example, cancer research is really important for obvious reasons and we all want to end cancer. And making sure everyone on the planet has access to potable water is also really important for obvious reasons. But maybe you know someone with cancer and that swings you in that direction or maybe you know someone who was born in a 3rd world country and that swings you the other way. (actually you do: me. My parents were there doing religious/humanitarian work when I was born and I didn't live there that long, so I don't really *count* but anyway, that experience combined my limited experience with cancer, makes the potable water thing somewhat nearer and dearer to my heart)
And that's not a bad thing! Let's say you choose to give your dollar to cancer research and I give mine to the water thing. Great, the world is now a better place by $2. We cannot become experts in everything, but we can do good with the knowledge we have and over time we can refine our own knowledges. A lot of people doing small amounts of good work in a vast array of fields will improve things over all.
What am I doing/planning to do? Well, disability is an important issue to me. All websites I build are completely accessible. I know a lot about assistive technology and accessibility and usability and that's what I do for work (in addition to translation jobs here and there and some copy-editing). I'm also helping a friend who is in a domestic violence situation, both financially and emotionally. And I've told her that if she and her children ever need a place to stay, she knows where I live. I'm not sure she understands yet that I mean that seriously and literally, but I do, and I'll keep mentioning it as it comes up, when the times is right (I don't want to pressure her, but I do want her to know that I mean it literally).
As for the future, I want to adopt or foster disabled children once we're married and set up financially for this. Kate and I have talked about this at length. We feel that due to our understanding and experiences with privilege we will be able to give "hard to adopt" children a loving home.
Also, it just seems practical -- if the child is blind, I already know Braille and know a lot about how to teach it. Sighted children are exposed to letters before they even know what they are, and then practice scribbling letters and shapes, and can follow along with their eyes when they are read to, but most blind children encounter Braille for the first time in the classroom. But you can expose a blind toddler to Braille childrens books, helping them follow along with a finger while you read the words, and you can expose them to a Braille typewriter and a slate and stylus and let them make scribbles of random dots patterns that they can then pretend to read. I think that knowing all of that makes the prospect of having a blind child a lot easier.
If the child is deaf, well I do know American sign language and prefer sign to speech. It wouldn't be difficult to learn Australian Sign Language for my sixth language. And we're hoping that down the track I'll have hearing aides of my own -- there are new technologies out that can help with CAPD, and Dead and HoH children tend to be born to hearing parents. Many grow up without ever knowing an adult who has hearing aides and it's hard for deaf children to not have deaf role models. So I'd be delighted if we wound up with a deaf child.
I'd also be happy with a child with developmental disabilities, such as autism or Down's Syndrome. No child of mine will be punished for stimming. I grok overload. I am okay with differences. I'm patient. I'm good at not making assumptions and good at listening -- because of my CAPD I have to listen with 100% brain power to understand speech and this has made me very good at listening. I'm good at accepting people where they're at. I've had a lot of success with "difficult" children I've interacted with, improving their self esteem and passing on my own coping methods.
And every kid up for adoption, temporarily able bodied or disabled, has a history of either abandonment, death of their care takers, or abuse. Because of my own history (which did not involve adoption, but involved abandonment and abuse), I grok these things on a level that people who have not lived through them cannot grok without having done a lot of research. I know the kid isn't going to start out trusting me and is going to test me (and test me and test me) and I'm okay with that. Why should a kid trust this new stranger that's been thrust upon them?
And having been a child in that situation, there's not a lot they can do that is worse than what I did as a young kid who couldn't trust anybody and did not understand normal human interaction at any level. When I was seven, I used to pull this girl's hair on the schoolbus, every single day. She would cry and her big sister, who was ten which seemed really old and grown up back then, would come up from the back of the bus and hold her and tell her that I was just being mean and that it had nothing to do with her. And that's why I did it. I was studying them. I couldn't figure out this "holding someone when they cry" thing and it confused me and made me feel weird inside and all I knew was it was something I wanted to watch every day.
I do hope that girl has recovered from having been bullied daily by me in the second grade. I don't even know her name. And I'm sorry for what she went through. At the same time, I acknowledge that seven year old me was doing the best she could in an untenable situation. I'm glad I grew out of it. But yeah, when it's my kid doing stuff like that, I'll know where it's coming from, and I'll know what to do. All parents who are adopting a child have to do a lot of learning beforehand. I figure that since I've already done a great deal of that learning, I'll be at an advantage to make a difference in some children's lives.
Adoptions isn't for everyone. Not everyone wants kids and not everyone is equipped to deal with that. That's okay. There are plenty of other things that need doing to make this world a better place. Everyone should pitch in where they feel they can do the most good.
Posted by: Pthalo | Nov 28, 2011 at 06:22 PM
btw, when i say it's better to work from within to improve diversity in the political movements, I want to make it clear that I am not holding any women or members of minority groups at fault for staying out of political movements where they feel they are not welcome or are being discriminated against. My suggestion is that allies and members of those minority groups (and women, if it's women being discriminated against, because women aren't a minority) should work together from within (and the allies should do everything they can to ensure that their efforts are wanted and helpful, e.g. no 'splaining). For example, if people of colour aren't welcome, then we shouldn't try to convince them to put up with us anyway for the greater good. That is up to them, and there is plenty of good work they can do from outside the movement. Instead we should direct our efforts to convincing the people of pallor to suck it up.
Posted by: Pthalo | Nov 28, 2011 at 06:32 PM
It wouldn't be difficult to learn Australian Sign Language for my sixth language.
Not difficult, no. It's fairly intuitive, if you know the reasoning behind the signs.
Point of interest: it's called "Auslan"; "Australian Sign Language" refers to an older, obsolete version which was trying to be signed English rather than a natural language.
Posted by: Deird, who needs to revise | Nov 28, 2011 at 06:35 PM
people of pallor
:) I approve of this phrasing.
Posted by: Deird, who hasn't heard that before | Nov 28, 2011 at 06:36 PM
(and because I still wasn't 100% clear, the people of colour/etc. that the allies should be working with from within are the ones who, for their own reasons, have decided that they have enough spoons to put up with some amount of race fail and join the movement anyway. The allies should do everything they can to support these people and get the word out about diversity and call people on fail when fail happens. And the allies should under no circumstances shame those who have chosen not to join the movement because they have decided that they do not have the spoons to put up with race fail at this juncture.)
@Deird: that's good to know. And thank you for the correction on the phrasing. ASL was briefly called Ameslan in the 80's but that usage sounds quaint now. But it's good that Auslan is Auslan because otherwise we'd have two ASLs! ASL signs are also really intuitive. I know a little HSL (Hungarian Sign Language) -- just a few words and phrases. It's really interesting to me how the signs are completely different from the signs I know, yet just as intuitive.
Example: scared in ASL is you make a motion which calls to mind clutching your chest in fear (left fist hand palm facing chest starting location left side of chest. right hand same but on the right. both hands move towards each other ending in a splayed hand shape (5 hand) palms still facing chest, one hand higher than the other), whereas in HSL the signs resemble a person "standing and quaking in fear" (in front of your chest: left hand flat palm facing up. right hand palm facing chest, index and middle finger "standing" on your left hand, with a shaking motion)
Posted by: Pthalo | Nov 28, 2011 at 06:49 PM
It's really interesting to me how the signs are completely different from the signs I know, yet just as intuitive.
I liked learning the Auslan signs for things that seemed totally random until our teacher explained them - like "man" and "woman" (signs resembling a beard, and someone putting on blush) or "want" and "don't want" (signs resembling food going to the stomach, or else being vomited up again)...
Posted by: Deird, who really REALLY needs to revise | Nov 28, 2011 at 06:56 PM
That's cool. (ASL boy resembles tipping a hat, sort of, and the mnemonic for girl is that it's the ribbons on her bonnet tied under her chin (stroke ear to chin with thumb in ASL's A hand (resembles a fist)). To make them "man" or "woman", you then tap your chest with your thumb (right 5 hand palm facing left). The ASL signs resembling a beard mean "rich" or "Jewish" depending on how you do them -- or they did when I learned them, which was just before they made a lot of signs more PC, and while I hope that was one of the signs changed, I don't know for sure.*)
ASL's want resembles making a grabbing motion (claw hands), and don't want is the opposite (start the grabbing motion, then twist your wrists so your hands are facing out, as if dropping the thing). Your description of Auslan "want" reminds me of ASL's "hunger" (C handshape** palm facing in, from neck to stomach), and don't want reminds me of the ASL sign for "vomit" (flat/splayed hands palms touching, starts at stomach and comes up and out)
* I just checked an online sign dictionary, and Jewish is the same (beard), but rich has changed: now rich resembles a pile of coins. This is good news.)
**ASL's alphabet is one handed and completely different from Auslan's, C hand shape is like grasping a cup and looks like the letter C.)
Posted by: Pthalo, who could geek about sign languages all day | Nov 28, 2011 at 07:16 PM
MercuryBlue,
I can't help but wonder how much of that image is a product of the media. For starters, OWS is MEANT to not have a leader. It's one of the main criticisms of it. So, if there ARE fewer people of color out there, I wonder how much of it is OWS not making a safe space and how much is, well, people just complaining (There's GOT to be a better way to put it, but I can't think of one. . . Basically, someone who is going to complain or have an issue, but refuses to step up to the plate.)
The reason why I say this is because I've been down there a few times. It's pretty welcoming, and I did see a lot of diverse people. Even more so during the March on Wall Street a few weeks ago, which was VERY diverse. Of course, the only people who get shown on TV are a few trustafarians and then I have to spend even MORE energy to defend OWS from people complaining about drum circles. Furthermore, Occupy Philadelphia had a very large number of people of color, from what little I could see.
I say all this cause I see a lot, "I saw this one thing in the media, and therefore everyone involved in OWS is a rapist/racist/hippy!" and, to me, that's kind of like saying all atheists or pagans are something, because you saw something in the news.
Posted by: Rowen | Nov 28, 2011 at 07:41 PM
ASL is roughly the same age as Tok Pisin, and therefore many of the signs are still iconic. Linguistic drift, over time, will change that. Languages become more complicated, less regular, over time. Tok Pisin still has a fairly simple grammar, with few exceptions, and compound words which have a meaning transparently derived from their base elements. Give it a few more generations, and that'll change, just as ASL and other signed languages will gradually become less iconic.
ASL's main ancestor is Old French SL, which is why it has a one-handed alphabet (Auslan, by contrast, descends from Old British SL, and has the two-handed alphabet of that family (Auslan, BSL, and NZSL are the three main languages in that family). My mother is an interpreter in Irish SL (also descended from Old French SL), and I've picked up a bit. I find the grammar fascinating, and would love to learn more.
***
I generally find the ethical puzzles given in good literature to be more thought-provoking than the little snippets you get in philosophy class. "The ones who walk away from Omelas" is a story which will stay with me. The scary thing is that we, in the West, live in Omelas.
TRiG.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Nov 28, 2011 at 07:44 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention. "The language Auslan is native to which country?" is an excellent quiz question. I included it in a table quiz I wrote once. (The quiz was never used, in the end.)
TRiG.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Nov 28, 2011 at 07:45 PM
The whole 'which food companies to boycott' thing gets even more complicated when you add food allergies to the mix. Sometimes the only company that you can get a gluten-free/soy-free/egg-free product from is one you'd rather not support otherwise. (And sometimes the small GF company gets bought up by the ethically troubling big company because they have a profitable product line.)
Posted by: cjmr | Nov 28, 2011 at 07:47 PM
I try to follow utilitarian/consequentialist ethics, and this makes ethical angst a big part of my life. Some problems, in no particular order:
In most circumstances, splitting money between charities is not the best thing for a consequentialist to do... Finding the most effective charity then becomes an immensely important task... How do you communicate that some charitable interventions are more effective than others, without offending people?... Consequentialism leads me against the flow; I have to get used to being unusual... The best cause for me to be involved in is likely to be something important but also unpopular... I cannot trust my future self to be as altruistic as I am... I need to have a very detailed and unbiased understanding of how the world works in order to know what the consequences of my actions will be...
Yes, ethics are hard.
Posted by: Giles | Nov 28, 2011 at 09:16 PM
Well...I would say protecting the environment is (at least) strictly superior up to the point where the minimal necessary environmental quality is achieved (that is, you want to make sure that the Earth is still, y'know, inhabitable before you worry about quality of life since it's no good to have a million bucks if you're dead). After that, you need to balance the standard of living benefits of a healthy environment against the standard of living benefits of increased industrialization.
I would also note that there are very sound reasons to avoid the "dumping soot in air" model of industrialization at this point which are completely tied to (future) "standard of living" concerns and not so much to environmental concerns.
Posted by: truth is life | Nov 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM
I think it's also important to remember that your emotional capital is a valuable and important resource. Sometimes it is better to give your money to an adequate charity than to spend a lot of effort finding a perfect one. Sometimes it is better to wince and buy the non-organic veggies so that you have some personal time to recharge and recuperate. It's no use to anyone if you burn out.
Some of the bitterest anti-environmentalists and anti-philanthropists I know are people who burned themselves out trying to solve the world's problems. They held themselves to an unattainable standard, and when they crashed, they crashed hard.
Posted by: Mary Kaye | Nov 28, 2011 at 11:32 PM
Ethics may be hard. But some ethics questions are easier than others. In particular, the Occupy question is pretty easy. No movement is going to be able to address all forms of inequality. That's not what movements or organizations are about. They have more than enough trouble having a marginally consistent/coherent message without trying to handle absolutely everything. That a movement has a few assholes in it isn't by itself a reason not to support a cause. Any movement that has grown to more than a handful of people will have a few stupid assholes.
(I'm not actually sure what my stance is on the Occupy movement, but I think this is clearly not a good reason not to support.)
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | Nov 29, 2011 at 01:17 AM
@Pthalo
Have I mentioned lately how much I love yous :)
Not a lot I can add to anything yous said .. hehe .. I agree, as usual :)
-----------------------
That aside - the post itself.
On OWS and diversity, from my understanding a lot of the diversity criticisms are media sensationalisation and derision.
I've sat for many hours watching live feeds and you can see the diversity. Sure, there are a lot of young white males but ... of course there are. Who is more able to 'be there' than someone with privilege.
The very fact that there are more young white men there is a visible marker of how embedded privilege is. They can get there easier (transport affordability and access); stay there easier (less pressures re work - a lot of students and professors there) and speak from a cultural framework 'understood' by others of privilege - ergo, the message reaches those that matter, not the extremes of privilege (as they, you know, sort of have a clue already) but those in the middle, many of which have know privilege and are being exposed to its vararies for the first time - to a degree that resonates.
More importantly .... look at how they've changed the national dialogue. They don't need a central message beyond 'Notice this!' ... and they've succeeded. Where the conversation was pretty much ALL about the deficit and now is about the income and wealth inequities that intersect with a whole lot of other issues of privilege.
It's so easy to criticise along lines of "Oh - but they are mostly privileged ... so what would they know about 'us'" ... but that rings hollow - because they, whatever their privilged status, are fighting for those without.
It's also easy to argue (and I've seen this) that is anyone unprivileged who has a complaint shuld JOIN the movement. Of course - that assumes it is easy for them, with their life situation, to do so.
Things are easy to attack at the level of superficialities ... but the reality is usually far more complicated.
Posted by: evilkate of the PJH clan | Nov 29, 2011 at 02:12 AM
The problem at occupy is the same problem women and people of color run in to constantly when dealing with white men.
They dismiss you and cut you off. They interrupt you and dominate the discussion. Same as in almost any meeting. Most of the women I talked to who went were treated like servants, put to work in the kitchen and the information kiosks, or pieces of meat, or both. The usual stuff.
The reason it matters is that they went hoping they would be considered part of the 99%. When they were not, many of them left. Many of them now go down to help out, but not to stay.
Posted by: thebewilderness | Nov 29, 2011 at 02:52 AM
scared in ASL is you make a motion which calls to mind clutching your chest in fear (left fist hand palm facing chest starting location left side of chest. right hand same but on the right. both hands move towards each other ending in a splayed hand shape (5 hand) palms still facing chest, one hand higher than the other), whereas in HSL the signs resemble a person "standing and quaking in fear" (in front of your chest: left hand flat palm facing up. right hand palm facing chest, index and middle finger "standing" on your left hand, with a shaking motion)
Interesting. In British baby sign, which is derived from BSL, you hold your right hand open over your heart and wobble it back and forth, as if you're demonstrating that your heart is racing.
Baby sign is very useful even if the baby doesn't have disabilities or complications. My son, who's pretty much the textbook 'normal/healthy' baby, will consistently hand over whatever he's playing/messing with when I ask him to, and a big reason for that is he enjoys the combination of spoken and signed 'Thank you!' that it gets him. Saves an awful lot of conflict!
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 29, 2011 at 03:18 AM
@Kit Whitfield
Yeah .. we've all (aka, Pthalo, Hannah, Joshua and myself) discussed, and quickly decided, to teach all our kids sign from very infantness. One, it's important to get more hearing people knowing sign. Two, it helps development a lot (see the studies, very impressive) and three, it'll be good for the CAPD of lovies.
@thebewilderness
Yeah. That's the problem with not posting specifics. In my case, I've mostly followed the feeds of the Wall St Occupy. I can't speak about other places, because I don't have any info.
From what I've seen of the Occupy Wall St group though, well, I've seen a mixed of genders crewing the food stations et al. I was also impressed by their meeting protocols. People make points (or rebut them) in reverse order of privilege. So, women, gays, transgender, race minorities and so on, they all get to speak first. The young-white-men ... always go last. Impressive.
Furthermore, there's a 'no-interruption' rule. Someone speaks ... others listen.
Now I can't say that is the case 100% of the time, as I don't have the time to watch the feeds 100% of the time. Nor am I there, being a half-planet away.
But, those caveats in mind, what I have seen does address the issues you raise - at the Wall St site at least.
:)
Posted by: evilkate of the PJH clan | Nov 29, 2011 at 04:55 AM
@Trig: I'd argue that the iconic nature of many signs is due to the visual medium. It's the equivalent of onomatopoeia in spoken languages, but because it's easier to represent a physical object visually than audibly, there are more instances of onomatopoeia in signed languages. There are also many signs that are not iconic, or whose iconic nature has been lost with time. For example the ASL sign for computer is somewhat reminiscent of the old computers that were as large as a room, and that only loosely. You can see it kinda sort if you squint, but it's the most obvious handsign for computer. Though the sign for laptop resembles more closely a laptop. And there are morphemes in sign language which carry semantic meaning, like the "-er" sign (work+er, teach+er, learn+er, etc.). And there are conventions like "if a verb and a noun use the same sign, the noun is done with a double motion but the verb is done with a singular motion." as in "sit" vs. "chair")
@Kit: that's really cool. I'm glad to know you're teaching your son some BSL, and that it's working well for the two of you. It is common for children to gain good-enough control of their hands for sign language sooner than they gain good-enough control of their tongues for speech.
@cjmr: that's an important point as well. Everyone should access to allergy-free food. It's frustrating when your only (affordable, allergy-free, etc.) access to food comes from a company you don't approve of, but the decision of whether you can get your nutritional requirements some other way or whether you need to buy from the company whose practices you don't like is one that only you can make (with the help of a doctor or nutritionist if needed). This is why I believe that we should never shame another person for their food choices. I'll explain mine if asked, but I won't impose them on another.
Also, if I was a guest in someone's home, and not knowing that I boycott Nestlé, they bought some Nestlé iced tea for all of us to drink together, I would drink it. Because the situation is no longer "do i give money to Nestlé or do I give money to a local, Hungarian company, which also produces iced tea." The money has already been given to Nestlé. Nothing I do at this point will change that. So my choice is now "Do I offend my host who spent good money on that iced tea or do I thank them for their kindness and drink it?" Of course, if I were shopping with a friend and they said "You should buy some Nestlé iced tea", I would say "oh, no, I boycott Nestlé. I prefer to buy from Szentkirály."
@Giles: I think a lot of phrasing of the trolley problem tie into bystander apathy. People have this idea that by doing nothing they're somehow not involved or responsible for their part in the situation, which is false. The decision to do nothing is still a decision, which leads to the utilitarian perspective: better to kill 1 to save 5 than to kill 5 to save 1. Although in the real world, it's better to find an alternative solution that lets you save all 6. Also, in the real world there's almost always the option to discuss it with the one who would be sacrificed at let him decide. It's his life, after all.
@Mary Kaye: that's an important point. You have to do what you can to ensure you're future ability to keep doing the right thing.
@Lovey: it'd be interesting to see the differences between the Wall Street group who, from your account, is managing things as equitably as they can, and the groups in other parts of the states that aren't managing things well. When you have a large group of people, there'll surely be some jerks in, and it'd be interesting to study the, likely small, changes needed to make a large group of people, many of whom are underprivileged in one way (financially) but have not examined their privilege in other aspects of their lives (white, male, ablebodied, cis) sway towards or away from appreciating diversity.
Posted by: Pthalo | Nov 29, 2011 at 06:38 AM
grar. proofreading good. That should say:
You can see it kinda sort if you squint, but it's not the most obvious handsign for computer.
Posted by: Pthalo | Nov 29, 2011 at 06:41 AM
In the interests of not taking undeserved credit for skills I do not possess, I should add that I don't actually know BSL. (I wish I did; the little I've seen of it strikes me as very interesting and rather cool.) I take my boy to a weekly 'Sing and Sign' class where we learn some basic signs like 'Thank you', 'No', 'Change your nappy', 'Tired', 'Milk' and so on. I know a few dozen words in baby-sign, but hey, every little helps.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Nov 29, 2011 at 09:12 AM
The thing about ethics for me, and I think I've touched on this recently both here and at Fred's place, is that there's a very long history of ethics and morality being devised as a way to justify screwing someone.
I believe that humans are for the most part basically good at least insofar as wanting to avoid causing harm.
But some problems are ethically dicey, and, as Hegel would say, we've got competing goods. Help the poor, or help me and mine attain a more comfortable lifestyle. Help the oppressed or feed your children. Work for a socially responsible employer, or experience job security. Run over the guy on the tracks, or send the trolley to its doom.
And because we are basically good (at least insofar as wanting to avoid causing harm), there is a very strong drive, when we are compelled by competing goods, to cause harm, to find a way to recast it as not-harm. I chose lower tax rates for myself over social programs to help the poor, so I'm motivated to believe that I'm a Job Creator, who, despite the fact that my actions have concrete negative consequences for real people, will ultimately Trickle Down Wealth all over the faces of the less fortunate. I choose to invade an oil-rich country because I've got a beef with their leader, I'm motivated to believe that I'm going to "liberate" his poor oppressed people, even if I have to kill quite a lot of them in the process. (Example rot13 for TW: Abortion) Vs V jnag gb cebgrpg srghfrf ng nyy pbfgf, V'ir tbg n fgebat zbgvingvba gb svaq fbzr jnl gb fnl gung jbzra nera'g dhvgr uhzna be gb pbaivapr zlfrys gung nyy jbzra jub frrx nobegvbaf ner funzrshy fyhgf jub qrfreir gb unir gurve evtugf gnxra njnl, naq jbzra jub unir yvsr-guerngravat pbzcyvpngvbaf whfg qba'g Jnag Vg Onq Rabhtu. And while all my go-to examples are right-wing policies, the left can do it too. If I want to use policy to try to force people to become vegetarian locavores, I'm strongly motivated to answer people who say "Yeah, but I can't eat starch or gluten, and the stuff that grows locally doesn't include all the things I need to get a well-balanced diet that won't kill me," by claiming that their diabetes or gluten intollerance or food allergies are things they brought on themselves through bad behavior and if they would just follow MY miracle diet, they'd be magically cured.
And as a general rule, if your decision is going to require killing someone -- even killing someone to save someone else -- there's a very strong motivation to find some reason that the person getting killed *deserves* to die, or *isn't really a person*. That example with which MercuryBlue started us off, most times you see it brought up, it's not long before folks try to qualify it. What if the person tied to the tracks is a child? What if the trolley is full of convicted criminals. What if the trolley is full of unwed mothers and the person on the tracks is an illegal immigrant? What if the trolley is full of poor people and it's a rich person tied to the tracks?
When confronted with "we have no choice but to shaft someone," Almost every ethical system, whatever its other merits, at some point includes a certain facility to say either "No, really the person who seems to be getting shafted isn't really," or "Yeah, but that person *deserved* it."
Posted by: Ross | Nov 29, 2011 at 09:15 AM
Ethics are easy for people like me who know everything. ;) Ah, the hubris of the young.
Y'all should watch Celtic Thunder's Storm, in particular the song "When You Are Eighteen".
Reduce carbon emissions or increase standard of living? Um, both, though we may be operating from different perspectives on "standard of living". To me an increased standard of living, one to strive for, is one in which everyone has access to clean water and food and medical care, earns enough money to have all of their needs met and some of their wants. Not one in which everyone has an ipod.
Hell with the iPod. There are people trying to survive on less than 2 USD a day.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 29, 2011 at 09:33 AM
I love this post so much. Thank you Mercury Blue. :)
Two thoughts on the OWS, though.
1. Saying, 'I've been to an OWS and it seemed real nice' does not invalidate the experiences that several people have had of entrenched racism and sexism within some of the organizing groups. It's good that you've had good experiences, and it's good to want to share them. But sharing those experiences in the context of an discussion about some of the Fail currently existing in the cause can sound like an argument against the Fail, and "my personal experience" is not an argument against someone else's personal experience. I think that's something to remember. :)
2. Saying, 'no movement addresses everything' can be a very sore spot with people, and rightly so, because that argument has been frequently used as an excuse to continue the oppression of other groups. It's a statement from a position of power, and it's a statement that does not engender a strong sense of ally-ship, because the position essentially boils down to saying that POCs, women, etc. should donate their time and attention to helping make the world a better place for you (and everyone!) but you don't have to donate the time and attention to help make the world a better place for them (and everyone!). And this is a point that bears repeating: movements that aren't explicitly and deliberately anti-sexist and anti-racist probably aren't either. Unfortunately. :(
I'm a supporter of OWS, but I've also been following a lot of these problems via Shakesville and... the problems are problematic. I don't know if they can be solved, but they definitely exist. :(
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 29, 2011 at 09:41 AM
^ And now I think the above post sounded very scolding when I was trying to present just my point of view. Apologies for the tone. :(
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 29, 2011 at 09:42 AM
I also think, that to a large extent it is inevitable that there will be issues that are nearer and dearer to our hearts than others. For example, cancer research is really important for obvious reasons and we all want to end cancer. And making sure everyone on the planet has access to potable water is also really important for obvious reasons.
Hence the necessity of disagreement.
I can't help but wonder how much of that image is a product of the media. For starters, OWS is MEANT to not have a leader. It's one of the main criticisms of it. So, if there ARE fewer people of color out there, I wonder how much of it is OWS not making a safe space and how much is, well, people just complaining (There's GOT to be a better way to put it, but I can't think of one. . . Basically, someone who is going to complain or have an issue, but refuses to step up to the plate.)
In most circumstances, splitting money between charities is not the best thing for a consequentialist to do... Finding the most effective charity then becomes an immensely important task... How do you communicate that some charitable interventions are more effective than others, without offending people?
With difficulty.
I haven't encountered the term 'consequentialist' before; could you explain?
My opinion is that one gets the most bang for the buck by treating neglected tropical diseases. Leprosy, elephantiasis, couple of fun parasites, and treating the lot for one person for one year costs one dollar. But I find that I cannot devote all my charitable giving to the Global Health Council for said treatment, because there are so many other causes with respectable bang for the buck where the problems hit nearer, literally or figuratively, to home.
Not being a person of color and not knowing very many of same, I have no way of finding out.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM
If I want to use policy to try to force people to become vegetarian locavores, I'm strongly motivated to answer people who say "Yeah, but I can't eat starch or gluten, and the stuff that grows locally doesn't include all the things I need to get a well-balanced diet that won't kill me," by claiming that their diabetes or gluten intollerance or food allergies are things they brought on themselves through bad behavior and if they would just follow MY miracle diet, they'd be magically cured.
Which is why evidence-based reasoning should be a part of every ethical decision.
And as a general rule, if your decision is going to require killing someone -- even killing someone to save someone else -- there's a very strong motivation to find some reason that the person getting killed *deserves* to die, or *isn't really a person*. [...]
When confronted with "we have no choice but to shaft someone," Almost every ethical system, whatever its other merits, at some point includes a certain facility to say either "No, really the person who seems to be getting shafted isn't really [a person]," or "Yeah, but that person *deserved* it."
I am having uncomfortable thoughts about abortion now. Because pro-choice types, myself included, by and large literally say fetuses aren't people. Which there's very good reason to say, because if personhood begins at implantation then every miscarriage has to be treated like a murder, but.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 29, 2011 at 10:11 AM
@MercuryBlue: This is why I prefer pro-choice arguments that still hold true *even if* fetuses are people.
Posted by: Ross | Nov 29, 2011 at 10:29 AM
Argh this whole thing just makes me anxious. I have to come at it from a more positive direction, e.g. "I have this much money/time, so I will seek out X, Y, and Z organizations that are all really awesome, and then support some or all of them based on logistical considerations." That way it's an empowering way of living my values instead of one more thing to fail at. In theory, anyway.
Posted by: Lonespark | Nov 29, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Ana, thank you - that thing you said about "can't address all causes" was exactly what I wanted to say.
There is a long and ugly history of "help us get OUR thing done, and when it's done we'll help you get YOUR thing done," and the latter never happening. (See the reason that most political (not numerical) minorities keep using the phrase "thrown under the bus.")
Posted by: Sixwing | Nov 29, 2011 at 11:13 AM
A consequentialist is someone who believes the morality of an action depends on its results. As my old ethics teacher put it, if you punch a random stranger because you're in a sadistic mood and don't exercise impulse control, a deontologist would say you did something wrong, full stop. A consequentialist would say that if the person, completely unpredicted by you, drops a gun when punched and you find out you just prevented a murder, you did something good, and why you did it doesn't matter. (Of course, few people are all consequentialist or all deontologist.)
Posted by: Kish | Nov 29, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Huh. It's a new term for intent-is-not-magic.
We had this discussion with different words awhile back with divine justice and how it should work. I should find that link; I think it was a Narnia thread. We did have a strict consequentialist weigh in on that, if I recall correctly.
I like the terms. Thank you, Kish.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM
Ana,
I get what you're saying, however, I feel like a lot of the news items I've read on OWS IS stuff like what you're saying. I have a friend who posted on one of the last big marches, and in the article she linked to, the reporter mentioned how one person was passing out leaflets and this scared someone's kid, and suddenly, both in the article and my friend's reaction was OMG! OWS IS TERRORIZING CHILDREN!!!
OWS has made a point of not having a leader or a main focus point. I kinda feel like condemning the entire movement based on a few assholes is kinda like . . . well, condemning the entire pagan movement because of fluffy bunnies. That's not to say that there aren't problems that need to be addressed. Only, I really feel like this is starting to go into 'splaining territory (I really don't want to down play the fact that people at OWS have done some really bad stuff, nor do I want to belittle people's reactions, like the Angry Black Woman blog owner . . . so I'm gonna stop here, for now).
Posted by: Rowen | Nov 29, 2011 at 11:39 AM
And sometimes ethics get even harder.
Because I can't boycott Wal-mart for my local family-owned business; Wal-mart IS my local family-owned business. I choose to shop as much as possible at the farmer's market and the co-ops, and for the most part at the OTHER Big National Chain that competes here locally yet is based far away.
Yet here Wal-Mart is the major supplier for the food banks and the community closets; Wal-Mart supports the free health clinic and the animal shelter. Beyond meeting basic needs, the Walton Foundation has done amazing things to nurture my community. At my library, they have funded the entire Children's Department and most of our Spanish and English-As-A-Second-Language collection. They sponsor concerts, plays, international cultural events, constructed a world-class art museum with free admission to all in a region where exposure to the arts is not only uncommon and unaffordable, but regarded with suspicious hostility.
And it isn't just charity. Yes, the Great Recession hit here too, but still our unemployment rate is far lower than the rest of the nation, and that's mostly due to the success of Wal-Mart and affiliated industries (e.g., chicken processing, trucking). Wal-Mart has poured money into developing and testing green technologiehas and propping up local organic and sustainable businesses. The economy driven by the Wal-Mart engine keeps my library doors open, and has made our K-12 schools and even (some departments of) our university nationally competitive.
Wal-Mart is ultimately responsible for my children's education and best chances for the future, not to mention my paycheck, and spouse's paycheck, that make it financially possible for me to boycott their stores in favor of much higher priced goods.
Ethics are hard.
Posted by: hapax | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Trigger: rape.
Rowen, what I'm hearing you say is that we shouldn't be wary of men at bars because of the actions of the very few men at bars with rohypnol. We have to be wary of men at bars because we don't have any way of knowing which ones have rohypnol. It's a survival mechanism. From what Angry Black Woman says, being wary of white people is a survival mechanism for people of color. We shouldn't have to be wary, yes, but Occupy has rapists and the Hot Chicks of Wall Street jackass as well as the people organizing safe spaces for women to sleep at Occupy events. So some women cannot trust that Occupy is anti-sexist until Occupy proves itself anti-sexist, and for similar reasons some people of color cannot trust that Occupy is anti-racist until Occupy proves itself anti-racist.
And the only way Occupy is going to get less sexist and racist is if sufficient numbers of women, people of color, and their white and/or male allies join the movement and start making noise. Ethical dilemma again: does one risk one's own well-being to attempt to ensure the well-being of people including oneself?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:04 PM
hapax, have I mentioned that I'd love to (do your taxes, bake you cookies, draw you a picture) some day? Because you're awesome, that's why.
Rowen, I definitely see your point, and I don't think anyone's condemning the entire movement because of its bad apples. More like people are asking for those bad apples to be called out, rather than supported; people are asking for the movement to be improved, not banished. At least, that's what I've been seeing! Do link, if you're seeing something different? I'd be interested in reading it.
Posted by: Sixwing | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM
TW: Sexual Assault
Yes, probably one person on earth has over-reacted about something having to do with OWS. That happens. And I totally understand being frustrated about that -- that's normal. :)
But that is not what we are talking about. You said upthread that you weren't aware of issues with OWS, and that's not your fault. But now we are telling you about the issues, because you asked. Here are issues:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/10/14/hot-chicks-of-occupy-wall-street/
http://www.dnainfo.com/20111012/downtown/occupy-wall-street-works-with-cops-keep-order-zuccotti-park
Women are being assaulted at OWS locations. You haven't personally witnessed that, and that's great! And you would probably step in and do something if you saw it happening, and that's great, too. :)
But it IS happening. And what has happened -- on more than one occasion -- is that the larger movement has been so blase about STOPPING sexual assault, that the members who were concerned had to call the police.
Yes. The police had to be called in to stop sexual assault because the larger group wasn't willing or able to ask the assaulter to leave. There is irony here, but it is sad irony. :(
This isn't an issue of "oh, there's no leader, it's designed that way". It's larger than that. There's an issue that a lot of the men in OWS happen to be sexist and a lot of the white people in OWS happen to be racist, and 1% of those people are saying and doing sexist and racist things that make the place not a safe space for women and POC and the other 50%+ of those people are looking the other way and not willing to effectively call out the 1% because that would be 'hurting the movement' or something equally cover-up-y.
That doesn't mean that anyone is bad for supporting OWS. But we're also allowed to call out that behavior and to call it out against the community *as a whole* because it's the community *as a whole* that is failing to address these issues because addressing these issues means confronting ones own privilege.
It's uncomfortable to look around and realize that some of one's ally's have Sex- and Race-Fail. But while I think it's an understandable impulse to say "oh, they aren't us, they're just some jerks," the problem is much deeper than the 1% of jerks who assault women. The problem is the 50%+ jerks who look the other way when it happens.
It's Rape Culture, but it's Rape Culture specifically within OWS, and we can't pretend it's not there. As much as I would personally like to. :)
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Mercury,
You said it yourself. OWS HAS been trying to provide safe places for woman to sleep at their events. Yet, it's an open public space with no leadership and no rules, and even so, the rules have recently changed due to Zuccotti park being closed.
And, well, I think what's also getting me is that the times I've been down and participated, there WERE a lot of women and people of color, and their allies and friends there. I wonder if places like Shakesville have also been down there, and thus are seeing something that I'm not, or if their information is being filtered by the media.
Posted by: Rowen | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Ok, I'd like to just come to a full stop here and point out that I am in no way condoning rape culture, even though I can tell that some of my statements are starting to go that way.
I understand what you guys are saying. Bad shit is happening, but I'm not seeing the same laisez faire attitude that I feel is being presented. Or at least, I am coming across accounts of the protestors working to create female only spaces and create networks to make sure that that doesn't happen.
And of course, this would be the time when we have two meetings going on in the office and lunch is happening and my google-fu is failing me. So, I'm going to step back, take a few deep breaths, reread some of the posts and mentally sort this out before coming back.
Posted by: Rowen | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:31 PM
The police had to be called in to stop sexual assault because the larger group wasn't willing or able to ask the assaulter to leave.
Or just possibly the victim wanted to press charges.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Rowen, I'm not trying to argue with you, so maybe I should step away, too. I personally feel like some of your posts on this topic seem to be normalizing your own experiences and -- in the nicest possible way -- dismissing experiences not like yours as over-reactions from misinformation in the media.
I *can* state that many, many members of the Shakesville community have been involved in the OWS movements, and that the Shakesville community in general base their statements on "the media" as little as you do -- they're responding to their experiences and their friends' experiences, and not ZOMG MEDIA PANIC. :)
I'm glad that you've had many positive experiences with OWS trying to make the movement a safer place. That's a good thing, and I think it's what we ALL want. :)
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Or just possibly the victim wanted to press charges.
Sure. But I was responding specifically to this:
After repeated incidents and failed intervention attempts by Occupy Wall Street's security team, the protesters finally went to the NYPD for help in removing Park, according to Paul Isaac, a member of the security team.
My point about Rape Culture at large is that this...
As a second resort, Chilligan and others said they also publicly draw attention to the people who are breaking Occupy Wall Street's ground rules, to use the force of public opinion to change people's behavior.
...would kind of be standard practice in a society/movement that openly does not support the harassment of women. :)
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Ah. Yes.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:44 PM
@Rowen: And, well, I think what's also getting me is that the times I've been down and participated, there WERE a lot of women and people of color, and their allies and friends there. I wonder if places like Shakesville have also been down there, and thus are seeing something that I'm not, or if their information is being filtered by the media.
A number of things spring to mind.
a) there is a truckload of psych studies that indicate that when someone who isn't part of minority/disempowered group says that they say "a lot" of such -- well it doesn't actually mean that there were "a lot" -- just more than one is used to seeing.
So, for example, I have been told that there are "a lot" of women in Congress. Or that there "a lot" of female judges these days. What "a lot" means is "more than I have been used to seeing."
b) and their allies and friends there how do you know that they are allies and friends. And according to whom? You? Or the women/minorities themselves?
c) Shakesville isn't a "place" it is a collective of individual people. Some of them women, some men, some people who are QUILTBAGS, some people of colour. Some of them have been to many of the Occupy sites. Some of them know many people who have been part of the occupy movement.
d) I (like other people on this board) have actually been to places where people who claimed to be my "allies" failed to see the ways in which I was disrespected and endangered. Rape culture is part of privilege culture -- those who have privilege seldom see it.
Posted by: Mmy | Nov 29, 2011 at 12:56 PM
a) there is a truckload of psych studies that indicate that when someone who isn't part of minority/disempowered group says that they say "a lot" of such -- well it doesn't actually mean that there were "a lot" -- just more than one is used to seeing.
How many of us WOMEN in the Bechdel thread went:
I have a LOT of women in my story. Way more than the men. Hold on... um... carry the 5... Huh. I have... ONE more women than men in my story. How the heck did that happen?
Including myself. I was like, "OK, well, let me think. I KNOW I have more women than men. Let's see... Bella, Venizia, Fiorita, Marchetta, that's 4. Cienzo, Ezio, Guerrino, Flavio... that's... 4. Rosella is a 5th woman, but she's really more of a force of nature... and Flavio isn't a point-of-view character like the rest, but still...
It was a shock to realize that my TOTES WOMAN NOVEL was actually pretty 50/50. o.O
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Nov 29, 2011 at 01:04 PM