Melissa Harris-Perry is a wise woman

[ruggerson]

"As an ally in LGBT struggles I have learned this lesson repeatedly. As an ally my role is to speak up for LGBT issues when in heteronormative environments and to shut up when being spoken to by gay and transgendered persons."

A lesson many nationwide could learn from.

[Prism]

1. I'm still not sure how much or how little to say on this topic

What's interesting in the MHP controversy is how many voices I'm seeing decrying behavior by liberal whites that they themselves have spent three years perpetuating against the LGBT community.

I wish everyone, in general, exercised more self-awareness.

When I see the complaints about Cornel West or Tavis Smiley being celebrated when 90% of the African-American community doesn't feel that way, all I can think of is how people like Andrew Sullivan were thrown repeatedly in our face by the same people disgruntled by West and Smiley.

It's just . . . how are people not self-aware of these obvious behaviors?

[ruggerson]

3. blinders?

other than that I really can't explain the phenomenon.

[xchrom]

4. +1

[QC]

9. I remember when we were told that we should be willing to settle for civil unions

because Elton John said he was fine with his and didn't want to get married anyway.

And then there was the time we were told to shut up about Rick Warren because Melissa Etheridge's then-partner had met him and found him perfectly charming.

[racaulk]

23. "I don't call my caps yamakas ... cuz that is a religious name for a hat."

:rofl:

That thread was probably one of the funniest on DU that I can remember. But it definitely underscores a message on behalf of the OP that seems to say this gay person seems reasonable and agrees with me, so what's your problem? Nevermind the possibility people like Elton John and the wife (now ex-wife) of Melissa Ethridge might be speaking from a place of privilege that most of us will never know.

[QC]

40. That thread was hysterical, wasn't it--and a textbook case of privilege.

It's funny, isn't it, how the people here who are always calling out the privilege of others are so blissfully unaware of their own.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

55. I think you're right. But then again, Elton John is a Rush Limpballs ally, so that in itself

is very telling...

[yardwork]

10. Some people are hardened, vicious homophobes.

Others are paid plants sent to the internet to disrupt and cause trouble between minority groups.

In the real world, my state is facing a battle to avoid writing bigotry into the state constitution. One of the allies for good in this fight is our only openly gay state legislator. He happens to be black. I stand with Marcus Brandon.

[Mimosa]

37. Brandon has a kind and 'open' face

I don't know anything about him but speaking as a face and body language reader, I bet you've got a good state rep there, Yardwork. :)

[yardwork]

45. We're in the fight for our lives here in North Carolina. The Republicans took over and

they're dismantling everything as fast as they can. Last week the state legislature voted to amend the state constitution to outlaw equal marriage. It's already illegal for gay folks to get married in North Carolina, but that's not enough for the haters. They've got to write it into the constitution and take away even civil domestic rights. They're putting it up for a vote this spring - I dread the TV and radio ads the outside groups will create that call gay people pedophiles, child molesters, monsters. This has a terrible effect on young people. Teens and children who are realizing they are gay are going to see and hear this hate speech against them and it's going to cause a lot of misery.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. I join Marcus in his fight because sadly I know that there may be black brothers and sisters

who will work against him. :(

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. Regardless, Prism, I think you and I may not agree 100% with MHP, but the essence

of what she has written here is right on the money. There are indeed times when we need to just shut up and listen. I don't care who it is. Just shut up. Not dismiss. Not ignore. LISTEN!

[OneGrassRoot]

62. Yes. Whether in person or online...

the art of listening seems to be a thing of the past.

Instead of really absorbing and trying to understand what the other person is trying to say, the knee-jerk reaction by most people is to formulate a response in defense.

We're not really listening to one another, and everyone deserves to be heard. We don't have to agree, but to move forward in any positive way we must learn to have civil discussions, with people truly listening to one another to try to understand their perspective.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[Syrinx]

5. I've appreciated some of her comments in the past

But she's really gone off the rails in her crusade to tar Joan Walsh as a racist. I mean, come on!

Melissa has progressively revealed herself to be someone that sees racism behind ever pebble, rock and mountain, and complains about it non-stop. And she's the one to tell people to "shut up?"

Give me a damn break, Melissa.

She hates that Joan considered her a friend. I guess maybe she won't have that to worry about that in the future.

She sounds like a 'hole.

[nashville_brook]

7. that whole "she's not my friend" thing was a total dick move

i love MHP's work on MSNBC. she reminds me of my social theory profs. i've had an affinity for her since her first appearance.

this was episode is beneath her. or, should be. yes, it's definitely an "off the rails" situation.

[Syrinx]

8. I hope she goes on Rachel's show and apologizes

To Joan and to the public. We'll see.

[EffieBlack]

11. She didn't tar Joan Walsh as a racist

Not at all.

She called her on the tactic of calling her a friend, as if having a black friend innoculates one from criticism in discussions on race.

That's not the same as being called a racist.

One of the main problems with this discussion and many others, in my view, is the tendency of some white people to assume that any criticism or acknowledgment of bias means they are being called a racist. And then they divert the conversation away from the issue at hand and turn it into an attack on the people trying to have the people who are trying to have the discussion, complete with false accusations that they are being called a racist.

The over-defensiveness, insistence on turning themselves into the victim in virtually any discussion about race is extremely annoying and problematic.

Joan Walsh is not a victim. Melissa Harris-Perry is not some mean-spirited race-baiter. She was making a point, a valid one. But as usually happens whenever a black person tries to make such a point, we are shouted down, accused of all manner of wrongs and then, sure as day follows night, some white folks begin bleating about how THEY are being victimized because the black person is picking on them.

One of the absurdities of this exercise is the way that black folk are always being told that we are overly-sensitive on these issues. Yet the mere assertion that Joan Walsh isn't really her friend has provoked some of the most over-the-top reactions I've seen on DU. Who's being overly-sensitive?

[yardwork]

12. I've noticed the tendency to claim victim status by attacking other minority groups.

It's very ugly.

[Prism]

14. Because MHP took Walsh's statement out of context

A friend and "a professional friend" are two different creatures. Walsh chose her words very carefully and very purposefully. She was not saying "I have black friends" and the absurd notion that she was has weakened MHP's footing in this debate.

What Walsh did was decimate MHP's poor research and examples, and all Perry could come back with was . . . that.

It was desperate flailing. The "I have nothing else, so here." And it was quite crystal clear that Walsh was merely trying to say "I've worked with this woman, I'm immensely fond of her, so what I'm about to argue here is not personal."

Harris-Perry could engage further and make some good points about white privilege. It's a shame she instead resorted to, pardon the expression, a dick move.

[Supersedeas]

47. the research gets lost in the exchange--MHP successfully diverted

discusion of Walsh's substantive points with a finely honed rhetorical device.

[COLGATE4]

15. +1. Best analysis yet.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Effie, if you would please, compare what each woman wrote

to describe their relationship:
Joan wrote:
"we are professional friends, we have socialized together; she has included me on political round tables; I like and respect her enormously."
Perry wrote:
" Walsh and I have been professionally friendly. We’ve eaten a few meals. I invited her to speak at Princeton and I introduced her to my literary agent. We are not friends."

Both say virtually the same thing.
Now, that brings us to the word 'friend'. And if you would please, tell me if Perry or yourself use the high 'intimates who shared joy' standard to that word when Obama says Tom Coburn is his friend, or Chuck Grassely, or Rick Warren, or Donnie McClurkin. If the word 'friend' has these exacting connotations, are you then telling us that Obama is in an intimate joy sharing relationship with all of those Republicans he calls friends? Or is it different when he uses that word, different when Joan uses it, different when Perry uses it? How is one to know the meaning in play at any given time? Is it a guessing game?

Seriously. AS a gay person, the double standard on this is glaring. Glaring.

[boston bean]

25. No that is not what Melissa said.

She said exactly this:

We are not intimates in that way. Watching Walsh deploy our professional familiarity as a shield against claims of her own bias is very troubling.

She said Joan Walsh was calling her a friend to cover for her own racial bias.

Two completely different things said there, wouldn't you agree?

[Bluenorthwest]

29. What you quote came after.

Perry said exactly what I posted. Those are both exact quotes from the two women in this very exchange. They both said plenty more, but those are their exact words in describing the relationship. Sorry it that fact is bothersome.

[boston bean]

31. I posted wrong, i meant to post to Effie. nt

[Whisp]

33. +1

:toast:

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. The distinction is subtle.

If someone I thought was a friend did this to me, I'd be damned if I'd make the same mistake twice. I'd be hard pressed to be an ally of a person who is insulted by being called a friend.

[hlthe2b]

18. I've always liked MHP, but frankly, I have to agree Syrinx

Racism certainly continues to exist, but it is not always the explanation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. "It is not *always* the explanation."

In no way was this MHP's argument.

Shut up and LISTEN!!!!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. Don't take offense. Shut up and LISTEN!!!! n/t

[boston bean]

6. I don't know why one would have to shut up. Wouldn't it be the same speech.

i know I don't have two different set of talking points for different audiences...

[Better Believe It]

13. Melissa Harris-Perry claims she does not engage in political discussions with gay people.

"my role is to shut up when being spoken to by gay and transgendered persons."

So she just listens with her head bowed down .... nothing to say and nothing to contribute in discussions with gay people.

Why, those really can't even be called discussions now, can they? She likes being talked at.

Why Melissa Harris-Perry is way beyond wise, she's absolutely brilliant!

[Empowerer]

21. That is NOT how I read her comment

Nor does your interpretation make any sense in the context of what she said.

I saw her comment as meaning that she said she doesn't see it as her role to jump in and argue with gay people about how they feel or whether their perspective is valid.

I feel exactly the same way - and when I read MHP's piece, I was glad to see someone else express my position.

There are times when my initial reaction to a position that a gay person takes on an LBGT issue is to disagree. But I shut up and listen to (or read) what they have to say before reacting. I do this because I realize that, not being gay, I may not really know or understand a particular situation. And even if I still find myself disagreeing with them after hearing them out, I rarely jump in and tell them they're wrong, or don't know what they're talking about or accuse them of ill motives. Because I know that I don't know what it's like to be in their shows but I know that their perspective is just as valid as - and maybe even more valid than - mine given the circumstances.

If you read her whole piece, you may see that that is what MHP was saying.

[emulatorloo]

27. Thank you. N/t

[ruggerson]

49. thank you, Empowerer

I think you captured the essence of what MH-P is saying here.

[emulatorloo]

26. You are totally twisting her words and misrepresenting what she said

[Better Believe It]

43. Well she should write more clearly! Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at explaining her comment

[moriah]

35. You don't get it.

Let's see if I can give a recent example of how I have followed similar beliefs as an LGBTQ ally.

There's a FB discussion still going on on my page about DADT. I'd posted the video of the gay soldier coming out to his dad. One of my conservative friend said she felt it was tasteless to put something so private on the internet, and the thread is at 150 posts already. But I stepped back after a bit. Why?

Since I have never been "in the closet" about anything except being Pagan, it's the closest example I had to give to how hard it is to carry such a secret. I said I didn't think anyone who hadn't been there could truly understand, but if she wanted to try, to imagine herself having to hide the fact she was Christian from everyone (her Christianity is part of her identity so strongly attacking her for being Christian is an attack on her identity, on who she is, as much as attacking that soldier for being gay would have been). I did my best to try to explain why I thought the video was beautiful, that it gives hope to people who are afraid to tell loving parents something so important about themselves.

I felt I made some inroads, but then one of my gay friends who is also a very strong Christian came in, and started explaining why he didn't feel his sexuality and his faith were in conflict, and the stress of living in the closet.

I shut up -- not because I thought I should be preached at, but because he was explaining things far better than I could. And I listened so that I could better understand where he was coming from, and be able to be a better ally and advocate in the future.

That help a bit to explain where she might have been coming from?

[Better Believe It]

44. If Perry needs you to explain what she means, Perry hasn't been very clear in her comments.

I think that perhaps Perry is too heavily influenced more by her comfortable upper class milieu and is detached from real working class life among Black people and all races. She easily detects race and not class behind opposition to Obama's pro-Wall Street economic policies.

[EffieBlack]

46. Or maybe some people have a comprehension problem

Not to mention a propensity to make rather ridiculous assumptions about people about whom they clearly know very little.

[moriah]

51. Neither my post nor this thread were about race or class.

Yet apparently you felt the need to bring them up when I made it more clear for you what she meant by the statement quoted.

Maybe you always knew what she meant and just had to say something negative because you dislike her views on other things? Sounds like it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. Don't waste your time. Cognitive dissonance is not curable. That gay soldier

calling his father to tell him that he's gay made me burst into tears, especially when I expected his father to reject him. To my utter surprise and chagrin, the father didn't disown or reject his son. It was such a heartwarming exchange. His father just "SHUT UP AND LISTENED!"

It was quite remarkable and moving. I couldn't stop crying.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. You are becoming comical now. You know that what you've written is a boldface

lie. It's so transparent...and so pathetic!

[yodermon]

16. these whole class of conflicts just sadden me. "divide the left, divide the left, divide the left"

ok

[yardwork]

17. Agreed. It's disgusting and very very counterproductive.

[frazzled]

20. It IS a wise statement: too bad so many here insist on reading it incorrectly

What she is saying is that we need to LISTEN to what the primary stakeholders themselves are saying, not presume to know what's best for them by preaching to them, or to disagreeing with their viewpoints or tactics. To do less is to deny their realities and their very humanity. It is to behave paternalistically. Your job is rather, once having listened, to go out and speak out to your own community in defense of their issues.

[yardwork]

22. I believe that is exactly the point of the OP.

[ruggerson]

48. Yep, that is exactly the point of the OP

n/t

[yardwork]

50. Thank you for posting it, ruggerson.

[racaulk]

24. +1

Very well said. :thumbsup:

[emulatorloo]

28. Another +1

[Empowerer]

30. +1

Very well said.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Listening stops when I'm told what I think and the antisocial biases behind it. n/t

[rury]

32. She's a wise and TRUTHFUL woman!!

[LittleBlue]

34. She is a campaign slogan for the right and a caricature of academia

The best thing she could do for Obama's reelection chances is to shut her mouth, not just around gays.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. What happened to "silence is consent"? n/t

[Empowerer]

41. Silence often means you're listening to and respecting people who have experiences you've never had

Which is exactly what she's talking about. Rather than lecturing gay people about what they should be thinking and feeling, she shuts up and lets them talk.

THAT kind of silence does not equal death. That kind of silence equals learning, empathy and growth.

More people should try it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. This isn't about what others think and feel.

It's about silently accepting their assertions about what I think and feel.

[moriah]

54. Pardon me, I'm confused.

The quote:

"As an ally in LGBT struggles I have learned this lesson repeatedly. As an ally my role is to speak up for LGBT issues when in heteronormative environments and to shut up when being spoken to by gay and transgendered persons."

I really don't see at all how an ally letting LGBTQ individuals speak for themselves is silently accepting assertions about how the ally thinks and feels.

Care to enlighten me on where you're coming from here?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. Because I've known MHP for many years and her views on this issue...

because we both are strong supporters of marriage equality, I know that she is sincere when she writes that she knows when to "shut up" and listen. There are black, brown, yellow, and white LGBT brothers and sisters who just want us to shut up and listen. Why should liberals--of any stripe, myself included--be exempt from this rule?

[Blasphemer]

61. The problem with absolutes...

is that they do not take into account divergent views and experiences, situational variety, and the impracticality (if not irresponsibility) of applying a particular perspective to any and all circumstances that appear, on the surface, to share similarities. I understand the point she is trying to make regarding deference to opinions about the minority experience from those who have actually had the experience. However, there are many cases where it would be unwise, and maybe impossible, to not speak up. I once lived in LGBT housing. I was one of only 2 or 3 straight people who lived in the complex. The majority of my neighbors were liberal and democrats but there were quite a few republicans amongst us. I often had conversations with my neighbors about gay rights issues and I could never be silent when speaking to the republicans. Even in speaking with my liberal neighbors (at that time) and liberal LGBT friends now, I can sometimes speak to issues and experiences that they cannot. Coming from a minority and immigrant cultural background, I can sometimes speak about LGBT struggles within a cultural context that, for instance, a person growing up in the U.S. who is not from the same cultural background would not have experienced. In this case, deference is not an issue. I have had experiences that they have not had and they have had experiences that I have not had. As allies, we share, learn and grow together in order to fight together. I've become far more liberal than I was as a teen. At that time, I had white friends who were stronger supporters of affirmative action than I was. If they had deferred to my opinion, we'd all be the worse for it.

If this line of thinking is extended to gender and women's rights issues, then does Barack Obama or Joe Biden defer to the experiences of Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann? They certainly can't speak from experience about the struggles one faces as a woman but I would hate to think that they would have to defer their opinions on issues such as choice to politicians on the right who happen to be women. So my problem with Ms. Harris-Perry, is that her use of absolutes is not conducive to the strong alliances that she seems to believe are important to continue to build. Focusing on specific instances where the kind of deference she refers to would be the wisest course would be better than advocating an inflexible position.