Zero Tolerance Zone

Instead of "new year's resolutions," I've decided to simply compile a list of five things I resolve to not tolerate this year, mostly for my personal sanity.

This isn't a list of "bad -isms."  I haven't ever tolerated sexism, racism, classism, bodyism, etc, at least not in recent memory.  And while I could certainly make one of these about people and concepts that fuel the fires of said -isms, I blog enough about those to already have a pretty clear picture of how I will/will not tolerate such activities.

This is for myself, for clarity.  I am not trying to attack any individual, at least not one that's likely to know about and subsequently read this blog.  I am certainly not trying to accuse or attack any friends of mine; perhaps I have some constructive criticisms regarding the way we treat social issues, but that is in no way intended to be an attack.

So here they are... things I will not be tolerating in the coming year:

1) Anti-Birth Sentiment, Militant Child-Free Folks, and the Overpopulation Brigade.
This refers to so-called "pro-choice" individuals who oppose a person's right to carry a pregnancy to term, whether it was planned or not, and to birth without stigma.  This includes folks who might otherwise be considering abortion: maybe they are in high school, are putting their big dreams on hold due to the pregnancy/baby, people who may have a substance abuse problem, single women, etc.  I am including here my belief that pregnant people have the right to call the pregnancy what they want without being "corrected." You're not pro-choice if you don't believe in the right to explore all options, and you're doing the movement a grave disservice by assuming women might be "caving" to anti-choice pressure when they decide against abortion.

2) The Holier-Than-Thou Radicals
As an activist, I think I've been pretty lucky to have encountered very few of this type, and have never organized alongside one directly.  But you see them... at marches, rallies, in fleeting appearances at meetings (only when they show up to say they won't be attending your meetings because you're "too reformist").  They don't ever really organize... they just criticize.  They won't work with people with even slightly different views or methodologies, and they seem to only exist to denounce the efforts of organizers who are actually doing something.  Come to think of it, I've never really tolerated this type, but I wanted to make it clear.

3) Undeserved Total Denouncement
Now here I actually am speaking about a number of people I have worked alongside, people I consider to be friends, and people I respect in many other ways.  The foremost example that comes to mind is Jon Stewart.  While there were issues with the Daily Show's Sanity Rally, I have said that, while it didn't stand for everything, it also did not stand for nothing.  No, Jon Stewart is not a champion of social justice movements, he doesn't stand for deviation from the status quo, and he's not likely to solely build a productive movement to counter all the BS we're in right now.  Nor does he claim to be.

That being said, as a person and commentator, Jon Stewart does not deserve to be completely written off.  I feel like a lot of people have chosen to do so, citing the obvious problems in his ideology (an ideology he does not claim to be revolutionary, by the way).  However, if there is one figure in popular culture capable of reaching an entire generation of left-leaning young people, it's Jon Stewart.  Not only that, but the way he and the Daily Show's staff takes to task our political system, the media cycle, and the need for discontent in both should not be completely shunned or denounced.  In his outlet, he asks some tough questions, he points out hypocrisy, and he actively promotes critical thought.  That is nothing to ignore, even if we may have deeper ideological differences.

Jon Stewart is not the only one who has had undeserved total denouncement thrown at him from the Left.  And I believe that is unfortunate: you are unlikely to find popular figures who are 100% on board with your beliefs, and if someone comes up who promotes dissent in a forum that speaks to a large number of left-leaners, you can't just write them off point-blank.  A discussion of your ideological differences can then ensue, and so long as you don't make it stand-offish or aggressive, you can probably get a pretty good rapport going with a wider base of people. 

4) Defense of Julian Assange
I've said it before: Assange is not WikiLeaks.  We should defend WikiLeaks and its right to exist.  However, as the evidence mounts against Assange, and as Assange shows his true colors, no movement that claims to be anti-sexist can ignore the very serious actions Assange is being accused of.  And yet, so many liberals and Leftists alike seem to be doing it, from mainstream Keith Olbermann to activist Jennifer Van Bergen. And while both simultaneously give lip-service to the denouncement of rape during their defense of Assange, their framing of the Assange situation continues to put the rape allegations on the backburner, continuing the centuries-long trend of treating sexual assault as a conditional offense.

I'll just say this: the media and world governments want us to link WikiLeaks and Assange inextricably.  But they are different.  WikiLeaks may have been founded by Assange, but it can continue without him.  You can denounce Assange as a person while defending WikiLeaks.  It is imperative that we do so.

5) Method Elitism
There was a time when I railed against those who worked primarily in everyday actions.  By which I mean, folks who don't organize mass movements or attend every single rally, but instead live their lives as a person who changes the world on a person-by-person basis.

After meeting some amazing people who work 60+ hours a week toward the same ends as my organizing, I realize this form of activism has a place.  Not only does it have a place... it is an integral facet of our very diverse movement.  These are not people who sold out and stepped down to a gig in the nonprofit industrial complex; these are people whose gift is in the individual, the every day.  These are folks who change the world daily, maybe in a nonprofit, maybe just in their personal lives.  I've learned that this is a respectable form of activism, and in fact one I have recently decided to try out for myself.  These folks haven't given up on their ideals; they have just found new ways to implement them through total embodiment. 


Now to clarify what I mean by "will not tolerate."  When we hear someone will not tolerate something, we think of aggression and severed ties.  When I say it, though, I mean quite the opposite: I will not lash out, I will not become aggressive, and I will not be unforgiving.  Taking things inward over the past few months has taught me that it is possible to be at peace with the world as it is while still fighting for much-needed change.  But I know I cannot simply stay quiet when these things come up.  That would be me being at peace without demanding change, and that's the last thing the Left (and the world as a whole) needs right now.  We have a status quo, too, and we do ourselves a disservice by never examining ourselves when things aren't going all that well.  How does that saying go... the true mark of madness is to keep doing the same things expecting different results.  At least, that is indeed a good way to go mad.

By "will not tolerate," I simply mean I will try to engage in these discussions more often, where I feel I have previously been relatively silent on these matters.  When I don't talk about it, they grate at me, and I've found I begin harboring silent resentment towards people I should be trying to strengthen my bonds with.  Which, of course, is not healthy.

So there it is... my Zero Tolerance Zone for 2011.