I share a similar empathetic take on this articles focal point. In today's day and age, people have taken "stand up against hatred" to mean something far more sinister; "hate yourself". Just as Michael Moore described in his article, book stores and other businesses that promote art SHOULD be promoting non white/minority based artists. Sometimes, their takes on a story can give someone a new outlook on life. However, when it gets to the point where stores are rejecting books written by white men unjustly because of their skin color/sex, where does the line get drawn ? At that point it's not about the art being created or who's creating it, it's about wanting to appear inclusive in the eyes of others. Somehow, this thought process is believed to be just, when it's, in truth, the opposite. These people who believe their pushing this "objectively correct" agenda are only using sex/race as a selling point to convince themselves and others that they actually care about these issues that are going on. I believe this started, unfortunately in my generation, around the time George Floyd was killed. People in this country took a horrible hate crime and an abuse of power, and turned it into a trendy sense of self righteousness, making it all about how inclusive THEY are, not focusing on the true issues that his death sparked. Unfortunately, sometimes people choose to be hypocritical and don't think before they hop on a trend, and if this continues to occur then some dangerous narratives will begin to be formed.
I think what's so frustrating behind the conservative fixation with wokeness and cancel culture is that there are legitimate and interesting critiques, its just sidetracked by having to blame minorities/young people/a vague concept of "the left".
"There is a solid point to make here about how capitalism and financial incentives for both artist and distributer mean that only certain types of books and art in general can be be funded, published, stocked, promoted, etc. The best book under capitalism is not the best book, it is the one that makes the most money. I think this is why so much YA is constantly being published, kids actually read and buy books and they seem relatively quick to churn out. Maybe he could've written about his experiences under this system and how they have affected his art. His article about why his YA book wasn't published reads like a cynical effort to become a darling of conservative media and sell his books that way. This dork is calling his "YA literary punk novel" "serious art" and lamenting that art is dead because he couldn't get published.
While reading this I was thinking about something which William Vollmann wrote and which I very much like, Life as a TerroristLinks to an external site. ,specifically how persecution and paranoia affect the American mind. Both articles deal with an omnipresent "them". In Vollmann's case, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In Mohr's case, the idea that there is a woke conspiracy that is essentially out to get him, made up of minorities, I guess. Vollmann talks earnestly about the lasting paranoia being investigated has left him with, still while presenting those who were doing the watching as human beings. I think an interesting affect of the Snowden leaks, COINTELPRO and stories of Alphabet Agency Hijinks, dead whistleblowers and activists, as well as the self-surveillance state created by giving everyone a camera and an compulsion to film and post events driven by social-media platforms hijacking our fucking biology, has been many politically-minded folks have willed into existence the same paranoia and dread Vollmann describes.
Although there is no conspiracy against renowned author Micheal Mohr for either his whiteness, maleness, or truth telling, the fact that he believes there is creates a functionally similar state of mind to Vollmann's lasting paranoia.
Much of me wants to make fun of Micheal Mohr for being such a entitled crybaby, but I also recognize the legitimate pain not being able to find anyone to sell your debut novel and the fear of being confronted with the reality of trying to be an artist under a system which at every step seeks to treat you not as a creative but as a tool to manufacture slop that they can sell. From looking through his substack and website briefly, he is a former addict who I assume sanitized parts of his lived-experience to inform a young adult novel. I again assume that the decision to aim this story at young adults was not purely an artistic one. I empathize with the anger and fear and indignity of trying to be an artist under capitalism and I wish he could have just been honest in that instead of directing that anger towards the woke left or international jihad or whatever shit they pretend is the root of their suffering and angst."
I was at my GF's place the other night and her daughter refused to eat a salad—even though she is vegetarian and likes salad—because the lettuce wasn't "chopped like I saw on Tiktok." For fuck's sake, this is what it's come to!
Just wrote a post of my own on almost the exact same topic, soon to come out. Must be something we're both smelling in the air right now. I haven't sent out many queries to bookshops in CA, being far away from our home state. But one hundred bookshops in, is it really that ideologically corrupted? There have been some damn good bookshops in my hometown that weren't ideological; I weep if they have lost their integrity. Then again, I left for a reason.
Won't spoil the gist of my future post except to say that observing American peoples reactions to literary topics abroad, it's as if something has died within people. Talking to Americans about literature is like talking to pygmies in the Congolese jungles about sumo wrestling; far away, nothing to do with them. Don't know what else to say: I sympathize with how sad it is to see the malnourishment of souls all around us. I hope you're right about readers: if that has changed and they do want to be proselytized to, then we're in trouble.
Though to be a little fair to GenZ: some I've met do want to read, but smartphones have tampered with their ability to concentrate. The first best thing we can do as writers is: tell people to throw their smartphones in the garbage can.
I will agree that art is not dead but also the need to only publish certain kinds of art, that affirms a certain political narrative, by a very particular type of person is a great way to strangle art and put it out of its misery.
I have fought a good portion of my life to widen what is acceptable in mainstream to be more inclusive and to push people to accept narratives from a wide range of identities, ethnicities, points of view. Inclusivity and openness to ideas has been my North star. Therefore it is really disheartening to see the culture move into this place where it is fine to stifle art by people because of their immutable characteristics. It's a huge step backwards and it's shocking to see people actually approving that this is the new normal.
To claim art is dead because one cannot find a publisher (yet) is silly and the tone insulting to me personally having spent 40 years teaching English to middle school, high school and college. I am currently teaching a course on Banned books which involves reading Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye and then selecting one of the top 12 other banned books from the ALA's top listed titles. I have read them all. I have multiple students who read more and faster than me. I appreciate your frustration Michael, and of course you can write whatever you want on your stack, and yes, I do not have to read it, but I do. Historically, we are in a swing where both the left and the right are extreme. I personally, am happy there are so many new "voices" to read. And, I have assigned students your post, so they will respond to what you said and know about your book.
Wow: I'm honored that you have shared the post with your students. (Regardless of their POV/reception.) That is very cool. Thank you for that! I hear your POV. Let me explain. It's not so much a personal issue I have as more of a general cultural shift. And it's not just white people (or white men) that are affected. Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian etc authors *who do not tow the Left party line* are also very much rejected. Look at the issues authors like Sherman Alexie have had, not to mention Coleman Hughes, Glen Loury, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wilfred Reilly, etc. (Anyone who thinks outside the Woke box.) My guess is you haven't even heard of most of these writers. This makes my point. They aren't elevated by The Intelligentsia in NYC. Because they have the "wrong" views. My point is: Absolutely let's bring in "new voices." But just like Harvard bringing in rich Black kids and calling that "diversity," what we really need is racial AND viewpoint diversity.
The banned books thing frustrates me more than anything else in these silly culture wars. The Left has been banning books ruthlessly for the past decade; often they do it before a writer even gets their book out. Or they do it just after by Twitter-fiat. No one on the Left says a word; they all lie and gaslight and pretend that "cancel culture" isn't actually happening. But we all know it is. It's as obvious as cheese. Then the Right starts doing it (which I agree with you is *also stupid*) and suddenly everyone on the Left is screaming about banned books. There's a deep hypocrisy here which is almost sociopathic. It's like a man battering his wife who says, I don't hit you; that's not actually happening. It's madness. It's the same when it comes to the Left claiming that crime isn't actually rising. The truly sad thing is that all these realties make life worse for everyone. The solution, as MLK and Baldwin and Zadie Smith and so many others understood is: Community. True, actual community, not exclusion in the name of "inclusion," not racial categorization, not tribal division.
This isn't about me not finding a publisher.
Two final comments:
1. The Bluest Eye is a great book; I read it years ago and loved it. Powerful. It should not be banned. NO book should be banned anywhere for any reason from any political side.
Okay. Truce. I hear you. I just was reacting. I wrote my thesis in the 80's on gender and fiction writing which was a time when the industry was white male. Just so you know, I am 66 and have taught almost 40 years and feel connected to the generational changes as I have witnessed them. I have faith in the future of humanity, their goodness. I will also share your post when we meet this week. I will also synthesize for you their responses. It has been trying to teach this class as I have the whole spectrum of views. I have anxiety before every class. Student post individually to me their thoughts in response to materials and readings (news articles from both right and left) and I have students who were raised on Fox ( mostly my dancers from Boston Conservatory which I find really startling) And then I have the one highly left white US guy who laughed in class when one of those Fox raised females said she thought anything about communism should be banned (when I asked early on in the class if they thought any information should be banned). I also learned reading weekly responses that this same left leaning students was inhibiting a black female student from Switzerland who was half black half jewish felt she could not express her view openly in class. I read what she thinks, but she is afraid of speaking up. I also have 1/3 international students from Brazil, Argentina, and they have such a different perspective. It is interesting to say the least.
Just so you know, I have followed Sherman Alexie before he broke out. He is how I started reading you. Years ago in the infancy of the internet he had a chat room or whatever they were called, and I read his work. I have taught him. It is what led to me being asked by my dean to create the banned book course. I had negative reviews because I was teaching Flight and the word fuck was in the book. My Christian students in that term complained in my student reviews. At that time, I was under a different dean. My head, now to hopefully my dean, supported me. So it is complicated. We are in challenging times. I will keep you informed on what I receive from students on your words.
I've published two books through Atmosphere Press and tried the self-promo thing. Even with excellent reviews (including from Kirkus) I got no traction. I walked into a Barbara's Bookstore in Chicagoland to try in-person promo and got snarled at by the Identity Person behind the counter. I gave up promotion after that.
If I even bother writing another book I will just serialize it on Substack or Royal Road or a something. The traditional publisher and bookstore route is cut off unless you fit a very narrow definition of the acceptable type of person according the the gatekeepers.
Glad you mentioned "American Fiction." Watching that one is like laughing with a broken rib. You can't help it, but damn, it hurts.
I still find myself a man without an ideological country in this space. I understand how my former discipline has moved in the directions it has, but if books and bookstores become so narrowly limited, then literature becomes an echo chamber, rather than the crucible of transformation that it was for me. At the same time, I recognize that the argument you make here leads, in some ways, to the equally propagandistic conclusions that Christopher Rufo and others are peddling. It remains very difficult to find a middle space, where you can practice your craft without feeling like it has to be "against" something or explicitly "for" something else.
Right. I'm all for a non-political artistic environment. Meaning: Good writing is good writing, regardless of race, gender, ideology, non-ideology, etc etc. But when these bookstores blatantly plaster their ideology directly on the face of their product, we already know where their interest and sympathies lie. On the Conservative side there's surely the same kind of absurd propaganda, I agree with you there.
"The decline in book reading is mostly a function of how many books readers are reading, as opposed to fewer Americans reading any books. The 17% of U.S. adults who say they did not read any books in the past year is similar to the 16% to 18% measured in 2002 to 2016 surveys, though it is higher than in the 1999 to 2001 polls.
The drop is fueled by a decline in the percentage of Americans reading more than 10 books in the past year. Currently, 27% report that they read more than 10 books, down eight percentage points since 2016 and lower than every prior measure by at least four points."
Correct!!! People read headlines, social media posts, captions and ingredient labels in search of gluten or dairy to avoid. That’s not reading.
We must read books. Long ones. We are in a war of attention. Book reading is in decline. Reading shouldn’t feel like homework. It should be fun and enjoyable. The library isn’t viewed as a place for curiosity to roam, adventures to be had or even an unlikely friendship to be made with another bibliophile. Thank you for expressing what I feel and having the courage to do it on Substack.
It isn’t payback if you shoot any old wolf tomorrow because a wolf ate your cat when you were 13. It isn’t payback to kick a dog today because your dog didn’t try hard enough to save your cat when you were 13. And it isn’t payback when you choose to encourage or defend racist/sexist/phobic systems to punish people today because of the past. It’s childish, irrational, ignorant, abusive, and damaging to the environment/society.
Why must inclusion hinge on disenfranchisement and insults? The pettiness is self-defeating. This is not the vision that Sarah Orne Jewett, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, or Kate Chopin had for gender equality -- nor is it consistent with the spirit of Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, Leslie Marmon Silko, and many other writers whose work takes justice as a central concern. Surely gaining power or privilege need not require lording it over someone else.
And a counter point by a student:
I share a similar empathetic take on this articles focal point. In today's day and age, people have taken "stand up against hatred" to mean something far more sinister; "hate yourself". Just as Michael Moore described in his article, book stores and other businesses that promote art SHOULD be promoting non white/minority based artists. Sometimes, their takes on a story can give someone a new outlook on life. However, when it gets to the point where stores are rejecting books written by white men unjustly because of their skin color/sex, where does the line get drawn ? At that point it's not about the art being created or who's creating it, it's about wanting to appear inclusive in the eyes of others. Somehow, this thought process is believed to be just, when it's, in truth, the opposite. These people who believe their pushing this "objectively correct" agenda are only using sex/race as a selling point to convince themselves and others that they actually care about these issues that are going on. I believe this started, unfortunately in my generation, around the time George Floyd was killed. People in this country took a horrible hate crime and an abuse of power, and turned it into a trendy sense of self righteousness, making it all about how inclusive THEY are, not focusing on the true issues that his death sparked. Unfortunately, sometimes people choose to be hypocritical and don't think before they hop on a trend, and if this continues to occur then some dangerous narratives will begin to be formed.
Hi Michael,
Here is one of my student's replies:
Paper View
I think what's so frustrating behind the conservative fixation with wokeness and cancel culture is that there are legitimate and interesting critiques, its just sidetracked by having to blame minorities/young people/a vague concept of "the left".
"There is a solid point to make here about how capitalism and financial incentives for both artist and distributer mean that only certain types of books and art in general can be be funded, published, stocked, promoted, etc. The best book under capitalism is not the best book, it is the one that makes the most money. I think this is why so much YA is constantly being published, kids actually read and buy books and they seem relatively quick to churn out. Maybe he could've written about his experiences under this system and how they have affected his art. His article about why his YA book wasn't published reads like a cynical effort to become a darling of conservative media and sell his books that way. This dork is calling his "YA literary punk novel" "serious art" and lamenting that art is dead because he couldn't get published.
While reading this I was thinking about something which William Vollmann wrote and which I very much like, Life as a TerroristLinks to an external site. ,specifically how persecution and paranoia affect the American mind. Both articles deal with an omnipresent "them". In Vollmann's case, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In Mohr's case, the idea that there is a woke conspiracy that is essentially out to get him, made up of minorities, I guess. Vollmann talks earnestly about the lasting paranoia being investigated has left him with, still while presenting those who were doing the watching as human beings. I think an interesting affect of the Snowden leaks, COINTELPRO and stories of Alphabet Agency Hijinks, dead whistleblowers and activists, as well as the self-surveillance state created by giving everyone a camera and an compulsion to film and post events driven by social-media platforms hijacking our fucking biology, has been many politically-minded folks have willed into existence the same paranoia and dread Vollmann describes.
Although there is no conspiracy against renowned author Micheal Mohr for either his whiteness, maleness, or truth telling, the fact that he believes there is creates a functionally similar state of mind to Vollmann's lasting paranoia.
Much of me wants to make fun of Micheal Mohr for being such a entitled crybaby, but I also recognize the legitimate pain not being able to find anyone to sell your debut novel and the fear of being confronted with the reality of trying to be an artist under a system which at every step seeks to treat you not as a creative but as a tool to manufacture slop that they can sell. From looking through his substack and website briefly, he is a former addict who I assume sanitized parts of his lived-experience to inform a young adult novel. I again assume that the decision to aim this story at young adults was not purely an artistic one. I empathize with the anger and fear and indignity of trying to be an artist under capitalism and I wish he could have just been honest in that instead of directing that anger towards the woke left or international jihad or whatever shit they pretend is the root of their suffering and angst."
I was at my GF's place the other night and her daughter refused to eat a salad—even though she is vegetarian and likes salad—because the lettuce wasn't "chopped like I saw on Tiktok." For fuck's sake, this is what it's come to!
Hahahahahahahaha. Yes, my friend. THIS is what it's come to.
Well said.
Read our books on tiktok with some trippy stuff happening on screen?
I agree with this. I’m sad to report the same is true in the music field.
Ugh 😩
Just wrote a post of my own on almost the exact same topic, soon to come out. Must be something we're both smelling in the air right now. I haven't sent out many queries to bookshops in CA, being far away from our home state. But one hundred bookshops in, is it really that ideologically corrupted? There have been some damn good bookshops in my hometown that weren't ideological; I weep if they have lost their integrity. Then again, I left for a reason.
Won't spoil the gist of my future post except to say that observing American peoples reactions to literary topics abroad, it's as if something has died within people. Talking to Americans about literature is like talking to pygmies in the Congolese jungles about sumo wrestling; far away, nothing to do with them. Don't know what else to say: I sympathize with how sad it is to see the malnourishment of souls all around us. I hope you're right about readers: if that has changed and they do want to be proselytized to, then we're in trouble.
Though to be a little fair to GenZ: some I've met do want to read, but smartphones have tampered with their ability to concentrate. The first best thing we can do as writers is: tell people to throw their smartphones in the garbage can.
Amen to that! And yes: Let's hope readers care a little more. Thank God for self-publishing!
I will agree that art is not dead but also the need to only publish certain kinds of art, that affirms a certain political narrative, by a very particular type of person is a great way to strangle art and put it out of its misery.
I have fought a good portion of my life to widen what is acceptable in mainstream to be more inclusive and to push people to accept narratives from a wide range of identities, ethnicities, points of view. Inclusivity and openness to ideas has been my North star. Therefore it is really disheartening to see the culture move into this place where it is fine to stifle art by people because of their immutable characteristics. It's a huge step backwards and it's shocking to see people actually approving that this is the new normal.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
To claim art is dead because one cannot find a publisher (yet) is silly and the tone insulting to me personally having spent 40 years teaching English to middle school, high school and college. I am currently teaching a course on Banned books which involves reading Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye and then selecting one of the top 12 other banned books from the ALA's top listed titles. I have read them all. I have multiple students who read more and faster than me. I appreciate your frustration Michael, and of course you can write whatever you want on your stack, and yes, I do not have to read it, but I do. Historically, we are in a swing where both the left and the right are extreme. I personally, am happy there are so many new "voices" to read. And, I have assigned students your post, so they will respond to what you said and know about your book.
Wow: I'm honored that you have shared the post with your students. (Regardless of their POV/reception.) That is very cool. Thank you for that! I hear your POV. Let me explain. It's not so much a personal issue I have as more of a general cultural shift. And it's not just white people (or white men) that are affected. Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian etc authors *who do not tow the Left party line* are also very much rejected. Look at the issues authors like Sherman Alexie have had, not to mention Coleman Hughes, Glen Loury, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wilfred Reilly, etc. (Anyone who thinks outside the Woke box.) My guess is you haven't even heard of most of these writers. This makes my point. They aren't elevated by The Intelligentsia in NYC. Because they have the "wrong" views. My point is: Absolutely let's bring in "new voices." But just like Harvard bringing in rich Black kids and calling that "diversity," what we really need is racial AND viewpoint diversity.
The banned books thing frustrates me more than anything else in these silly culture wars. The Left has been banning books ruthlessly for the past decade; often they do it before a writer even gets their book out. Or they do it just after by Twitter-fiat. No one on the Left says a word; they all lie and gaslight and pretend that "cancel culture" isn't actually happening. But we all know it is. It's as obvious as cheese. Then the Right starts doing it (which I agree with you is *also stupid*) and suddenly everyone on the Left is screaming about banned books. There's a deep hypocrisy here which is almost sociopathic. It's like a man battering his wife who says, I don't hit you; that's not actually happening. It's madness. It's the same when it comes to the Left claiming that crime isn't actually rising. The truly sad thing is that all these realties make life worse for everyone. The solution, as MLK and Baldwin and Zadie Smith and so many others understood is: Community. True, actual community, not exclusion in the name of "inclusion," not racial categorization, not tribal division.
This isn't about me not finding a publisher.
Two final comments:
1. The Bluest Eye is a great book; I read it years ago and loved it. Powerful. It should not be banned. NO book should be banned anywhere for any reason from any political side.
2. I have a 19-year-old niece who is a big reader
Okay. Truce. I hear you. I just was reacting. I wrote my thesis in the 80's on gender and fiction writing which was a time when the industry was white male. Just so you know, I am 66 and have taught almost 40 years and feel connected to the generational changes as I have witnessed them. I have faith in the future of humanity, their goodness. I will also share your post when we meet this week. I will also synthesize for you their responses. It has been trying to teach this class as I have the whole spectrum of views. I have anxiety before every class. Student post individually to me their thoughts in response to materials and readings (news articles from both right and left) and I have students who were raised on Fox ( mostly my dancers from Boston Conservatory which I find really startling) And then I have the one highly left white US guy who laughed in class when one of those Fox raised females said she thought anything about communism should be banned (when I asked early on in the class if they thought any information should be banned). I also learned reading weekly responses that this same left leaning students was inhibiting a black female student from Switzerland who was half black half jewish felt she could not express her view openly in class. I read what she thinks, but she is afraid of speaking up. I also have 1/3 international students from Brazil, Argentina, and they have such a different perspective. It is interesting to say the least.
Just so you know, I have followed Sherman Alexie before he broke out. He is how I started reading you. Years ago in the infancy of the internet he had a chat room or whatever they were called, and I read his work. I have taught him. It is what led to me being asked by my dean to create the banned book course. I had negative reviews because I was teaching Flight and the word fuck was in the book. My Christian students in that term complained in my student reviews. At that time, I was under a different dean. My head, now to hopefully my dean, supported me. So it is complicated. We are in challenging times. I will keep you informed on what I receive from students on your words.
Peace. "Make love, not war".
I've published two books through Atmosphere Press and tried the self-promo thing. Even with excellent reviews (including from Kirkus) I got no traction. I walked into a Barbara's Bookstore in Chicagoland to try in-person promo and got snarled at by the Identity Person behind the counter. I gave up promotion after that.
If I even bother writing another book I will just serialize it on Substack or Royal Road or a something. The traditional publisher and bookstore route is cut off unless you fit a very narrow definition of the acceptable type of person according the the gatekeepers.
Absolutely true. I hear you!
Glad you mentioned "American Fiction." Watching that one is like laughing with a broken rib. You can't help it, but damn, it hurts.
I still find myself a man without an ideological country in this space. I understand how my former discipline has moved in the directions it has, but if books and bookstores become so narrowly limited, then literature becomes an echo chamber, rather than the crucible of transformation that it was for me. At the same time, I recognize that the argument you make here leads, in some ways, to the equally propagandistic conclusions that Christopher Rufo and others are peddling. It remains very difficult to find a middle space, where you can practice your craft without feeling like it has to be "against" something or explicitly "for" something else.
An echo chamber with a small out of touch population we could (maybe) bypass by letting ourselves get sucked into the dreaded content creator game?
Nevermind, I can't do it.
Right. I'm all for a non-political artistic environment. Meaning: Good writing is good writing, regardless of race, gender, ideology, non-ideology, etc etc. But when these bookstores blatantly plaster their ideology directly on the face of their product, we already know where their interest and sympathies lie. On the Conservative side there's surely the same kind of absurd propaganda, I agree with you there.
As someone who teaches college I find your tirade tiresome. You are not around young people and many still read a lot.
Also: No one's forcing you to read my posts...
Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388541/americans-reading-fewer-books-past.aspx
"The decline in book reading is mostly a function of how many books readers are reading, as opposed to fewer Americans reading any books. The 17% of U.S. adults who say they did not read any books in the past year is similar to the 16% to 18% measured in 2002 to 2016 surveys, though it is higher than in the 1999 to 2001 polls.
The drop is fueled by a decline in the percentage of Americans reading more than 10 books in the past year. Currently, 27% report that they read more than 10 books, down eight percentage points since 2016 and lower than every prior measure by at least four points."
Correct!!! People read headlines, social media posts, captions and ingredient labels in search of gluten or dairy to avoid. That’s not reading.
We must read books. Long ones. We are in a war of attention. Book reading is in decline. Reading shouldn’t feel like homework. It should be fun and enjoyable. The library isn’t viewed as a place for curiosity to roam, adventures to be had or even an unlikely friendship to be made with another bibliophile. Thank you for expressing what I feel and having the courage to do it on Substack.
Thank you! You rock. Agreed.
Wow! To feel disenfranchised must suck. Payback is a mother fucker.
It isn’t payback if you shoot any old wolf tomorrow because a wolf ate your cat when you were 13. It isn’t payback to kick a dog today because your dog didn’t try hard enough to save your cat when you were 13. And it isn’t payback when you choose to encourage or defend racist/sexist/phobic systems to punish people today because of the past. It’s childish, irrational, ignorant, abusive, and damaging to the environment/society.
but you don't see your privilege. Like a fish in the sea who does not see/feel the water...
And?
Why must inclusion hinge on disenfranchisement and insults? The pettiness is self-defeating. This is not the vision that Sarah Orne Jewett, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, or Kate Chopin had for gender equality -- nor is it consistent with the spirit of Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, Leslie Marmon Silko, and many other writers whose work takes justice as a central concern. Surely gaining power or privilege need not require lording it over someone else.
Except that it does. Wishing it weren’t is merely wishful.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Revenge will never solve our social problems.
I agree, but I am not blind. I see too much.