Insofar as trustworthiness is bound up in notions of loyalty, and insofar as loyalty itself is a conception of whitemale supremacy, I think truth-tellers are among some of the least trustworthy women around. A woman committed to telling the truth always and all ways will betray you every single time if you entrust in her an obligation to lie, deceive, or withhold relevant truthful information. This instilling of obligation to falsehood is, unfortunately, a chief principle in this patriarchal concept we think of as loyalty.
The problem, I think, is that loyalty under whitemale supremacy so often means devotion to a particular person, rather than to particular truths. And, of course, because any given person can have as many different personnas as there are stars in the universe, depending upon the atmosphere, present company, and other factors, well, loyalty to one person necessarily means loyalty to only one facet of that person’s whole being, often to the complete denial (or, at least minimization) of the existence of these other, perhaps not so flattering, faces.
A truth-telling woman absolutely cannot be trusted to be loyal to any one person, which is generally, I think, what people mean when they say “trustworthy,” that the person in question can be trusted to be loyal to them. But I think truth-telling women can be trusted to do other things, valuable things, things that to me are more valuable than the hush-mouthed truth-denying, the blood-silence that anyone living in patriarchy could buy with enough money or status anyway. That which is valuable in whitemale supremacy is not valuable to me.
*Thanks, (do you want to be named?), for inspiring this post. Let me know if you ever find that passage about trust, or remember which book it was from.
I think truth-tellers are among some of the least trustworthy women around.
Yes I do too. And I see it emulated all the time,—the need to prove loyalty. I think on the internet it shows up more readily and clearly than in real life. For example, when one is answering an observation, instead of saying, “Yes I see what is being said, plus, this is my opinion,” I see, I agree with r, s, t, u, x and y. Which clearly lets everyone knows that she/he does not agree with v, w, and z. Viola, the teams are formed. r,s,t,u,x, and y is on one team, and v, w, and z are on the opposing team, thus is the enemy. Having agreed with their respective positions, which it is an agreement, if no one speaks out against it, they are left to maintain loyal or risk the boot. The boot can only be gotten once though before the letter is sent out in the cold as an unreliable heathen (unworkable loyalists). The opposing team will be waiting to take the rejected member in, because power is in numbers. But, if that previously rejected member objects to an ideology on its current team, then accusations of betrayal will ensue. So, the letter must consider, did it feel better for me when I was part of a team or when I said the truth, my truth. Thus it becomes lonely country. Which would not necessarily be a bad thing, but that traitor will not be allowed to stumble along in that lonely country. No, not at all. Because in order for such a betrayal not to happen again, policing will commence. “See what we did to t? Well if you don’t behave this way, we will do the same thing to you, do you hear us x?” Then x shuts her mouth. Now one would say well that is what is happening back at the fort, t is still free to roam around the country. No, not true. Because whenever t shows up for a little interaction, a little R&R, there will be sentries posted to remind everyone of the time t committed the greatest crime of all time, betrayal. Who cares if t was speaking the gospel, t broke the cardinal! Of with t’s head. Thus, no more t’s will be created, or if so, they will be forced underground, where a new power structure will begin.
Comment by ekittyglendower — October 30, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Yep, that’s always the danger, isn’t it? I struggle with this myself because I wonder if I only moved my blog just to get a little illicit patriarchy-affirming loyalty for myself. I hope that’s not what I’m doing, with this new blog place, but I don’t really trust myself not to be tempted by the lure of patriarchal rewards. For what it’s worth, and it’s probably not much for anyone who’s already made up her mind, but I have invited a rather hodgepodge, not-necessarily-radical-or-feminist group of women here to read/comment. I certainly don’t expect that the varied individuals reading here will always agree with me, and I don’t expect anyone to lie to me, or soften truths to my liking. I do expect, though, that we will be able to disagree respectfully, just because the women here *have* disagreed – with me and with each other – and have done so without calling each other names or otherwise disrespecting each other. I don’t think refraining from ad hominem attacks equates to patriarchal loyalty, though, so maybe there’s hope. We’ll see.
Comment by justicewalks — October 30, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
And everything you describe afterward reminds me of this post I wrote when I first started to blog. Interacting in a group can really be toxic.
Comment by justicewalks — October 30, 2008 @ 5:54 pm