Long housed in Gender Studies (née Women's), I still always chafed at the prominence of that particular aphorism, but never in such an elegantly formulated articulation. Human language, affect, AI, Lorde's chiding talk, her famous aphorism, the hermeneutics of "Three Little Pigs," the anti-institutionalism of a progressive Left, the vulnerable state of higher education, and attention to wolves (in the bad sense of wolves). Talk about a "weave"! Brava.
My objection to "master's tools" was banal -- an empirical and literal counterpoint: actually, why yes, you can succeed in a tear-down of his house with his sledgehammer, sawzall, and crowbar. Grab some more tools and some licensed tradeswomen, repurposed lumber and straw bales, and you can complete a nice rebuild to your values-driven specs, as far as local code allows. Although this ties in with valuing building, institutionalizing, working with the reality of path dependencies.
FWIW: A less heralded oldie text that I found rewarded a revisit is Bernice Reagon's 1981 "Coalition Politics." It's a battle weary and witty admonishment to get out of your safe space into messy political work across difference and food you don't like. It could lend itself to aphorisms -- she did write & perform songs -- but I don't think I've seen any embalmed on fridge magnets yet.
You write that Lorde’s aphorism was “decoupled” from context and “morphed” into something else by way of taking it out of context. So, I see this as more of a matter of that. That is the real problem — has been done since the beginning of time and will continue to the end of time, at least of a human’s time.
Here is the whole thing: " For the master’ tools will never dismantle the master’ house. They
may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never
enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to
those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.”
This is not dissimilar from the ideas in Micheal de Certeau’s, "The Practice of Everyday Life” which offers a nuanced way of understanding how individuals engage with and potentially change structures of power from within. Rather than focusing on revolution or direct confrontation, he emphasizes tactics—the everyday, often subtle acts through which people navigate and subvert dominant systems. For Lorde that is inclusion and creativity.
She does actually name a tool: "Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old
and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the
master’s concerns.”
Also this: In your statement, “Tools is a metaphor rather than a category. Anything of the master’s is a tool. Anyone who wields the tool is a master,” the logic slips. The metaphor of the “tool” is extended too far, turning into an absolutist claim that anything from the master is inherently oppressive. The final leap—that using such a tool makes one a master—collapses metaphor into moral identity without justification. It treats symbolic association as ontological fact. This conclusion does not follow from the premise, and thus constitutes a non sequitur.
What an article! To describe the story of “The Three Little Pigs” in such depth is unforgettable. And beyond the brick house as security, the foundation needs to support the house and not have shifting sand underneath. Foundational principles support housed security with Truth and the reliability of the structure when winds as weapons are assaulting the house (the wolf/wolves). “The house now at risk of being dismantled is our own authority over meaning.” What does it mean to be human in the age of AI and what does it mean to be AI, as in the book “In the Shadow of Humanity” by N. Nathaniel Williams, in the age of humans? Are we both wolves, as in the ancient story, trying to build a brick house where we can cohabitate comfortably without losing either of us to this current windstorm? By the way, a friend of mine loves the song “Brick House”. It will always make me think of this article from now on!
The problem wasn't that it was an aphorism, but rather that it's precisely 100% diametrically incorrect. For one thing, it starts with a presumption of cultural marxism: that there are masters and there are slaves and you have the right to say which is which and the people you disagree with do not. Because they are masters. This is insanity that leads to suicidal self-termination in a mouse eutopia of toxically turned feminine values.
Outside of the convenient "I'm an oppressed victim" framing, it's also just factually incorrect. MOST of the time a "master's house" has been dismantled, it has been done with the master's tools.
For example, look at women's modern suffrage in the west. All power was held by rich, educated, white, christian, land-owning men. Women didn't _take_ that power - they didn't _seize_ the vote - they convinced those with power that their world would be better if women had a voice in running it. So the rich landowning christian white men made space at the table. They _gave_ power to women and continue to do so every day through mens' maintenance of the infrastructure that allows women to feel safe. A similar story applies to race - the "oppressors" _decided_ to _give power away_.
Think of it: you're some guy in say 1790 boston. Every single woman you have ever met has been an uneducated idiot with zero accountability or expectations. A woolhead who natters about the inconsequential and has responsibilities and duties no where in the world outside the home (she can't even be held liable for DEBTS! She's presumed to be lacking agency and responsibility needing care, like a child. That's why she can't sign contracts.) You know that it is your duty to uphold civilization and if you don't you and everyone you care about will swiftly die to the unremitting cold calculus of fact: everyone has to eat and acting properly and making sure others do as well is all that stands between you and the wolf. If you fuck it up, she is going to die horribly. So will your kids. You hold the vote. You are in charge of governance because it is obviously right and proper.
And one and a half saeculum later, they still stepped away and made room.
Patriarchy? When I was homeless and every night the vans would come to pick up the very few homeless women to take them to the shelter while I hunted cardboard, I learned everything I need to know about who has the power now.
The Gender Death Gap alone is all you need to know: 90-99% of all workplace fatalities are men. Until and unless that number reaches 50%, women just are refusing to do their part in society. They refuse to go into STEM work hardly at all! Anything with inbuilt accountability is just estrogen-repellant and thus women flock to majors where, when you're wrong, no one can prove it.
Y'all refuse to do the work and demand the benefits. And you get them. Because men pay for them with our taxes and labor.
Or rather....
we did.
Stats say we're not anymore. Have fun with that. So go ahead and tear down your "master's" house.
Just hope you know how to lay a foundation and hang dry wall and want to put in a hell of a lot of work right afterwards: it's your house too.
(Sorry for the tangent. Realize it's not directly addressing LLMs and education and such. But it's right there at the start of all th reasoning chain and it forks off into an important area.)
This is enormous chutzpah to criticize someone who can cowrite a book with Henry Louis Gates Jr. but "the master's house" for Douglass may not actually be the whole United States. The master's house can be the assumptions that he is not really human or fit to be free and that it is dangerous for him to learn to read or think. By showing that all these things are not true Douglass is showing that the master's house has to collapse in a society that values Christianity or freedom or both.
I also started an extremely well-written book by Kabria Baumgartner, "In Pursuit Of Knowledge," detailing how the struggle for high-school-level education for Black girls was sufficiently difficult that it would have been ridiculous to criticize it on the basis of their being taught "the master's tools". The Black press happily adapted the rhetoric of Christian domesticity of the time to advocate for girls' education.
Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. uh it is possible.. it's yours.
Regarding building institutions, check out https://summerofprotocols.com/
I love this.
Long housed in Gender Studies (née Women's), I still always chafed at the prominence of that particular aphorism, but never in such an elegantly formulated articulation. Human language, affect, AI, Lorde's chiding talk, her famous aphorism, the hermeneutics of "Three Little Pigs," the anti-institutionalism of a progressive Left, the vulnerable state of higher education, and attention to wolves (in the bad sense of wolves). Talk about a "weave"! Brava.
My objection to "master's tools" was banal -- an empirical and literal counterpoint: actually, why yes, you can succeed in a tear-down of his house with his sledgehammer, sawzall, and crowbar. Grab some more tools and some licensed tradeswomen, repurposed lumber and straw bales, and you can complete a nice rebuild to your values-driven specs, as far as local code allows. Although this ties in with valuing building, institutionalizing, working with the reality of path dependencies.
FWIW: A less heralded oldie text that I found rewarded a revisit is Bernice Reagon's 1981 "Coalition Politics." It's a battle weary and witty admonishment to get out of your safe space into messy political work across difference and food you don't like. It could lend itself to aphorisms -- she did write & perform songs -- but I don't think I've seen any embalmed on fridge magnets yet.
You write that Lorde’s aphorism was “decoupled” from context and “morphed” into something else by way of taking it out of context. So, I see this as more of a matter of that. That is the real problem — has been done since the beginning of time and will continue to the end of time, at least of a human’s time.
Here is the whole thing: " For the master’ tools will never dismantle the master’ house. They
may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never
enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to
those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.”
This is not dissimilar from the ideas in Micheal de Certeau’s, "The Practice of Everyday Life” which offers a nuanced way of understanding how individuals engage with and potentially change structures of power from within. Rather than focusing on revolution or direct confrontation, he emphasizes tactics—the everyday, often subtle acts through which people navigate and subvert dominant systems. For Lorde that is inclusion and creativity.
She does actually name a tool: "Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old
and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the
master’s concerns.”
Also this: In your statement, “Tools is a metaphor rather than a category. Anything of the master’s is a tool. Anyone who wields the tool is a master,” the logic slips. The metaphor of the “tool” is extended too far, turning into an absolutist claim that anything from the master is inherently oppressive. The final leap—that using such a tool makes one a master—collapses metaphor into moral identity without justification. It treats symbolic association as ontological fact. This conclusion does not follow from the premise, and thus constitutes a non sequitur.
So as a result, I don’t understand this post.
The provocation was seeing a magnet the day after I saw someone wearing a button. I can’t post an image on a reply but it was like this https://worldfamousoriginal.com/products/the-masters-tools-sticker
The point being the decoupling.
So this may be the distinction between women-identified women and honorary men made by Adrienne Rich in different language
AI should make college harder. Every stage of education, rather, should become harder.
How’s this one!?:
Aphorisms sell the abstract.
The abstract sells the article.
The article sells a legacy.
The SJWs don’t want a planning pig, they want a pay pig.
What an article! To describe the story of “The Three Little Pigs” in such depth is unforgettable. And beyond the brick house as security, the foundation needs to support the house and not have shifting sand underneath. Foundational principles support housed security with Truth and the reliability of the structure when winds as weapons are assaulting the house (the wolf/wolves). “The house now at risk of being dismantled is our own authority over meaning.” What does it mean to be human in the age of AI and what does it mean to be AI, as in the book “In the Shadow of Humanity” by N. Nathaniel Williams, in the age of humans? Are we both wolves, as in the ancient story, trying to build a brick house where we can cohabitate comfortably without losing either of us to this current windstorm? By the way, a friend of mine loves the song “Brick House”. It will always make me think of this article from now on!
The problem wasn't that it was an aphorism, but rather that it's precisely 100% diametrically incorrect. For one thing, it starts with a presumption of cultural marxism: that there are masters and there are slaves and you have the right to say which is which and the people you disagree with do not. Because they are masters. This is insanity that leads to suicidal self-termination in a mouse eutopia of toxically turned feminine values.
Outside of the convenient "I'm an oppressed victim" framing, it's also just factually incorrect. MOST of the time a "master's house" has been dismantled, it has been done with the master's tools.
For example, look at women's modern suffrage in the west. All power was held by rich, educated, white, christian, land-owning men. Women didn't _take_ that power - they didn't _seize_ the vote - they convinced those with power that their world would be better if women had a voice in running it. So the rich landowning christian white men made space at the table. They _gave_ power to women and continue to do so every day through mens' maintenance of the infrastructure that allows women to feel safe. A similar story applies to race - the "oppressors" _decided_ to _give power away_.
Think of it: you're some guy in say 1790 boston. Every single woman you have ever met has been an uneducated idiot with zero accountability or expectations. A woolhead who natters about the inconsequential and has responsibilities and duties no where in the world outside the home (she can't even be held liable for DEBTS! She's presumed to be lacking agency and responsibility needing care, like a child. That's why she can't sign contracts.) You know that it is your duty to uphold civilization and if you don't you and everyone you care about will swiftly die to the unremitting cold calculus of fact: everyone has to eat and acting properly and making sure others do as well is all that stands between you and the wolf. If you fuck it up, she is going to die horribly. So will your kids. You hold the vote. You are in charge of governance because it is obviously right and proper.
And one and a half saeculum later, they still stepped away and made room.
Patriarchy? When I was homeless and every night the vans would come to pick up the very few homeless women to take them to the shelter while I hunted cardboard, I learned everything I need to know about who has the power now.
The Gender Death Gap alone is all you need to know: 90-99% of all workplace fatalities are men. Until and unless that number reaches 50%, women just are refusing to do their part in society. They refuse to go into STEM work hardly at all! Anything with inbuilt accountability is just estrogen-repellant and thus women flock to majors where, when you're wrong, no one can prove it.
Y'all refuse to do the work and demand the benefits. And you get them. Because men pay for them with our taxes and labor.
Or rather....
we did.
Stats say we're not anymore. Have fun with that. So go ahead and tear down your "master's" house.
Just hope you know how to lay a foundation and hang dry wall and want to put in a hell of a lot of work right afterwards: it's your house too.
(Sorry for the tangent. Realize it's not directly addressing LLMs and education and such. But it's right there at the start of all th reasoning chain and it forks off into an important area.)
This is enormous chutzpah to criticize someone who can cowrite a book with Henry Louis Gates Jr. but "the master's house" for Douglass may not actually be the whole United States. The master's house can be the assumptions that he is not really human or fit to be free and that it is dangerous for him to learn to read or think. By showing that all these things are not true Douglass is showing that the master's house has to collapse in a society that values Christianity or freedom or both.
I also started an extremely well-written book by Kabria Baumgartner, "In Pursuit Of Knowledge," detailing how the struggle for high-school-level education for Black girls was sufficiently difficult that it would have been ridiculous to criticize it on the basis of their being taught "the master's tools". The Black press happily adapted the rhetoric of Christian domesticity of the time to advocate for girls' education.
Certainly once Douglass decides that the Constitution is really an antislavery document the master's house is not the United States.
I would love to hear a comment from Benjamin Franklin ….
16457
Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. uh it is possible.. it's yours.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Tags: inspirational, life