Eat it up, it’s good for you!
I like this (from Ampersand at Alas, A Blog):
But what would happen if all feminists decided that “feminist” was a bad word, and switched to “equalist”? Within a month, all the right-wingers who have worked so hard at making feminism a swear word would re-aim their guns at “equalist.” Whatever the word is that means “our status quo sucks, it hurts all of us but women especially, and it’s gotta change,” that word will be reviled.
While I understand the reasoning behind people saying they would call themselves “humanists” or “equalists” moreso than “feminists” (I think I may have even said that on one occasion or another, because obviously I do want equality for all people), on another level it’s always kind of rankled me. It says to me that either they don’t know what feminism actually is, and/or they’ve been too influenced by right-wing propaganda. (Or, if it’s a guy, they aren’t aware of/don’t want to give up their male privilege. Although with the people I associate with, that tends to be a rarity.)
Hey, this reminds me of something I quoted from Pandagon over a year ago:
You could call it “suckacockism” and people would still hate it as long as you were calling for women’s social, economic and political equality.
That statement has stuck with me because I think it sums things up perfectly. (And I’m glad I have the blockquote on my site, because apparently the original Pandagon post is no longer available.)
READ ME: Disclaimer
6 Responses to "Friday food for thought"
I go by humanist because I find much of the language that feminists have adopted to be inherently non-inclusive and designed to make men feel guilty about their station in life.
It may be technically correct to start talking about “male privilege” or “white privilege” or “class privilege” or any other kind of privilege, but it’s not going to win any friends outside the insular boundaries of people who already believe what you do. And for any movement to get off the ground and gain acceptance, it needs friends outside its own ranks.
Wagging fingers at people never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever wins converts.
That is absolutely true. But there is a difference between wagging fingers, and helping people to recognize the privilege they may be granted by societal inequities. If a person of color starts talking about the ways in which they’ve seen and experienced white privilege, it can help me to recognize behaviors and prejudices I may not have been aware of. That’s something everyone can and should examine within themselves. (I know Niki can talk in more detail about this, since it’s a big part of her grad school program.) Talking about white privilege, for example, is not the same thing as pointing a finger at a white person and saying, “You are a bad person!”
Oops, one other thing:
Using white privilege as an example here… how can I actually be a “friend” to the cause of equality for racial minorities, if I don’t recognize white privilege and acknowledge it as something that is unjust and needs to go away? I can’t conceive how I could support racial equality while also actively wanting to maintain my privilege based on whiteness. The two just don’t mesh.
Likewise, men who are supportive of the feminist cause for equal political, economic, and social rights for women have to recognize that male privilege exists - otherwise, how could they even understand the need for feminism in the first place? If a man understands that there are societal inequities that hold women to a different standard than men, or put women at a disadvantage, then that is recognizing male privilege, y’know?
When you ask someone to “acknowledge their privilege,” there’s an implication there of saying “you wouldn’t be where you are without your privilege, and you should say so,” which may or may not be the case depending on whom you’re talking to and their circumstances. The question is loaded and makes assumptions that aren’t inherently true (even if they’re true most of the time), and that under certain circumstances can be insulting.
Also, it frames the discussion in a way of “admit you’re wrong, and that I’m right,” which is going to cause the questionee to resent the questioner regardless of whether the questioner is technically correct. If nothing else, the structure of the discussion is a turn-off.
Not necessarily. Now, the person may choose to take it that way, but at a certain point you just can’t sugar-coat things for the thick-headed. Besides… I think there is a difference between saying, “Recognize your privilege” and “Recognize that white privilege exists in society.” The former is pointing the finger at the individual, the latter is acknowledging reality. And the latter statement could be continued to say, “…and you have benefited from it whether willingly or unwillingly. And this isn’t a problem with you; it’s a problem with society.” But, I guess, baby steps for some people who might take a while to “get it.” And, you know, I understand to a certain degree why some people get defensive or whatever because I’ve been there and had those reactions in the past.
Rusty, could you go further into this? I think I see what you’re saying and I agree with what I’m seeing, but I’m interested to know if you take the “you wouldn’t be where you are without your privilege” to be not just an indictment of someone’s participation in an injustice, but also a finding that someone didn’t have the ability to succeed in the first place. What hurts more in the charge: the suggestion that one participates in oppression or suppression, or the suggestion that one is too incompetent or too much a failure without the supports?
But, yeah, this kind of charge will insult people, and it hurts hard. Some pains are productive, and others not. I think, honestly, it depends on both the patient and the doctor, and the level of trust between them.