[Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

This forum is founded on discussions about T Campbell's work (alone and with artist partners).

Moderators: Gisele, TCampbell

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:16 am

Lia S wrote:I'm getting the impression you're suffering from "nice guy syndrome" (there's a discussion of that somewhere on these forums but I can't find the thread). A very short explanation of that "syndrome" is that potential partners think you're acting nice to get a reward, which means they think that behind your act you're not nice at all. I'm sure it won't surprise you that people who think of you that way won't want to date you. Of course only you can know whether you're honest when you're being nice. I can only suggest that you be nice because it's a fun thing to be without worrying about how people will treat you, and don't waste your time again on people who aren't nice back to you the first time you meet them.


Ah yes, the "nice guy TM" thing. Very frustrating, and triggering to some extent, because it paints men who are just shy, or who actually listened and took to heart what feminists were saying about how bad it is to offer "unwanted" sexual attention to women, as entitled creeps, the worst of the bunch.

Because, yeah, the message is contradictory. Everywhere, women and feminists talking about how women have to deal with unwanted sexual/romantic attention and that it's terrible, that men should learn to behave otherwise and not be so aggressive, as it scares women. So you listen to take, you take it to heart, and you learn to repress, to try to find out if displaying your attraction would be "wanted" or not before doing anything. But before that, you have to make sure that you actually like the woman you're attracted to... you can't just approach a woman you find hot, that would be "objectification" and reducing them to their body only. So you have to get to know them, but to get to know them, you have to be around them, to become their friend. But if you become their friend to make sure that you really are attracted to them for more than their body and to make sure that romantic/sexual overtures on your part would be desired, or at least not threatening, then you're an evil creepy "nice guy" TM and an entitled creep because you "pretend" to be their friends only to get in their pants.

If you are attracted to a woman only because she looks hot... it's objectification.
If you outright tell a woman you are attracted to her... you are "oppressing" her by contributing to her harassment through unwanted and unsolicited sexual attention.
If you get to know them better before being attracted to her and saying it... you're an evil "nice guy" TM.

Maybe if women displayed signs that they were attracted to you, then you'd be OK, it wouldn't be "unwanted" if she sent you "come hither" looks, right?... Wait, that never happened in your life. Wow, you must really be an unattractive, worthless POS, right?
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby unavoidablytiger » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:20 pm

You jumped into a thread about sexual harassment and used it as a soapbox to blame women for not sleeping with you even though you 'followed the rules'. I don't think you're a nice guyTM at all.
Last edited by unavoidablytiger on Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
unavoidablytiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby NobodySpecial » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:24 pm

If you are attracted to a woman only because she looks hot... it's objectification.
If you outright tell a woman you are attracted to her... you are "oppressing" her by contributing to her harassment through unwanted and unsolicited sexual attention.
If you get to know them better before being attracted to her and saying it... you're an evil "nice guy" TM.


No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

There are positive ways to show sexual attraction. Cheap come-ons towards total strangers are not one of them.

Perhaps the single best method of showing your interest in a person is....asking them out. No quid pro quos attached. Even then, you might get a miss - but that's a positive way of dealing with the fact that you find someone interesting. Hell, you can even talk to them for a few minutes first without pretending to put them in the friend zone. You have to give them the chance to TELL you your attention is unwanted before cock-blocking yourself. And don't play that game of 'I'm getting to know her first.' That's a straight up game, it's an old one, women see through it, and they WILL lose interest in you once they see you're playing a game to get in their panties.
"I've always been mad. I know I've been mad like the most of us have. Sometimes I don't know if I'm mad even if I'm not mad." - Jerry Driscoll
User avatar
NobodySpecial
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 4:40 pm
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Zanosuke Kurosaki » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:45 pm

I'm going to have to go with Tiger on this one. I've been reading over what you've said, Kchoze, and I just can't help but keep getting this feeling of someone who merely wants to keep pushing their argument simply for the sake of the argument. Especially with how people have said they agree with you, yet you keep finding new things to pick apart.
Stand tall and shake the heavens.

Beep beep, I'm a jeep.
User avatar
Zanosuke Kurosaki
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:32 pm
Location: Texas

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Trefle » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:52 pm

If you are attracted to a woman only because she looks hot... it's objectification.
If you outright tell a woman you are attracted to her... you are "oppressing" her by contributing to her harassment through unwanted and unsolicited sexual attention.
If you get to know them better before being attracted to her and saying it... you're an evil "nice guy" TM.

Maybe if women displayed signs that they were attracted to you, then you'd be OK, it wouldn't be "unwanted" if she sent you "come hither" looks, right?... Wait, that never happened in your life. Wow, you must really be an unattractive, worthless POS, right?

Now wait, what?

....Now this is getting personally...prickly. What is it they said about Nice Guys (as opposed to real nice guys) and rejection...?

I see.

How about just saying it and backing out when the woman in question doesn't want it?
I MEAN, sir, how do you think millions of relationships gets made each day? I'm not sure every piece of male human in this earth except you and me were Nikolaj-Coster Waldau level kind of hotness (if they are, WHERE ARE YOU AND WHY DON'T YOU COME HEEEERE)
Trefle
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:16 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:59 pm

unavoidablytiger wrote:You jumped into a thread about sexual harassment and used it as a soapbox to blame women for not sleeping with you even though you 'followed the rules'. I don't think you're a nice guyTM at all.


Nice strawman you got there.

Why don't you go and quote me where I "blame women for not sleeping with me"? Yeah, can't find it, huh? That's because I never said it. These are words that you put in my mouth, probably because you find it more convenient to conceive of me as the caricature you have in your mind. You already know how to mock and defeat that caricature's opinions, but the opinions I have posted here... that's much harder. So you do the easiest thing you can think of, you ignore what I actually say, who I actually am, you just pretend that I am that caricature.

As to how the discussion derived to here, I didn't jump in and used it as a soapbox. I criticized the text linked in the OP for using the actions of jerks as "proof" that men have "privilege" and of the existence of the "patriarchy". The fact that I called them jerks sends a pretty strong signal I think that what she lived through was not what I consider acceptable. That's where the discussion started. I didn't speak directly of my own personal experiences until, what, the sixth post of mine?
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Freemage » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:42 pm

You ducked Lia's point about the difference between 'rape' being a privilege and 'not having to worry about rape' being a privilege.

Privilege, Kchoze, is like those spiked bats I described. Remember how I explicitly mentioned that most of the women never, ever used them in a threatening fashion? Yeah, that's privilege. It has nothing to do with your personal code of conduct; it's got everything to do with the fact that the women you encounter have no way of knowing whether or not you're the type to swing that bat. Privilege is a weapon you cannot put down.
T. Campbell (yeah, HIM) wrote:If Freemage did not exist, it might have been necessary to invent him.

dianekikiula wrote:My sig is jealous of your sig now. :P
Valerie wrote:
I'm leaving Paps for you.
Freemage, do you have a fanclub yet, and can I please join?
User avatar
Freemage
 
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Louisa » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:54 pm

[Trigger warning: Rape, Victim-Blaming]

Kchoze,

I understand where you're coming from with regards to your points on rape - if someone is convicted of rape, it is indeed taken seriously as a crime. The issue with that, though, is the difficulty in convicting someone of rape. It's the fact that how the woman was dressed, or whether she acted flirtatious, or whether she'd ever had sex before, are all brought up in the trial as "mitigating circumstances" that might somehow excuse the rapist. It's the fact that many women don't dare to report rape in the first place, because the way they'll get treated by the courts tends to be far more horrible than the way a victim of another crime would be treated in court. It's many other things as well - as Valerie said, most ways in which society endorses rape are incredibly subtle until you learn to spot them, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't spot them. But I'd suggest that, if you want to continue the discussion on whether society condones rape, you do a bit of reading up on rape culture first. I'd recommend this article as a good starting point: have a look through it, think about the issues it highlights, and see if it helps you understand where some of the other people in this thread are coming from.

Kchoze wrote:I never glared at women, always treated people politely as equals. Never made lewd comments to women. Never stared at their bodies. Never even masturbated while thinking of women I knew, because I felt that was exploiting their bodies for my sexual pleasure. Now, I'm alone. Never felt desired. Never felt attractive. I can't even manage to fantasize about being loved. Then I fall on texts like those here... apparently, I'm privileged, I've got nothing to complain about. No matter how respectful I may be of the women around me, it's not enough, as someone with a dick, I share the blame for every "Hey sexy lady!" or "Dat ass!" ever said, of every lewd look, of every rape. If I talk about my problems or give my perspective, I am just derailing the discussion away from those who are worthy of attention and social assistance. Because I sure am not, that much is abundantly clear.


I'm glad to hear that you've always tried to respect women and treat people as equals. I don't think anyone here is blaming you for the men who don't act that way - "male privilege" doesn't mean that all men are responsible for the lewd comments of a few. Male privilege does mean that men are far less likely to be on the receiving end of said lewd comments, or of unwanted sexual touch, or of a whole host of other nasty things. This doesn't mean that men have nothing to complain about; nobody here is claiming that being a man makes your life automatically perfect. But this thread is about the crappy things in life that occur disproportionately to females. If you want to ask for support for your problems, the bad day thread is full of wonderful and supportive people who don't give a fig what gender you are, so I suggest you go over there.
Louisa
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:54 pm

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby unavoidablytiger » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:07 pm

It speaks volumes about you that you completely avoided NobodySpecial's very helpful and friendly post about how to fix your problem, and fell all over yourself to instead argue about my opinion of you.

You want to know why 'nice guys'TM are the worst of the bunch? Because they give all the lip service to feminism, but they don't believe any of it.

Poor soul, stuck in a trap made by feminists, where if you show your attraction to some 'hot' girl, you get shot down, and if you don't show your attraction, they never notice you.

Did you ever think about checking out a non-hot girl? You expect a hot girl to want you because you're 'nice', but you don't even give a side-long mention to any girl who isn't 'hot'.

You expect attention from women because you followed the 'nice guy' rules. Maybe you're not as nice as you think you are.

I'm paraphrasing, 'putting words in your mouth', of course, because you are couching all of your personal feelings in indirect sarcasm and hypotheticals.
unavoidablytiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Mr. Brightside » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:15 pm

(Bit late for trigger warnings, don't you think?)

Sometimes I think anglerfish are onto something.

Regarding the MRA tangent, boys aren't taught what it really means to be a man. They need to be taught why the wretched creatures around them became the wretched creatures they are. They need to be taught that the creatures they've been trained all their lives to abstract, to pity, and to fear are not somehow different from the creatures they will become, that they cannot be saved, and most importantly that they should not be saved, but just to respect with a mix of joy and horror the unjust society that allows to live such wretched beings. They need to be taught they are no better than the cascades of meat before them, that this is a worthy fate for them as well, the alternative to wander the earth, as Freemage said, a "spiked bat," dripping semen from every pore and follicle. They need to be taught that they will become the enemy of the world, their joy to be its sorrow, their achievements its destruction. Instead, what comes is a slurry of patriarchal atavisms, snowflake speeches, and "you go girl" runoff, and from these lies come MRA ideas.
Last edited by Mr. Brightside on Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
(There has never been a signature.)
Mr. Brightside
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:44 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:30 pm

Freemage wrote:You ducked Lia's point about the difference between 'rape' being a privilege and 'not having to worry about rape' being a privilege.

Privilege, Kchoze, is like those spiked bats I described. Remember how I explicitly mentioned that most of the women never, ever used them in a threatening fashion? Yeah, that's privilege. It has nothing to do with your personal code of conduct; it's got everything to do with the fact that the women you encounter have no way of knowing whether or not you're the type to swing that bat. Privilege is a weapon you cannot put down.


I ducked nothing. Privilege is an unearned advantage that one benefits from. Not having to worry about being raped (though men are raped, at much lower rates than women, so it's not true to say that men don't have to worry about it, especially if they are ever in jail, men are just taught not to let their fears show) is not a privilege. It is what everyone should expect from society. It is a right, the right to safety, that many women feel deprived of because of the prevalence of rape. It is terrible, it is unacceptable... but it isn't male "privilege" in no way, shape or form.

I think I've explained at length why this twisted reasoning that "the disadvantages women may have are actually male privilege of not having these disadvantages" is wrong, that I reject it completely and entirely.
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Mr. Brightside » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:49 pm

It doesn't matter that everyone should have that right - there is a word for a right that not everyone has.
(There has never been a signature.)
Mr. Brightside
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:44 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Freemage » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:53 pm

Kchoze wrote:
Freemage wrote:You ducked Lia's point about the difference between 'rape' being a privilege and 'not having to worry about rape' being a privilege.

Privilege, Kchoze, is like those spiked bats I described. Remember how I explicitly mentioned that most of the women never, ever used them in a threatening fashion? Yeah, that's privilege. It has nothing to do with your personal code of conduct; it's got everything to do with the fact that the women you encounter have no way of knowing whether or not you're the type to swing that bat. Privilege is a weapon you cannot put down.


I ducked nothing. Privilege is an unearned advantage that one benefits from. Not having to worry about being raped (though men are raped, at much lower rates than women, so it's not true to say that men don't have to worry about it, especially if they are ever in jail, men are just taught not to let their fears show) is not a privilege. It is what everyone should expect from society. It is a right, the right to safety, that many women feel deprived of because of the prevalence of rape. It is terrible, it is unacceptable... but it isn't male "privilege" in no way, shape or form.

I think I've explained at length why this twisted reasoning that "the disadvantages women may have are actually male privilege of not having these disadvantages" is wrong, that I reject it completely and entirely.


You've explained that you feel that way and reject it, yes. I've seen scant rationales behind that position, however, so I dispute that you've explained at length WHY you feel that way.

Furthermore, since you're bringing up semantics, privilege has nothing to do with what you've earned--some privileges are earned, others are not. For instance, being allowed to drive is a privilege we grant to those who have demonstrated they can pass the driver's test. In Saudi Arabia, women are not permitted to even get a license; the ability to do so is, in Saudi society, a purely male privilege.

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:1.
a. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.
b. Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
2. The principle of granting and maintaining a special right or immunity


{quote="Collins English Dictionary"]
1. a benefit, immunity, etc., granted under certain conditions
2. the advantages and immunities enjoyed by a small usually powerful group or class, esp to the disadvantage of others one of the obstacles to social harmony is privilege[/quote]

Note that the concept of the privilege being "earned" or "unearned" is never mentioned.
T. Campbell (yeah, HIM) wrote:If Freemage did not exist, it might have been necessary to invent him.

dianekikiula wrote:My sig is jealous of your sig now. :P
Valerie wrote:
I'm leaving Paps for you.
Freemage, do you have a fanclub yet, and can I please join?
User avatar
Freemage
 
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:19 pm

Louisa wrote:[Trigger warning: Rape, Victim-Blaming]

Kchoze,

I understand where you're coming from with regards to your points on rape - if someone is convicted of rape, it is indeed taken seriously as a crime. The issue with that, though, is the difficulty in convicting someone of rape. It's the fact that how the woman was dressed, or whether she acted flirtatious, or whether she'd ever had sex before, are all brought up in the trial as "mitigating circumstances" that might somehow excuse the rapist.


These are not brought up as mitigating circumstances... They are put forth to try and convince the judge or jury that the accuser's version is incorrect and that no rape has been committed. Let me explain with an hypothetical:

TRIGGER warning, I'm trying to create a realistic hypothetical of a rape trial scenario, this may be very uncomfortable for some. I'm putting the text in tiny font, so people can't read it unless they copy it somewhere else, say wordpad.

Let's say you are the judge (or a juror) of a rape trial. A woman claims that she was raped by a man. The man claims the encounter was consensual. The police investigated the scene, it was a party, both the accuser and the accused were drinking and seemingly having fun. They were seen flirting together and last seen going upstairs to get a room, from what witnesses said, none of them seemed drunk to the point of not knowing what was happening. The woman claims that she was drunker than many people realized, that she didn't realize what was going on and that when she did, the man then forced her to have sex. He claims that it was consensual all the way, that he learned afterwards that the woman has a boyfriend/husband and that he supposes she is saying he raped her to avoid being seen as an adulterer. There is no evidence of a fight, no torn clothes, no wounds, etc...

What do you do? Do you A- declare the man guilty and sentence him to jail for years, after which he will be permanently tagged a sex offender, basically ruining his life (deservedly or not). B- declare him not guilty and maybe cheat the accuser of justice?

That's the kind of things that may happen in real life, and with the stakes involved, it incites people to try anything to convince people of their story. I don't think there has ever been a defense in the last century where the accused admits to rape, but claims that it is mitigated by the accuser's behavior.








unavoidablytiger wrote:Poor soul, stuck in a trap made by feminists, where if you show your attraction to some 'hot' girl, you get shot down, and if you don't show your attraction, they never notice you.

Did you ever think about checking out a non-hot girl? You expect a hot girl to want you because you're 'nice', but you don't even give a side-long mention to any girl who isn't 'hot'.


I'd say it's more a trap of traditional gender roles, feminism and my own inclinations. Traditional gender roles dictate that men must do the pursuing and the "first step" in romantic relations, which is still the norm (but not without exceptions), that those who don't are "unmanly" and deserve to be alone. Feminism tells us about the problems of women regarding harassment and undesired sexual attention, which sets strict rules for how it can be done (for those who care to listen) which reinforces my own natural shyness and horrible self-esteem.

For the record, the last woman I was really attracted to wasn't considered "hot" by our mutual acquaintances. She was relatively small, a bit chubby, rarely wore make-up or cutesy/sexy clothes, wore relatively thick glasses. Not very feminine in fact. But she was strong and smart, and I liked that a lot. As I got to know her better, I learned she had a boyfriend, a good guy, smart, respectful, who was studying to be a doctor. As soon as I learned that, I dropped thinking of saying anything about my attraction to her, repressed it and kept being her friend, because I genuinely like her, I preferred being "just" her friend and not having her around. They're now married, they have a kid. I still consider her a friend and I wish her to have a happy life with her husband. I think they make a nice couple.

So this is me. I don't like talking of things personal like that, but you made some vile accusations about me, and I felt I had to respond.
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:33 pm

Freemage wrote:
Kchoze wrote:
Freemage wrote:You ducked Lia's point about the difference between 'rape' being a privilege and 'not having to worry about rape' being a privilege.

Privilege, Kchoze, is like those spiked bats I described. Remember how I explicitly mentioned that most of the women never, ever used them in a threatening fashion? Yeah, that's privilege. It has nothing to do with your personal code of conduct; it's got everything to do with the fact that the women you encounter have no way of knowing whether or not you're the type to swing that bat. Privilege is a weapon you cannot put down.


I ducked nothing. Privilege is an unearned advantage that one benefits from. Not having to worry about being raped (though men are raped, at much lower rates than women, so it's not true to say that men don't have to worry about it, especially if they are ever in jail, men are just taught not to let their fears show) is not a privilege. It is what everyone should expect from society. It is a right, the right to safety, that many women feel deprived of because of the prevalence of rape. It is terrible, it is unacceptable... but it isn't male "privilege" in no way, shape or form.

I think I've explained at length why this twisted reasoning that "the disadvantages women may have are actually male privilege of not having these disadvantages" is wrong, that I reject it completely and entirely.


You've explained that you feel that way and reject it, yes. I've seen scant rationales behind that position, however, so I dispute that you've explained at length WHY you feel that way.


What I wrote:

"Patriarchy" is the problem... but patriarchy means the rule by fathers, and, by extension, of men. That means that there is a problem with men having power, which means that men are somehow untrustworthy to have power and to exercise it. Basically, that they are morally inferior beings. You can say "but what is meant is that the problem is men having exclusive power, that it should be shared" but then why not say the problem is that women need to have more power instead of saying that the problem is that men have power?

"Privilege", again. You take situations that disadvantage women, and instead say that it's not a problem that women have, it's a privilege that men have (of not dealing with that problem)... But by doing that, you basically erase the men's point of view from the equation. You define for them their existence and declare that they are privileged, no matter what their point of view, what their living existence is. I say that the use of "male privilege" itself denies that men can have anything to complain about.


Dictionary definitions can be useful, but often, they ignore, for the sake of objectivity, the connotations words have. Privilege is a loaded words. How many revolutions caused by "privileges"?

Privilege originates from the latin, privata lex, meaning "private law". It applied most famously to the rights reserved by law to the nobility and clergy during the Middle Ages. The abolition of privileges was a main demand behind the French Revolution. Saying that someone has "privileges" or is "privileged" automatically directly hints at the fact that they are to be scorned, that they deserve no sympathy, it directly evokes the nobles of feudal societies who lorded over the rest of the people, and all the baggage that comes with it.

Here is a well-thought out text about why "privilege" is not useful, that I found a few months back and that I agree with:

“Shut Up, Rich Boy”: The Problem With “Privilege.”
Posted on July 5, 2011 by Holly Pervocracy
I’m a feminist writer, but I don’t like to use the word “privilege” in my writing. Here’s why not:

1) It’s antagonistic.

I know, I know, it’s not supposed to be. Everyone is supposed to recognize their privilege and go “oh, okay, I checked my privilege, I’m good now.” Privilege, as generally defined in feminist circles, is something you’re born with, and therefore something you can’t be blamed for.

But frequently, “privileged” is used as an insult. Or it feels that way when it lands–and as we’re fond of saying in feminist circles, “intent is not fucking magic.” Telling someone that they’re privileged sounds a lot like “shut up, rich boy,” and the fact that it wasn’t intended to mean this doesn’t make it sting any less.

Of course oppressed people (or any people!) are under no obligation to make nicey-nice to others, especially in spaces they consider their own, but if your goal is to Make Friends And Influence People, then a little bit of self-tone-policing is in order. And that includes not using a phrase that sounds like a rude dismissal to anybody who doesn’t speak Feministese.

2) It’s misleading.

About that “shut up, rich boy.” Very often, someone who’s been called “privileged” in a feminist discussion will retort that they’re shit poor, they work a shit job and live in a shit house eating shit food, and they sure don’t feel like they have a lot of privileges. And besides, they don’t hate or discriminate against this group they’re supposedly “privileged” over.

At this point in the conversation, the feminists are obliged to explain that “privileged” doesn’t mean your life is guaranteed awesome, just that there are certain things that a white male doesn’t have to worry about that other groups can, and it doesn’t mean that you’re deliberately causing oppression, but you’re sort of a participant in oppression, or you’re sort of benefiting from oppression, and you just didn’t understand exactly what “privilege” means.

Any word that requires this much explaining to not be insulting and untrue is not an awesome word. It shouldn’t take three pages and a bibliography to explain why you didn’t just say “shut up, rich boy” to someone who’s actually quite poor.

3) It silences people.

This one is often intentional. “Your opinion is coming from a place of privilege” really does mean “shut up.” It means “shut up” on the basis of the speaker’s ethnicity and sexuality and other things beyond their control. I’m not okay with that.

It’s okay to tell someone “your opinion is wrong because you aren’t accounting for how difficult it is to face [oppression], possibly because you don’t encounter it in your daily life the way [oppressed group] do.” This is a sensible statement. But it cannot be shortened to “you think that because of your privilege.”

4) It ignores oppressions against “privileged” groups.

This is where things get relevant to Teh Menz.

Where the word “privilege” is used, it’s generally assumed that a rich, straight, white, male, cisgendered, able-bodied, educated, full citizen of the country they live in is the most privileged person out there, and all other people are less privileged on the basis of how far they are from this model. So a rich straight white female cisgendered able-bodied citizen is still pretty privileged, and a rich straight black female cisgendered able-bodied citizen is a bit less privileged, and so on.

The problem with this little hierarchy of oppression is that there are certain problems–society-wide, deeply ingrained problems, and not trivial ones–that “more privileged” groups have and “less privileged” groups don’t.

When I was a little girl, I could hug and kiss my friends, hold their hands and share a bed with them. Because I was female, I didn’t have to worry that I would be bullied or physically attacked for showing nonsexual affection to kids of the same gender. Little boys are not so lucky–by middle school at the oldest, boys are socially forbidden any physical closeness more intimate than a backslappy bro-hug.

According to “privilege” doctrine, there can be no such thing as “female privilege”–men are always more privileged. And in fact I am uncomfortable calling this “female privilege,” because there are other problems that little girls have and boys don’t. (As a child, I was constantly in trouble for not being “ladylike.”) But it’s not right to just gloss over it either.

I think the only language solution is to write out long-form what you mean–”girls get to do some things boys can’t, and that sucks, and boys get to do some things girls can’t, and that sucks.”

In our society both men and women deal with unfair shit, and characterizing this all as unidirectional “privilege” oversimplifies the problem, antagonizes potential allies, and marginalizes nominally “privileged” people who still experience oppression.
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], dare and 5 guests