Quote from: Seshatneferw on July 12, 2008, 06:51:10 AM
Quote from: whatsername on July 11, 2008, 08:56:40 PM
But we shouldn't change that. If they want to be allies, they need to come to terms with that reaction, figure out why they're having it, understand the root cause, and get over it. That's a huge part of being an ally to any group, and I've been on the other side (hey, I am on this board!) so I sympathize, but...yah.
Well, yes. Coming from an environment where one has male privilege into one where one lacks female privilege is something one should deal with -- and also something that could well be a pretty good learning experience. Still, while that's truth, it's not the whole truth. Feminism has issues with its image, and not just among men.
A part of it is because feminism is a large and diverse family of movements, and some of those who represent themselves as feminists are extreme in their opinions. This is not unique to feminism, of course: nowadays in most of the Western world it is pretty easy to hear Islam and think of jihadic terrorism, or in some queer circles to hear Christian and think of the likes of Fred Phelps, or in the US to hear socialism and think of the late Soviet Union. Similarly, it's too easy for an outsider to see the the extreme radical feminists as representing the whole of feminism.
Another problem is the one the original article wrote about: male privilege is not simply a privilege in the sense that one has the option of enjoying it. If you have it you are expected to use it, and if you don't you are seen as a lesser man (something I used to be afraid of for reasons that should be obvious here). Similarly, coming out as a feminist is easily seen as treason against being male.
It is of course not clear how much this is a problem for feminism. I personally think it makes it harder to achieve equality of the genders.
Nfr
A nice thoughtful post, Nfr, as per your usual. So, I'll change that tenor, or alto, and try to add some unthinking badness to the thread which should come as a surprise to no one who's read here for awhile.
So, don't all "isms," particularly those that hope to define a "new order" have those basic problems? It seems to me the tendency is to over-reach on a consistent basis and to try to distill difficulty to one or a very few "problems" that require changing. Women began in the 1960s and 1970s with the problem the women forming those initial consciousness-raising groups perceived.
They saw that they had college-dgrees and were still stifling in the house, raising children and caring for the household. Of course, not all women were doing that at all. Just from the pov of the founders of second-wave that was the basic problem. Here they were fairly wealthy, well-educated house servants and nannies. They deserved better. So, what was the problem.
Obviously the problem was the one they defined as putting them in that position. They had all the secondary social and cultural privileges associated with a good American life at that time. The one thing they didn't have "beneath" them or on a level with them was their husbands, fathers, brothers.
The problem, thus, became patriarchy. (Go find a definition if someone needs to, I'm not going to give one.)
But, by 1974 the Combahee Collective was positioning themselves in a slightly different attitude: one that said "the difficulty for Black women isn't Patriarchy, or not just, it's also racial privilege that our sisters don't see because they are part and parcel of that privilege. About the same time another noticeably absent and different and discouraged group of women, lesbians, also noticed that the movement was openly dismissing them, worried that their lives would somehow undermine the righteousness of the founding classes of women. By the late 1970s trans-women had discovered the same thing as we were roundly whipped from the movement by the Mary Dalys, Janice Raymonds, Germaine Greers & Andrea Dworkins as being agents of the Patriarchy.
The question in all of this remains, or so it seems to me. Are human lives & experiences so simple that one "archy" manages to keep us all in check? Well, my thought is "no, that's just absurd." There must be a conglomeration of various, interlocking dominations that subordinate in various, interlocking ways, to some degree most, if not all, of us.
Yet, it also seems to me that there is at least one kernel of this blog and its commentaries that is true, and real. That to recognize one's privilege is both uncomfortable
and defensive-making. But, it can also be liberating and exciting in many ways if we embrace the fact that most of us, if not all, benefit in some ways that others don't. A sort of inter-being of subordination and domination that perhaps, if one is really and truly vested in maintaining dominance of some sort, could be degreed and graphed to include everyone.
I think the difficulty with feminism, very often, is that we as women fail to be aware of those gradations of dominion and subordination. It's so much easier and less embarrassing to focus on the unequal relationships between males anf females and and un- or multi-gendered people. We ignore to our comfort a lot of privilege we do embody simply beacuse we'd rather be put-upon than be putting-upon.
Thus, it seems to me that th basic point that males have to recognize their privilege, cissexuals need to recognize their privilege, and transsexuals need to recognize their privilege in order to be allies to other groups where they are not subordinates.
As a woman with a trans-history I have found that to be extremely difficult. I've had to recognize the male-privilege, the caucasian and middle-class privileges I was trained to. And, even while feeling often on the outside of those privileges or alienated from them I've had to own that they were there.
As a "passing" trans-woman I have to own a certain privilege vis-a-vis "non-passing" trans-people and vis-a-vis other queer folk who may not be as comfortably ensconced in the minds of cissexuals as "just like us." At the same time I have had and have internalized such things as education, a certain standard-of-living, a nationality, a regionalism etc, etc. All of those items are both, in some ways, privileged and not-privileged.
To join-with is not my core problem. My core problem is being able to feel uncomfortable and defensive about the privilege I have and have had and to feel offensive and righteous about the subordinations I have and have had vis-a-vis people I wish to join-with.
So, no, I think there is no one privilege. There are many and there are enough that we can all partake of at least one. I find that to be the biggest difficulty that all of us have in uniting with others: the discomfort of recognizng that I have advantages even in my disadvantages. The system, more like the conglomeration, brings a number of different privileges and subordinations to us all. To focus on simply my subordinations is to make an attempt, failed and futile, to hold myself completely innocent of having any advantages whatsoever.
Nichole
