This is crossposted at my new blog, The Feminist Agenda. I finally decided that instead of constantly posting on Feministing, I should just start my own. Finally.
Many of the responses from male commenters on the orgasm gap post got me thinking about privilege in a new way. Generally we talk about being aware of your privilege because it will help you be a better listener and ally, it will make you more sensitive to the life conditions of those who were born into a different demographic than you were, and it will help you fight the inequities that are built into our social institutions. Generally we think of privilege as an unearned advantage, and when people won't acknowledge their privilege and adjust their worldview and behavior accordingly, it becomes a character flaw that causes us to question their commitment to social justice.
However, now it occurs to me that privilege can work as a handicap in some situations. For instance, many of the male commenters on feminist blogs seem to have good intentions. Many of them seem to be legitimately interested in the topic at hand and curious about the feminist perspective. But often the discussion will hit the roadblock of their privilege, in that their ability to engage in constructive dialogue is severely restricted by the way they've been socialized. Constructive dialogue requires that the participants carefully and thoughtfully listen to each other before responding. In my experience, this is something that men in a patriarchal culture have generally not been socialized to do, especially if the other speaker comes from a marginalized group. Because male (white, heterosexual) voices are so often privileged in our culture, most men have acquired very poor habits that prevent them from truly participating in fruitful discourse without undergoing some profound changes in their attitude and approach to dialogue. It's like they need "participatory discourse rehabilitation" or something (maybe I'll patent the term and build up a giant marketing machine around PDR). The question is, how do you point this out to a well-meaning man without making him feel like he's under attack? After all, the fact that he was socialized this way really isn't his fault. But the way he chooses to conduct himself now is his responsibility.
This also offers an answer to the perennial question of feminist mothers with little boys: how do we raise our boys to be feminists in this cultural context? One answer is "teach them how to really listen." It's a place to start anyway.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: When Privilege is a Handicap.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11942
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
What would an example of this be? I'm having a hard time thinking about it just generally...
Well, I think that not being able to really participate in constructive dialogue (if that's something you're really interested in) because your listening skills are so poor is a handicap. For a lot of men, it's like it's a language they never learned. I see this all the time in classes I teach, where the males will disproportionately interrupt and talk over the female students when the conversation heats up, and then they seem sort of puzzled as to why the female students resent them. It's almost like they really can't hear themselves, so they don't get why the conversation isn't working.
You really should have started a blog earlier. You have almost unprecedented posting stamina.
...and Qwerty wins the prize for the most passive-aggressive comment of the day... congratulations!
Maybe Qwerty is a pacifist-aggressivist.
i'm excited to see you started a blog. your insightful contribution here is worthy of a dedicated space!
Anyway, this is a great topic, one that has really lit up the comments section lately. One reason many people don't recognize their own privilege is because they don't feel it. They don't notice their input is overvalued until suddenly it isn't. Since most feminist websites emphasize women's issues (because well, most of feminism IS women's issues), that privilege-adjustment shock is bound to happen here. It can be pretty disorienting for male feminists (like myself), whose feminists beliefs give us a minority perspective in our own lives (we get the eye-rolling "silly feminist!" dismissals too), to discover we have a minority perspective of a different sort in feminist communities.
This is why it is important for us male feminists to keep one foot in male-oriented feminist communities, so we understand the role of our own point of view in the discussion. We have a role on feministing, a very important role, but not one that should let us repurpose discussions to our perspective, especially at the expensive of constructive dialogue.
Conversely, it's also important for us, the feministing community, to be careful in the ways we address viewpoints we don't share or agree with. We must respond to issues of privilege without being dismissive or divisive. I won't pretend to know how to do it. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
This is why it is important for us male feminists to keep one foot in male-oriented feminist communities, so we understand the role of our own point of view in the discussion. We have a role on feministing, a very important role, but not one that should let us repurpose discussions to our perspective, especially at the expensive of constructive dialogue.
Conversely, it's also important for us, the feministing community, to be careful in the ways we address viewpoints we don't share or agree with. We must respond to issues of privilege without being dismissive or divisive. I won't pretend to know how to do it. Any suggestions?
The first paragraph quoted here explains part (heck, probably most) of the problem: that people on both sides of most debates expect the other side to have the debate on their own terms.
I mean, given that much of feminism deals with the personal and the political being the same thing, that other viewpoints are allowed so long as they're not viewpoints "that should let us repurpose discussions to our perspective" is just silly. And that anyone's perspective (save obvious trolls, etc) would come "at the expensive of constructive dialogue" - well, seriously, that's what anti-feminists say about feminists, too.
That said, the second paragraph quoted indicates the solution: don't be dismissive, etc. (Again, trolls are a wholly different issue.) When someone is speaking from a position of privilege, don't respond by saying "you're just saying that because you have privilege and you don't understand" - explain why you think they have privilege, what you think their error was, etc. Politely, of course. You've got the right idea; by being concerned about it at all, I think that you're on the right track. :D
Yeah, this is a great topic. I know I tend to get snarky and dismissive when I think someone's being willfully ignorant or narrow-minded. I think sometimes it doesn't occur to me that they really haven't been exposed to a wider range of theories or positions on the topic. And at times it's hard to know whether someone is engaging in good faith or just trying to fuck up the thread. I guess where I draw the line is when it's obvious that the other person has not really read the post or comment that s/he is responding to. So if it appears that the person is sincere and well-intentioned, and they're willing to engage in an open and reciprocal way, then I think we should be patient and willing to engage. And that takes a bit of maturity at times...
I think that's a perfectly fair line to draw - if they haven't even read the post/article/etc in question, then it can at least be assumed that they're not particularly interested in an engaging discussion.
This issue, of talking about privilege, had been one of the most difficult in my experience. Men I know who are allies still struggle with seeing their own role in perpetuating privilege. One example: I was co-presenting with a male ally a community workshop on preventing men's violence against women. Audience was generally good, had ideas about local solutions, etc. except one argumentative man in the back. He was addressing me directly with quite harsh commentary, and my co-presenter stepped forward, almost in front of me and addressed the man's questions, ignoring the fact that I was already talking.
Later, my co-presenter apologized after realizing what he had done...in his words he had "taken my power" that was already in question by the heckler. He admitted to still having struggles with seeing how his privilege changes dynamics in a room, messages and actions. This was a difficult conversation to have, even though he was willing to listen.
And congrats on the blog, Rachel, I too, would like to do a shameless promotion of mine: www.femography.blogspot.com I started after becoming a serial-poster here. :-) blog on.
Oh, I'll check it out!
Your experience reminds me of a gender studies class I took which was taught by two professors, male and female. The female professor hardly ever managed to squeeze a word in, which I found to be quite ironic given the subject at hand.
Your experience reminds me of a gender studies class I took which was taught by two professors, male and female. The female professor hardly ever managed to squeeze a word in, which I found to be quite ironic given the subject at hand.
Crap, I keep forgetting it posts things twice if you go back.
I think some of those posters wanted to maintain their ignorance about women. It means something for them for women to be held in a certain inferior position. One of the posters continued to claim (in spite of womens own experiences and science) that men cum quicker and have higher libidos. He tried to disguise it by saying that he understands he has to be patient with women, but his real intent was to maintain her sexuality on a limited level so as not to compete with his own 'natural' male abilities. Its what they want to hear. I also couldnt believe the medical and long disproven inaccuracies the likes of pierce were tossing out. It was ridiculous! He didnt even check them out!I think mothers really need to raise their sons differently. I think thats a big problem.
Mothers and fathers.
Aside from that, I agree with everything you said.
Yes I agree, mothers and fathers. Maybe that was my own bias slipping in? Or maybe I was thinking that because shes a female that she would be the ultimate one to enforce the message? But the father (or other mother/father) plays an important role in reinforcing and respecting her views, so yeah, both parents!