I love the blogosphere, particularly the lefty and feminist ones. It helped me survive the adjustment to my new (very conservative) region over the past 6 years. It gave me a sense of community when I didn't have any in my real life and has provided me invaluable information that I used to be able to find by picking up the free anarchist newspapers at one of my local coffee shops.
But it can really grate on my nerves sometimes too - the biggest problem being, in my eyes, a sense of self-righteousness.
Because we (yes, I include myself. I would be dishonest if I didn't) like to jump on anyone who displays a trait we don't like, any of the litany of anti-justice traits that constitute judging someone by a condition of their selves that is inherent to that person, but we rarely - if ever - admit to an anti-justice trait ourselves.
In other words, we point out the flaws in other people but rarely examine publicly our own.
Perhaps it is because it resembles navel-gazing. Perhaps because publicizing our own flaws can be so difficult. Perhaps because it can seem like - and come across as - pride rather than humble self-examination.
But we are hurting ourselves and the causes we care about by refraining from it.
Because who recognizes a racist better than another racist? Who can call out a sizist better than another sizist? Who can get to the root of the absurd fear of a homophobe better than another homophobe? And what better method do we have to convince others that they are flawed than to admit that we ourselves are really no better? When we can stand up and say, "I am the same way as you. I think the same things that you do. I am not attacking you for it but instead trying to show you that we don't have to be this way," we will begin to win people over. When we take the sting out of these supposed insults (as suggested in the comments) by calling ourselves the same words, perhaps we can better bridge the gaps.
The epitome of privilege is being able to dodge these words with claims of innocent intent and ignorance - and with pointing our fingers at others rather than taking a hard look at ourselves.
So I admit it: I'm racist. Listening to an expert on the radio one day, I was amazed to learn that she was African-American and even more amazed (and distressed) to discover that I couldn't hold the concepts of "expert" and "African-American" as two traits of one person in my mind. Plenty of my friends are from other countries and are other ethnicities but they all have pale skin in common; I become maddeningly awkward around anyone with dark skin.
I'm sexist .
I'm ableist. I'm addicted to the use of the word "retard" to describe a bad situation. I once had a conversation with a man in a wheelchair about soccer in which I obliviously went on and on about how much I liked to play it while he, after saying once that he didn't really like it and motioning towards his legs, listened patiently.
I make jokes about bad language to friends who are not native English speakers, and mock their spelling. I find it hard to imagine myself living in one of the areas of my town with large Latina/o, black, or lower income populations, even though they are actually nice areas. I watch VH1 reality t.v. and make fun of women who strip for a living because it's the best income they can get at their education level.
And I know I'm not the only one.
But we are often so intently vilifying someone else for their bad behavior, we don't turn that critical eye on ourselves. Or, if we do, we don't admit to it. Or when we do, we become so defensive that any progress is lost in a sea of clutched pearls .
Consider this my first attempt at admission.
(Cross-posted at What If )
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: I Am A Racist, Sexist, Ableist, Sizist, Homophobe, Heterosexist, etc....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14515
Ok, I'm on board with this.
I still have some issues with the phrasing but I think you've hit on something and I think it's a really good post.
Interesting that there are no comments. I guess people don't like to be challenged...
What part of my phrasing do you take issue with? (I'm not asking defensively but honestly curious. :))
No probs, I guess my first thought when you asked "who recognizes a racist better than another racist? " was probably a person who suffers under racism.
I think your point is valid and is a good way to think about it. I also think that this whole conversation is from privileged people to other privileged people and definitely reflects that.
Absolutely. That is a very good point.
I really dislike the idea that there are the oppressed and the oppressors and that's it. The vast majority of people on this earth wield some sort of privilege and are in some way oppressed. This conversation hopefully reflects that it is between people struggling with their brainwashing to believe that one group is superior to another. I had a sexist thought the other day (that I found the 100 hottest butches to be very empowering... but was it because they were masculine/andro? was I simply empowered by the thought that women could be 'like men'(or somethign?), rather than 'who they are'? would I have felt as empowered by femmes? I don't know... I don't think so. Which lead me to realize that I associate masculinity with power, but much less so femininity) and I'm supposedly on the oppressed side of that equation.
I really dislike when people on this site throw around the old "well you and your privilege.." like its some handbag that they are showing off. It's not constructive, its the sibling of the oppression olympics.
Men = power is a belief that you're oppressed by, not privileged by. It's not sexist when a woman believes such a thing, because there's no power in that belief from her. She gains nothing from it. In fact, she hurts from it. It's like being afraid of the guy walking behind you as you walk down the street alone late at night, because you're afraid he might rape you. It's not sexist to think that the guy is a rapist, even though most guys aren't rapists. The fact that most rape victims are women is reason enough to be afraid of strange guys on the street. You have no power over him for holding that belief. You can't afford not to think that guy might be a rapist, lest you become his victim. Being hypervigilant of him is healthy paranoia, or a defense mechanism oppressed people use to protect themselves from discrimination. Your fear of him gives him power over you. The guy has control over your thoughts, which means he can basically do whatever he wants. He has that privilege. You don't.
“It's not sexist when a woman believes such a thing, because there's no power in that belief from her.”
I don’t think that being sexist implies that one gains power from it. Woman can be sexist, (internalized sexism) and some do in fact benefit from it, though certainly not as much as men. The system rewards people, all people, for supporting it.
**being sexist doesn't imply that one gains class power from it, I meant.
Sorry, BackOfBusEleven but I have to take issue with that.
I've been on a University campus late at night and had women look at me like I'm a potential rapist. I have rarely felt more like a monster than I did at those moments. Being villified like that is in no way pleasant.
Being feared is not a position of power. Rather it keeps you socially and emotionally isolated. Being able to be trusted is a valuable commodity, one which I (and I would suggest Mary Shelley*) value above physical power or the ability to instill fear.
*Frankenstein's monster is extremely large and strong, but he can never get close to anyone because they all fear him on sight. The only time he comes close to the love and affection he desires is when he is able to help a blind man. Yet when the blind man's family describe the monster's appearance, even he cannot judge him on his deeds alone. In time the monster becomes so hateful of his isolated existance that he turns to violence to take revenge on his creator - whom he blames for gaoling him in that existance.
At the risk of sounding insensitive, I know it sucks to have people assume that you're a rapist or potential rapist, but it sucks a hell of a lot more to be person who has to make these assumptions. You say that being trusted is a valuable commodity, and it is, but how are women to trust men they do not know in the middle of the night when women know that that trust may cost them their lives or sanity? Or, that trust in one man may lead to a whole host of men (potentially male judges, lawyers, jury members, members of the media) NOT trusting their account of why they were out and about at 2 AM, in the instance that the woman was raped and pressed charges? Believe me, women don't want to have to assume that all men they walk by in the middle of the night are rapists. It's not fun for us either.
I know it sucks for everyone.
While vigilance is healthy fear and paranoia are not. Looking at someone like a caged animal I think is indicative of an unhealthy state of mind.
By analogy, when I drive my car I know that if I fail to pay attention then I could end up in an accident that could ruin or end my life. That accident could be my fault, or it could be someone else's that I just don't react to in time. This is a real possibility. Vigilance is required. However, if I become fearful of this scenario then driving becomes an ordeal. A friend of mine actually developed this exact paranoia and her life became much more difficult as a result. The lives of those around her, particularly her husband, also became more stressful as a result.
There are no easy answers here. I guess I just wanted to bring attention that the idea that fear in others is a normal desirable state for men is a myth.
At the risk of sounding insensitive, I know it sucks to have people assume that you're a rapist or potential rapist, but it sucks a hell of a lot more to be person who has to make these assumptions. You say that being trusted is a valuable commodity, and it is, but how are women to trust men they do not know in the middle of the night when women know that that trust may cost them their lives or sanity? Or, that trust in one man may lead to a whole host of men (potentially male judges, lawyers, jury members, members of the media) NOT trusting their account of why they were out and about at 2 AM, in the instance that the woman was raped and pressed charges? Believe me, women don't want to have to assume that all men they walk by in the middle of the night are rapists. It's not fun for us either.
My experience has been that when I discuss possible racist/sexist/etc motivations for certain actions I've done, I'm immediately attacked for being a racist/whatever. Maybe I am racist/whatever (oh hell, here it comes), but the attacks don't help me work through my behavior, so why bring them on?
I think part of the problem may be the perception of what is or isn't an attack. People with privilege tend to perceive any questioning of their privilege as an attack.
But I also don't know which side of the privilege equation you tend to fall on...
When someone says "so you admit you were being racist!" well, that sounds like an attack to me. I'm not looking for a cookie for examining my racist tendencies, but a lack a attacks would be appreciated.
Ah, I see what you're saying now. And I agree. :)
Wax-ghost: While I agree that self-righteousness is not the best way to win people over (us lefties are just as peeved when the conservatives proselytize with better-than-thou attitudes), I think there may be a major flaw with your argument.
I feel like there is a difference in saying that you are a sexist, homophobe, etc., and saying that you have occasional sexist, homophobic, etc. behaviors. Yes, it is semantics, but semantics make a difference in identity politics.
Also, when talking to conservatives, it's never a good tactic to also call them racist/sexist/etc. to their face. It's a much better tactic to say "Hey, I'm not sure if you know this, but what you just did/said is sorta ablist" or something along those lines. Thus, you are not attacking the person themselves, but their actions. This also helps diffuse the "but you're a sexist too" type of argument (which is a fallacy in itself, but that's another topic).
You are not the only one out there that participates in the behavior you speak of. Both in and outside of progressive communities, you can easily hear things like "that's retarded" or people talking down on sex workers. However, I think that if we want others to stop participating in harmful behaviors, we should strive to watch our own language and behavior and hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Yes, it's hardest to hold ourselves accountable, and I do commend you for publicly holding yourself accountable for your behaviors, but I would hope that as a progressive, you'll actively make an effort to change those things about yourself. I think we often don't hold ourselves up to this kind of scrutiny in public is because we do it in private.
What good is it to attack ourselves publicly when the other side isn't doing the same? I wish we could all stand up and confess our bad traits and behaviors and then everyone goes around hugging each other, but that's what progressives tend to do anyway, while anti-justice folks continue to sling slurs, damage our self-esteem, and generally take advantage of our supposed "weakness."
I, just as you do, think that we need to constantly check ourselves on our own anti-justice behavior. If we didn't, how would we ever change, or expect others to listen to us when we ask for change? However, I feel like doing so publicly (at least without the promise of working on trying to stop your behaviors) is just self-defeating and ultimately harmful to the community.
RiSK, thanks for your response. :)
To me, there is no distinction between being anti-justice and acting anti-justice, since they both end with the same result of denying the full humanity of other human beings. It isn't semantics at all to me but an example of the gymnastics that privileged people will do to avoid having to admit that they benefit in ways that other people don't get to.
I also don't agree, for this same reason, that longer sentences necessarily help when trying to enlighten people. In my experience, you can say it every possible way and they will still not admit that they have done anything wrong because they feel like they are being attacked and are too busy defending themselves to take an honest look at their own actions and beliefs.
I find it interesting, too, that you seem to assume that I don't attempt to be a better person, as if admitting the ways in which I am wrong is somehow glorifying in them. That's not how it is at all; I admit these things grudgingly, not because I am proud of them (I'm not at all!) but because it is such a lie for me to constantly point my finger at other people and never at myself.
"What good is it to attack ourselves publicly when the other side isn't doing the same?" It's a matter of being true to one's self and one's beliefs. "The other side" doesn't do this because they don't believe in it, but what a sad world this would be if we never engaged in any good behavior without other people engaging in it as well. Perhaps by holding up a mirror to our own faces, they will catch a glimpse in it as well and be able to begin the journey that you and I have already started.
Finally, we can say all we want that we are trying to be better people but that doesn't mean it's true. Due to a long and awful history with them, I am incredibly wary of people who only say they are going to improve their own thoughts. I want proof. And if airing my own ugly laundry is what I have to do to prove to others that I am honestly trying to improve myself for their sake - as I always say I am going to do - I'm going to do it.
"I find it interesting, too, that you seem to assume that I don't attempt to be a better person, as if admitting the ways in which I am wrong is somehow glorifying in them."
I think it was a problem with the way in which you admitted these things. Overall I agree with the message of your post and I think that everyone needs to examine their behaviors and beliefs and recognize the things that they're doing wrong. But I personally don't think that means we should go around broadcasting all of the offensive things we think or do. I don't know if it was just something in the tone of your post, but when you so matter of factly and almost flippantly say that you're awkward around people with dark skin or you're addicted to the word retard it can rub people the wrong way. Especially if you don't go on to give any sort of discussion of why you think or do these things or how you want to go about changing.
That's understandable. But I thought about all of that before I wrote this and made some very purposeful choices.
I feel like the constant "not that I am proud of myself or think it's okay" disclaimers on liberal blogs sound defensive, privileged, and foolish. Obviously on some level I do think it is okay because I do it, and that is part of the problem. Obviously, on another level, I actually think about these things because otherwise, I wouldn't be writing about them, so why I do I need to say it?
Also, that would make for a very long and self-centered (which I mean in a neutral sense of the word) blogpost. But it isn't all about me; it's in a large part about a general inability to be publicly honest about what we privately engage in. Plus, as beckeck06 says below, it's a life-long process and I feel like it would make more sense to write a continuous series posts in the future that are intentionally self-centered that do go into that kind of detail than to write just one right off the bat. It's just the way I blog. :)
What good is it to attack ourselves publicly when the other side isn't doing the same?
To be honest, I think this type of thinking is a huge part of the problem. I get the impression that quite a few people tend to think that well, they can't be racist/sexist/ableist/etc. because they're progressive! Or feminist! Or some such. But in reality anyone can be an -ist (or have -ist behaviours, whichever you prefer). And people thinking that because they are a [feminist/etc.] they are above criticism in all other areas and anyone who calls them out must be wrong is a huge, huge, huge problem. (I'm not sure I've ever seen an anti-racist discussion that wasn't in specifically anti-racist spaces without this happening, for one.)
Because in reality? There are no two sides, no "us" and "them". There are just a bunch of people who are more or less pro-justice in different amounts on different issues. And I don't care how wonderful and pro-justice someone is in other areas, if they are anti-justice on an issue where I am a minority person and refuse to face up to that, they are not on my side.
What you don't get is that you are the anti-justice folks. When you use ablist/sexist and racist language you are insulting and othering those people and making their life worse. Even when they are not around, you are contributing to a culture which punishes them for being different. It is not a victimless crime. And you don't get a pass because you're 'on the right side'.
You see this as a competition between liberals and conservatives. (What good is it to attack ourselves publicly when the other side isn't doing the same?.) It's not. The other side of privileged people with problematic behavior is oppressed people suffering from that behavior, not other privileged people with problematic behavior.
On feministing continous arguments and tension have broken out over this issue. And this is a 'public forum'. So should we ban posts that criticise the feminist majority, stop minority posters calling people out on problematic statements, just to protect the 'mass' from external criticism? If Fox news started reading this blog, I guess you would support the silencing of whole swathes of other marginalized groups and their opinions.
That's basically the sum of your argument. By admitting that feminists aren't perfect, the crazy conservatives win. The solution is then to hide these flaws so I guess the only people who lose are oppressed groups who wrongly assume feminism to be inclusive and intersectional.
I feel like there is a difference in saying that you are a sexist, homophobe, etc., and saying that you have occasional sexist, homophobic, etc. behaviors. Yes, it is semantics, but semantics make a difference in identity politics.
Oh please, way to own your own privilege./sarcasm So what do you consider being a racist? I guess if someone occasionally calls me the n-word. As long as they only do it occasionally, they're not a racist. Someone occasionally beats up a black person, they're not a racist. Occasionally discriminates in employment? Why don't you explain to me what a real racist looks like if they aren't someone who has 'racist behaviors'? Wears white hoods? Has a skinhead?
This is awesome: someone who's only raped once (on occasion, right!) is not a mysogynist. They've only displayed mysogynistic behavior.
One of the best tricks to protect privilege is to raise the bar for 'legitimate oppression' so high that it can never be reached. Your comment/behavior can be hurtful, it can even be based on wrong beliefs, but unless you are some snarling classist stereotype of a snarling maniac, basically a living breathing internet troll, you can go unchallenged. And so called feminists will not challenge you because then they'd have to challenge their own behavior and no one is willing to do that.
Yes, this.
Oh please, way to own your own privilege./sarcasm So what do you consider being a racist? I guess if someone occasionally calls me the n-word. As long as they only do it occasionally, they're not a racist. Someone occasionally beats up a black person, they're not a racist. Occasionally discriminates in employment? Why don't you explain to me what a real racist looks like if they aren't someone who has 'racist behaviors'? Wears white hoods? Has a skinhead?
This is awesome: someone who's only raped once (on occasion, right!) is not a mysogynist. They've only displayed mysogynistic behavior.
One of the best tricks to protect privilege is to raise the bar for 'legitimate oppression' so high that it can never be reached. Your comment/behavior can be hurtful, it can even be based on wrong beliefs, but unless you are some snarling classist stereotype of a snarling maniac, basically a living breathing internet troll, you can go unchallenged. And so called feminists will not challenge you because then they'd have to challenge their own behavior and no one is willing to do that.
Pololly,
One, I apologize if my comments made you think I was defending this sort of behavior, which was not my intention.
I'm was not trying to excuse this behavior in any way, shape, or form. What I was trying to say (perhaps ineffectively) was:
1) Yes, we do need to CONSTANTLY monitor ourselves and our community for anti-justice opinions, statements, etc.
2) I FELT (I have since have changed my mind) that we shouldn't criticize our own communities as much in public spaces . But you're right, I wouldn't want sweeping bans of negative comments, so I completely retract that point and apologize. You're totally right, and sometimes I think that since this acts as an online community, we wouldn't have to worry about Fox news coming onto these boards, they wouldn't.
3) What I was saying about the rhetoric of calling someone racist is that it often puts the offending party on the defense, which often leads to them shutting down and not being able to think rationally. The truth of it is that anyone who says something racist IS racist, I agree with you on that. However, confronting everyone and calling them "racist" isn't always the best option, in my personal experiences. Saying something more like "excuse me, but I found that statement you made to be racist and offensive" generally works a bit better, as you're attacking the statement, not the person. My comments were meant to address the way in which we might actively address the situation, as opposed to addressing the actual nature of the person.
You guys fashioning yourselves these hair shirts is the ultimate form of self-righteousness. It's like some kind've liberaler-than-thou contest, so you can feel better about yourselves.
Ha ha, so? Your disdain for what you perceive as my inferiority is your own way of feeling better about yourself. Which is a worse way to improve your own self-esteem?
Dude, when did I say you were inferior? Try not reading into stuff so much.
Dude, you didn't have to say it. The condescending attitude was apparent. Try not acting like your words are so innocent.
Hold up. Wax was definitely saying that the point of this is to be able to confront what these terms mean, and change them. If you cannot use the word ‘---ist’ to describe an action, thought, speech, person, how can we show how individual acts systematically ‘oppress’ certain groups? Clearly, we need these words. But as it stands, they are shock value, and we can’t seem to use them to constructive ends. They are words that tend to shut down dialogue rather than open it. I think wax ghost was advocating that we reclaim these words as useful, constructive, descriptive terms. By owning when these words apply to us, it makes the prospect of ‘being a –ist’ much easier to face, without denying that you are also one, and without mulling over the disastrous affect of being one. Of course, of course, of course the goal is to move away from these tendencies. But becoming an ally is a LIFE LONG PROCESS. Seriously. I’m not sure that my own racist tendencies will ever completely go away, but it is our ability to claim responsibility that invests us with the power to change things.
The first commandment is as always gnothi seauton, as the oracle said. All knowledge worth having is at a certain level self knowledge. I think if we are honest with ourselves we will admit that tendencies toward bigotry are part of the human condition. However admitting that certain tendencies exist makes for the diference between having bigoted tendencies and actually being bigoted. I'll admit, when I first started reading this blog I had some very mysoginistic tendencies. However over time and carefull reflection of the evidence presented here they have softened. I still have areas that I do not understand, or that I am unaware of, but the most beautiful thing about an examined life is that it leaves room for self improvement.
I wish I was perfect. I wish there was a ladder of not-being-prejudice that I could climb to the top of and suddenly have every bit of me that was racist, bigoted, sexist, and just plain wrong disapear, but there isn't. Learning that as hard as I try to examine my pre-conceptions I will forever remain a work in progress has helped to keep me humble, and, I would argue, that a reasoned humility is the basis for personal growth.
Thank you.
Thank you, Aner, and well-said. :)
no, thank you, and the folks at feministing for having a forum where I can look at certain things and say "I never thought about it that way before." Also thanks to everyone for having the courtesy for pointing out a different point of view without degenerating into name-calling or finger pointing.
Courtesy is much apreciated because it is so seldom found.
This sounds more like a confession and passing the buck than an attempt to change.
In reality, the very existences of most people are [blank]ist. That's what privilege is -- the positive experiences that dominant groups have because other people are oppressed. As a person who is healthy and able-bodied, I benefit from the ableist society in which we live. So my day-to-day life is ableist, whether or not I say "retard" or "lame." Sure, I take notice of whether or not a place is handicap accessible. When I'm with friends and I walk up or down stairs at a place that has no ramp, I say "These stairs are ableist." Walking up and down those stairs is ableist too. That's something that very few people recognize.
Can you please explain what you mean? I don't think walking up the wheelchair ramp would be non-ableist, but I also feel like saying that is totally missing the point. :)
I would guess they mean that using those facilities when others can't, due to it being inaccessible, is ableist.
Hopefully they'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes. The point is that, if you belong to a dominant group, you just have to live your life to contribute to oppression.
Ah, I see what you mean now.
Yes, it's true that systems of oppression are so much bigger than each of us individually that they work on that level, but I'm interested in what each of us individually can do. And the first thing we can do is stop pretending like we're perfect and innocent, start admitting where we are wrong and flawed, and work toward ameliorating our own privileges as best we can. Otherwise, the whole thing seems totally pointless and I might as well go back to blissful ignorance.
True. Putting a the microscope on ourselves is a start. We do have to admit when we're wrong and be more conscious. It just can't be the only thing. Obviously, we do have to point out offensive language when other people use it. But we have to examine ourselves before doing that, which I think was the point you were making that I didn't really get at first.
Amen!
I can't believe the reaction that this post is getting-- that wax doesn't seem to want to change, that ze speaks flippantly about it, etc etc. I think this is a great post. Admitting that there is a problem is the first step to change. I feel like I echo the tone of this a lot when I talk about race at school, with friends, or when it comes up, and I say that I am white, upperclass. I have become more comfortable calling myself white and upper class, and because of that, I can own what they mean more. I no longer think that criticisms of white people and upper class people maybe don't apply to me. I know that, for the most part, they do. And becoming more comfortable with those labels has helped me leaps and bounds to accept that and hear the wise words of others on the subject. If we cannot name ourselves as white, then white guilt will keep us from examining our racialized reality. I don't think we need to sound apologetic each time we own up to these things because we've been brainwashed to think these ways! and that doesn't absolve us from trying to change them, but it does mean that other people around us have probably also been brainwashed, and our frank admittance makes it much harder for others to hide in the shadows. It's like AA a bit I think. We have a problem that we want to change. We are going to step forward and own up to it. Now.
In a sense, there is only behaviour. As a trans woman I worry about transphobia - but so long as people behave properly towards me, call me by the right pronouns, don't "accidentally" decide to use my old name, don't discriminate against me in any situation..... They can find what I do totally offensive, if they like, but if they don't say so, and they treat me properly - I can live with it.
Absolutely. That's why I find it so ridiculous to say one person "acts" transphobic but the other person "is" transphobic. Plus, if I "act" a certain way, doesn't that mean that I "am" that way?
When you think about it, the whole focus on intention is a very, very privileged standpoint. It looks at the issue from the point of view of the offender ("but I didn't *mean* it like that!"), makes it all about them and their individual opinions and pretty much ignores things like context, like the effect their behaviour has on the oppressed party - which should be the most important part. If you step on my foot, I don't particularly care whether you did it deliberately or just weren't looking or were honestly trying not to step on me except that I moved my foot directly in your way - I want you to get off my damn foot.
More realistically, both intention and effect are important. While in either case of your example your desire to have the person off your foot may be identical, your overall reaction isn't going to be.
The thinking versus acting distinction is important, though. I'm racist, just like everyone else here, and everyone else I'll ever meet in my life. We don't (by and large) reduce racism (sexism, whatever) by changing how we think/feel, but recognising that it's ethically wrong, changing how we act, how we instruct children, and so forth. Our parents teach us to be less racist than they are (as a generalisation), just as their parents taught them to be less racist than they were (as a generalisation, highly age dependent and context dependent; since the modern "Racism is bad" ethic shows up around 1945, this does depend on your age/parents' age/grandparents' age) and we go forwardly (one might argue this is too slow, but it has the advantage of actually working). Asking me (or anyone else) to fix my racist thoughts is impossible (though some reduction may be possible). Asking me (or anyone else) to fix their actions is actually fairly effective.
Funnily enough, this is actually how we usually do things in science too. Often you never convince proponents of alternate theories that they're wrong and you're right, you just convince every last graduate student, and wait for the previous generations to retire.
One of my favorite (ex-)bloggers, Thinking Girl, wrote a post on this subject in 2007.
I agree with her contention that white people cannot escape the white supremacy so ingrained in our society, and would extend it: some PoC, like myself, struggle with the same (anti-PoC) racist mentality as whites.
i understand what the intended point of this post is supposed to be and i completely agree that people should be transparent about how their principles don't always match up with their behavior.
i guess it was just that reading the post made me intensely uncomfortable. it felt really gross to read about the different ways that you practice your privilege, especially when it was written in such a nonchalant crude way.
now im not saying that its necessarily bad or good, but that it made me really uncomfortable.
that beign said, i think it is important for people to recognize their own privileges, oppressions, and the complicated relationship between the two...and to be open about them. i also think that when doing so, we need to think "am i doing this so i look like a good social justice activist, or am i doing this because i want to create a sense of transparency that will allow for more equal power relations in this situation?" you know what i mean? i think a lot of people will admit their privileges and then stop there. that's it. but it takes more than that.
i like where this started but i feel like it ended too abruptly - like a confession. i would love if you could do a follow-up post about how these behaviors are influenced by your various privileges/oppressions and maybe push it a bit further to how you can change these behaviors. it would be so useful, i think, for me and for a lot of other people who participate in problematic thinking or behaviors (ie. everyone)
I humbly apologize for making you uncomfortable, fatima.
That's a very good idea, though. I have been thinking about that, about what the next step in this is and how to deal with that, so I really appreciate your suggestion, and hopefully I will have something soon.
Co-fucking-signed. This is a major battle for me as well. Will be reading your blog.
Really interesting post, Wax. Your tone did make me uncomfortable, but it is thought-provoking. I agree with BackUpBusEleven: your existence is exercising privilege. My existence exercises privilege too - I am young, able-bodied, American, a cis-woman, in a male/female relationship (I am bisexual), and grew up middle class: those are all relatively privileged positions in society. We should all try to recognize and own our respective privileges, so I do appreciate your confession. But admission of various prejudices without any dialogue about how these behaviors developed or how your behaviors are reinforced/perpetuated is problematic because it is not enough. We all have some prejudices that may or may not trouble us, but merely admitting that they exist doesn't positively affect our behavior or our environment. I'd love to see a follow-up post that explores this more.
Hmm, well, I'm not really sure what else I could say that hasn't already been said by many other people who are much smarter and/or have thought about this a lot more than I have.
I strongly disagree that admitting our own prejudices doesn't have any positive impact. It is the first step - the essential step - toward truly living a life of justice for everyone. If we can't face our own demons, we can't eradicate them either.