posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigelphoenix at 03:27pm on 16/06/2006 under anti-oppression and the evil *isms
sigelphoenix at 03:27pm on 16/06/2006 under anti-oppression and the evil *ismsYou know what's not okay? This is not okay:
"If you had a racist in your class, would you gently, calmly nudge-nudge-know-what-you-mean slowly try to bring him along, or would you more assertively confront him? I don't think you'd tolerate racism the same way you might be tolerating sexism, Hugo. I think you would, perhaps not rudely, but sternly, set someone straight on race. Why should women be treated differently? Because you think it's still more socially acceptable to be a woman hater?"
And this isn't even the worst of it. At least the implication here is that the OP (Hugo) thinks that sexism is more accepted than racism - not that sexism is more accepted than racism. Often I do see such implications, or even outright statements, on feminist blogs/LJ - that it's easier to be overtly sexist than racist. (I don't know if there's an equivalent trend the other way around, of anti-racists saying that racism is more accepted than sexism, because my blog-reading in that area is limited.) As if it's in any way helpful or productive to build up your own case by dismissing someone else's.
Could people stop comparing oppressions? Seriously. The whole "OMG I'm so much more oppressed than you" schtick gets really tiring, especially for those of us who face both (or all three or four, etc.) and don't like to see either of them minimized.
By the way, this is in response to a recent uproar on this same blog, in which the owner (Hugo) described his conversation with a male student. Here is the original entry, with the debate in the comments, as well as responses from Pandagon, Punkassblog, and Pinko Feminist Hellcat, among others.
The gist of it, if you don't want to wade through all of that, is: Hugo's student is a young man who thinks that feminism hurts his chances of dating women - namely, because women like bad boys and other such bullshit stereotypes, being a feminist man and treating women as equals will not make them attracted to him. As a result, he doubts that he should be a feminist now, when he wants to date women. Hugo's response was diplomatic and full of compromise, and people are taking him to task for not being harsh enough on the student's sexism. I have my own opinion on the matter - don't I always? :P - but that's not the point right now.*
I was just happily reading through the comments to Hugo's follow-up post, most of which were thoughtful and useful (if not excessively polite, but, hey, there are times when the gloves need to come off). Then the thread was hit with two derailing comments - one from a "what about the meeeeeeen?" whiner, which was annoying, but I can't say it was unexpected. But racism vs. sexism? I mean, come on, people.
Look, sometimes comparisons are useful. For instance, it can be illuminating to show how "logic" and "science" have been used to oppress both women and people of color (in the U.S., most notably black slaves). But you should always be careful, because such comparisons necessarily simplify issues and gloss over important differences between oppressions, such as political history and what social forces are most prominent in shaping each system of power. Be aware that such comparisons are temporary and contingent. Never try to say that this characteristic of Oppression A wholly explains Oppression B.
And never, ever, try to one-up someone's oppression with someone else's. Even if it isn't your own - even if you're a man saying that sexism is more accepted than racism, etc. And especially don't do this if you don't belong to either oppressed group. Like, a white dude saying, "You silly people, can't you see how you accept sexism more than you do racism"? Don't. Just don't. You don't know, because you don't live it. It's patronizing and dismissive. (And women of color will have double the reason to kick your ass.)
We're all, in some way, stomped on by society. Drawing connections between different forms of oppression can be a good method of coalition-building - however, not if it attempts to ranks people's rights as somehow more or less violated, and thus more or less important. Comparison is (sometimes) okay - as long as you're careful. Competition is not.
*My view, in a nutshell: Sometimes it's okay for members of the privileged group to take on the task of educating people about the *ism in question. In fact, sometimes it's better for them to do so, because for those of us who know and live the *ism, being subjected to people's ignorance about it can hurt too damn much. So yeah, I think a lot of the time male (pro) feminists should be educating the MRAs and anti-feminists, while female feminists are left to do the actual work of activism and theory. I would, in turn, offer myself to deal with the brunt of ignorance regarding, say, homophobia or classism.
On the other hand, there is always the highly dangerous risk of, once again, silencing the oppressed group. If men are only taught by men about sexism ... well, how different is that from the way things have always been? Sure, the men who educate are actively committed to fighting sexism, but that doesn't mean that they're perfect - that they won't overlook some of their own privilege, or go too soft on somebody because sexism doesn't hurt them as much as it hurts women. Similarly, if I were trying to educate a homophobe, who's to say I wouldn't let the person off too easy because I could just say, "Well, s/he's trying. I won't push them too hard," forgetting the fact that such an easy decision on my part has real and damaging results on the queer people who have to live with homophobia. Due to my privilege, it's far easier for me to forgive things like homophobia, classism, ableism, etc. So if I plan to do any educating, I need to make sure I stay in touch with the actual people who are affected by the discrimination.
"If you had a racist in your class, would you gently, calmly nudge-nudge-know-what-you-mean slowly try to bring him along, or would you more assertively confront him? I don't think you'd tolerate racism the same way you might be tolerating sexism, Hugo. I think you would, perhaps not rudely, but sternly, set someone straight on race. Why should women be treated differently? Because you think it's still more socially acceptable to be a woman hater?"
And this isn't even the worst of it. At least the implication here is that the OP (Hugo) thinks that sexism is more accepted than racism - not that sexism is more accepted than racism. Often I do see such implications, or even outright statements, on feminist blogs/LJ - that it's easier to be overtly sexist than racist. (I don't know if there's an equivalent trend the other way around, of anti-racists saying that racism is more accepted than sexism, because my blog-reading in that area is limited.) As if it's in any way helpful or productive to build up your own case by dismissing someone else's.
Could people stop comparing oppressions? Seriously. The whole "OMG I'm so much more oppressed than you" schtick gets really tiring, especially for those of us who face both (or all three or four, etc.) and don't like to see either of them minimized.
By the way, this is in response to a recent uproar on this same blog, in which the owner (Hugo) described his conversation with a male student. Here is the original entry, with the debate in the comments, as well as responses from Pandagon, Punkassblog, and Pinko Feminist Hellcat, among others.
The gist of it, if you don't want to wade through all of that, is: Hugo's student is a young man who thinks that feminism hurts his chances of dating women - namely, because women like bad boys and other such bullshit stereotypes, being a feminist man and treating women as equals will not make them attracted to him. As a result, he doubts that he should be a feminist now, when he wants to date women. Hugo's response was diplomatic and full of compromise, and people are taking him to task for not being harsh enough on the student's sexism. I have my own opinion on the matter - don't I always? :P - but that's not the point right now.*
I was just happily reading through the comments to Hugo's follow-up post, most of which were thoughtful and useful (if not excessively polite, but, hey, there are times when the gloves need to come off). Then the thread was hit with two derailing comments - one from a "what about the meeeeeeen?" whiner, which was annoying, but I can't say it was unexpected. But racism vs. sexism? I mean, come on, people.
Look, sometimes comparisons are useful. For instance, it can be illuminating to show how "logic" and "science" have been used to oppress both women and people of color (in the U.S., most notably black slaves). But you should always be careful, because such comparisons necessarily simplify issues and gloss over important differences between oppressions, such as political history and what social forces are most prominent in shaping each system of power. Be aware that such comparisons are temporary and contingent. Never try to say that this characteristic of Oppression A wholly explains Oppression B.
And never, ever, try to one-up someone's oppression with someone else's. Even if it isn't your own - even if you're a man saying that sexism is more accepted than racism, etc. And especially don't do this if you don't belong to either oppressed group. Like, a white dude saying, "You silly people, can't you see how you accept sexism more than you do racism"? Don't. Just don't. You don't know, because you don't live it. It's patronizing and dismissive. (And women of color will have double the reason to kick your ass.)
We're all, in some way, stomped on by society. Drawing connections between different forms of oppression can be a good method of coalition-building - however, not if it attempts to ranks people's rights as somehow more or less violated, and thus more or less important. Comparison is (sometimes) okay - as long as you're careful. Competition is not.
*My view, in a nutshell: Sometimes it's okay for members of the privileged group to take on the task of educating people about the *ism in question. In fact, sometimes it's better for them to do so, because for those of us who know and live the *ism, being subjected to people's ignorance about it can hurt too damn much. So yeah, I think a lot of the time male (pro) feminists should be educating the MRAs and anti-feminists, while female feminists are left to do the actual work of activism and theory. I would, in turn, offer myself to deal with the brunt of ignorance regarding, say, homophobia or classism.
On the other hand, there is always the highly dangerous risk of, once again, silencing the oppressed group. If men are only taught by men about sexism ... well, how different is that from the way things have always been? Sure, the men who educate are actively committed to fighting sexism, but that doesn't mean that they're perfect - that they won't overlook some of their own privilege, or go too soft on somebody because sexism doesn't hurt them as much as it hurts women. Similarly, if I were trying to educate a homophobe, who's to say I wouldn't let the person off too easy because I could just say, "Well, s/he's trying. I won't push them too hard," forgetting the fact that such an easy decision on my part has real and damaging results on the queer people who have to live with homophobia. Due to my privilege, it's far easier for me to forgive things like homophobia, classism, ableism, etc. So if I plan to do any educating, I need to make sure I stay in touch with the actual people who are affected by the discrimination.