Follow up: Privileged & White Privilege

After Tuesday's class discussion about the ways females participation in systems that continually perpetuate male's superiority and social norms, this Thursday's readings provides another example of females contribution. Audre Lorde's "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" and Combahee River Collective's "A Black Feminist Statement" express the disunity among white women and women of color and such disunity is similar to males in patriarchy--white women wants, desires, and needs are prioritized over women of color. Combabee River Collective expresses frustration that it seems women of color are fighting for their own liberation without any support. Lorde expresses that same frustration by bringing to light the idea of "racist feminism." She is frustrated by the lack of representation of  poor, lesbian, older black women and urge that not only do men needs to be educated, but white women needs to be educated as well.

Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" reinforces the other two articles' point. McIntosh's speaks of white privilege in terms of representation, treatments, access, and advantages. As I read McIntosh's article, the privilege that struck me most was 21: "I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group." This one is most interesting because it seems as if society treats white peoples' actions as individual non-related acts, whereas for people color, their actions seem to be a representation of their entire race. It's like white people have no relationship (besides sharing the same color) or responsibility for each other and people of color are the opposite.

This point reminds me of conversations I have in my American School class. We read Education for a Caring Society: Classroom Relationships and Moral Action by Kay Johnston (a professor at Colgate); Professor Johnston argues that it is a privilege for the rich and superior to put distance between people whereas the poor and inferior realize the way they are affected by others. In relation to this week's reading, another privilege for white people is to put distances between others and feel if they don't have a obligation for one another. White people lack the level of empathy that people of color have (a sociology research).      

Privileged

Both of these articles had similar themes to them. They all have to do with the issue of racism intertwined with sexism. Lorde's piece reflects on how it is very arrogant "to assume any discussion of feminist theory without examining our many differences, and without a significant input from poor women, Black and Third World women, and lesbians." I think that she does have a point when she says this. if we are going to call this a women's movement, we do have to make sure we include all races of women. I think that this is Lorde's main point. I felt as if a lot of her other points were hard to follow, and I thought that she almost seemed bitter about how the panel asked her to speak and she dwelled too much on that.

In McIntosh's article, she reflects more on racism. She talks about how white privilege is an invisible knapsack with special provisions etc. She then unpacks her own knapsack and comes to the realization of what she gets away with in life, and how her life is easier then those who have a different skin tone. One of the points that struck me was when McIntosh said I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race" I haven't ever thought about this point until now and I just have realized how valid of a point this is. Those who have the privileges to succeed need to work together to straighten out the system so that a point of equality can be reached.

I also have to agree with Caroline when I reflect back on my lower, middle and high school experience. I went to an all girl's school that was one of the most diverse single sex schools in the country. I then went on to one of the most diverse boarding schools in the country. I had friends from all over the world. Choate, the high school I attended, had students from 40 different states and 40 different countries. Everyone had different financial situations. When I look at my experience at Colgate thus far, there is not much diversity among my friends even though Colgate claims to have a diverse student body. I also think that a good number of people here are in similar financial situations. I agree with Caroline when she says that it depends on the location.

White Privilege

All of the readings for class today had the common theme of race, and its affects in the feminist movement. Audre Lorde and the Combahee River Collection both placed a strong emphasis on lesbian, black feminists; where as Peggy McIntosh focused more on the advantages white people receive in every day life. Lorde declared that the differences of women is our main strength and the key ingredient to change. The River Collection discussed the inequality black women face and some of the steps they have taken to fixing this inequality. Lastly, McIntosh discovered that though whites may not see their racial advantages, they are present in every day life.

Though I found the other two articles very interesting, the article I could relate to the most was Peggy McIntosh’s article. I found that since I am a white female, I had an easier time relating her writing to my own life. My highschool always focused on diversity and racism and constantly promoted diversity and equality between races. I went to a small, all girls liberal highschool that was located in the city and had a diverse range of races represented in each grade. My school also had once a week assemblies, with at least half discussing the topic of racism, and offered courses focused on racism; so I considered myself quite the expert on the subject once I had graduated. I thought that I could recognize white privilege and try to avoid it. However, after reading McIntosh’s article I feel that while I could recognize some white privilege, I did not see some of the points McIntosh brings up. For example, number 20- “I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race”. I had not considered this before reading the article. But, while I found some of her points to be true,I think that some are just inevitable based on a persons surroundings. For example, these set of questions could apply to the majority of white students at Colgate, but could also apply to students in inner city Boston schools where the majority is a mix between African Americans, Latinas, etc. Number 10- (“I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group I which I am the only member of my race”) I think can be applicable to any racial group depending on where a person is living.

So while I found some points of McIntosh’s article to be eye opening and relevant to my life, I also found flaws with some of her statements. I think that her article is worth reading and can be very helpful in raising awareness about racism and its daily impact on our lives; but also should be read with a critical eye. The reader has to take into account that some of these statements are inevitable due to surroundings.

After reading the 3 pieces for tomorrow's class, I was especially struck by Frye's article. I think that it is true that we do have to recognize both sides of oppression against men and women. If men do anything remotely against the norm, whether it is being too whipped by a girl, dressing more metrosexual, crying over something, or not attempting to hook up with girls, they are automatically classified as gay or "too soft". As I have more and more friends who are coming out as I reached a University level education, I have found that boys are less accepting of boys being gay compared to girls being accepting of girls being gay. If I could to estimate, I could say I have about 10-15 friends who are homosexual, but if I asked a good guy friend how many they have they would most like say either none or 1.

Frye is correct when she mentions that boys are not allowed to show emotion. I can speak from first hand experience when I agree with this statement, because growing up with four brothers has shown me this. My little brother Matt used to cry every single time he had to get a shot, but would he ever admit this to his friends? No. In order to have power in the social world, men have to have a tougher skin.

I think that the argument that struck me the most in Frye's article was her debate about whether or not holding a door for a woman is disrespectful. She argued that it is disrespectful because it automatically assumes that its a "burden" for us to open a door ourselves and that we are "incapable". I do not agree with this. I think that it is respectful for someone to hold the door for a woman and that if a man just let the door shut in a woman's face, then that would also be considered sexist, because that action basically says "I don't have enough time to waste on you" I think that this is an extreme measure to claim that this is an act of sexism, but I am starting to realize that a lot of these feminists do take extreme measures to get their point across.

Hidden Sexism

The three readings for the upcoming class all made interesting points and hade a unique tone, but all differed slightly. Johnson seemed to take a more macro approach to looking at patriarchy and blamed society. He called society a “system” and wrote, “We can all understand a system, then, just by looking at the people in it, for it is something larger and has to be understood as such”. Frye discussed women as victims and described some of the double standards and societal “cages” they are trapped in. And finally, Gokova discussed men’s duty and impact on gender stereotypes. I found Gokova’s article to be quite sexist because while his ideas were meant to help fix the gender issue, he still had a very male dominated perception.

I do not know if my opinion is due to a cultural difference, but I found Gokova’s article to be sexist because he kept emphasizing how important it was for men to take action. Govoka states, “Men must consciously take the decisions to think and behave differently” (p. 421). His writing seemed to exclude women entirely from their own fight. He writes, “Nevertheless, gender issues demand men’s participation since men need to change to realize overall change” (p. 421). I do agree that men need to participate in the gender issues, but I do not think it is just men who need to be changed. I think that it is important for men to be aware and included in the gender issues, but a change will only come if both genders work together. He talks about how ending domestic violence “must become a man’s responsibility”, once again excluding women from the solution (p. 421). Govoka goes on to write,

“Our vision for the creation of a society established on gender justice requires the involvement of every man and woman. We recognize, however, that men have a particular responsibility in this effort. Men need to be challenged continually to seek change” (p. 423).

Men are necessary in order change societies stereotypes about gender, but they are not the only factor. Govoka does not consider women’s power in the gender issues. It would not help our society if all the men changed and the women still acted within the gender stereotypes. Because Govoka does not include women in the necessary actions needed to deal with gender issues, I find him to be somewhat sexist. He still believes that in order for there to be a change, men must take action, implying women are inferior. Govoka presents good ideas and important actions to create a change, yet still seems to be caught in the past.

Challenge the System

In this week's readings, all three authors share the same theme of analyzing the system, which provides societal norms, as a whole instead of on individual levels. Allan Johnson, Marilyn Frye, and Jonah Gokova strongly suggest that human needs to examine various social constructs macroscopically rather than microscopically; we need to understand how everyone, both men and women, participates, perpetuates, and feeds various systems such as patriarchy, the notion of oppression, and gender stereotypes. Once we understand our roles in the system, we can then challenge and change the system.

Johnson's "Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us," brings up the argument that the model of social life does not begin and end with individuals, rather it involves many participants, both males and females. Therefore a social construct, such as patriarchy, needs to analyzing not through individuals means but as a whole. Johnson argues that any system, should be put into question not in terms of the "whats" and "hows" but the "whys." If we question: why society is the way it is, why people in society are a certain way, etc. then we can come to an understanding how participants can shape and influence a system. However Johnson points out that people are too busy focusing on the individuals and blaming the system that we miss out on the bigger picture and question. A quote that best summarizes Johnson's claim is: "The main use of any culture is to provide symbols and ideas out of which to construct a sense of what is real." He asserts that through the idea of "path of least resistance" people can actually broke the currents rules--that we so strongly abide to--and create a new system that doesn't uphold women and men in such demanding image. In conclusion, what participants feed into the system is what is generated back out and then manifested/nurtured to others.           

In "Oppression," Frye discusses the usage of the term oppression, how it is often misused, and how such misusing of the term loses its meaning. She goes on analyzing this word in terms of women through an analogy of a bird being trapped in a caged, stating, "It is the experience of being caged in: all avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped" (2). When society stops looking at the oppression of a women on a microscopic level, but through a macroscopic lens, we will then clearly see beyond the usual forms of oppression. Besides women being in a bind where their sexual life is both questioned when they are active or not, there are other more subtle forms of women's oppression that normally aren't paid attention to. Frye explains how men's chivalry is a form of oppression. She quote their actions as "false helpfulness." Society have upheld chivalry as an act of kindness and something men should have, however Frye argues that these actions are symbols of "female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women" (4). Frye disapproves of all the ways society has "pressed" and confined women into a cage.  

"Challenging Men to Resist Gender Stereotypes" by Gokova explains men's participatory role in perpetuating gender stereotypes and the consequences it have on both women and men. Padare, an anti-sexist organization, provides men the ability to challenge gender roles and gender inequalities. Gokova goes beyond stating the harms gender stereotypes imposes on women, but he also states the damage it imposes on men. Gender stereotypes have created an image of "manhood" that "restricts male creativeness" (422). The current image of manhood boxes men to a specific set of actions and if a man acts outside of this box, his manhood is put to question. Padare prompts men to challenge and reject the current "myth of male superiority" and to openly talk about gender inequalities. Once this is done, a new image of "manhood" can emerge without compromising women in any way.