busyConversely, consider all the allegations that queer people want "special privileges." No, they don't. They just want access to the baseline: ordinary things like getting married, adopting a child, being able to visit someone in the hospital, filing a joint tax return. Now if they said, "Queer people should get first choice of children available for adoption, THAT would be a privilege.
A healthy society has a pretty smooth functionality most of the time. Its members are able to carry out ordinary activities without interference. Following the rules will lead to success for most people, and it's an option open to everyone. Failing out of a healthy society requires a lot of dedicated screwing up and refusing the helpful options available; you can still do it, but not many people do. And because most people's needs are pretty well met, there is a lot less incentive to stomp down other people in attempt to prop yourself up.
America doesn't have a healthy society. Our baseline is ... fishnet. If you're a straight white educated employed Christian man, you can generally get through life without people trying to screw you over because they find some aspect of your life displeasing. If you're queer, a person of color, don't have a college degree, can't get a job, follow some other (or no) religion, are other than male, are very young or old, are unconventional in some way -- then society frequently considers it okay to deprive you of basic courtesies, interfere with your happiness and/or survival, infringe on your rights, ruin your life, and then blame you for the mess that results. That's stupid and destructive and it needs to stop. It's not just about this group or that group. It's not about privileges or special snowflakes.
It is about treating every human being with respect and providing everyone a chance to make meaningful contributions in exchange for getting their basic needs (and preferably some of their desires) met. That's the baseline. Be decent to each other. Get the job done.
July 29 2010, 13:39:37 UTC 10 years ago Edited: July 29 2010, 13:40:19 UTC
A lot of 'reactionary' stuff to those injustices hasn't been about evening things up - it's been about returning injustices with more injustices. I've personally been subject to a female coworker threatening me with a fake sexual harassment suit if I didn't do what she wanted, for instance. And I *do* have to constantly worry about how my actions are taken, because as a straight white Christian man, I'm automatically 'the villain'. Even if we're lucky, and the courts don't rule against us ... the accusation itself can still ruin our lives.
I do *not* deny that we have a *lot* of work to do in treating people of all descriptors more equally, and I'm not pretending, "Oh, no, white male America is soooooo mistreated it's so much worse than everyone else!" ... but equality is not going to happen as long as the people who *should* be working for equality are instead working for revenge.
You say that white male privilege means "you can generally get through life without people trying to screw you over because they find some aspect of your life displeasing." As long as people keep saying that, (A) you turn away the white males who would otherwise be your ally, because you are insulting them and their experiences, (B) you are show that you are picking-and-choosing which injustices you're willing to accept, and which you'll work against ... which descriptors are worth justice, and which aren't. You show that some individuals *deserve* to have injustices heaped against them no matter what they might personally have done, just because of their race, sex, creed, or whatever ... and that others don't, for some arbitrary decision within your mind that their race, sex, creed, or whatever, apart from who they are as an individual, makes them either *worthwhile* or *worthless*. And finally, (C) one thing that annoys and upsets people more than anything else is the feeling that their voice isn't heard. Regardless of the truth of life, no matter how much they may be treated positively in other ways, no matter how statistically likely they are to be treated better, when you *deny* the things that happen to the white male voices, they feel like they're being cast aside. When that happens, they *stop listening* to you, since you're not listening to them. That's a pure emotional reaction that I don't think the movement for equality can really afford.
Thoughts
July 29 2010, 17:16:25 UTC 10 years ago
This is a real problem, although few members of any disadvantaged group will admit it. Let's say I have a nonstandard perspective on the matter. However, the proportion is not "a lot." It just looks like a lot from where you're standing, because 1) you're in the target zone for it, and 2) you won't be able to see most of the hits in other areas because those aren't aimed at you. Which are the same reasons why members of disadvantaged groups focus on their own hits and usually don't see the backlash ones aimed at favored groups.
Some analysis of stastics has been done in various areas, though, indicating that the original prejudice tends to prevail while the backlash is some few percentage points. So for instance, the rate of false reports of rape is about 2%. Out of the 98% of valid rape reports, a lot of those women are re-victimized by the legal system, but it varies greatly by region: anywhere from about a quarter in a proactive precinct to about three quarters in a really atavistic one. America has a pernicious habit of screwing up at both ends of a scale on many different problems, and that seriously impedes progress towards a sane and balanced solution. The split tends to short-circuit most conversations.
>>I've personally been subject to a female coworker threatening me with a fake sexual harassment suit if I didn't do what she wanted, for instance.<<
I've seen that two, once or twice. Conversely, I've seen dozens of examples where the male was the culprit and the female had no effective means of protection.
>>And I *do* have to constantly worry about how my actions are taken, because as a straight white Christian man, I'm automatically 'the villain'.<<
That one is strongly contextual. You'll notice it when it's there, because it affects you personally and people you're likely to talk with. But it's not the majority of contexts yet. For example, the prison population indicates that people of color are overwhelmingly arrested and sentenced more than their white counterparts; whereas women are consistently cheated of fair pay in the workplace compared to men. Those clues tell us that the original prejudices are still in play, although weakened by efforts to stamp them out.
Now a related problem is that being oppressed tends to damage the personality of individuals and groups. Someone recently gave a very cogent explanation of Israel's behavior along those lines: they're trying to smash their annoying neighbors to jam because that's how everyone tended to treat Jews. Israel actually has the upper hand, but they have no idea how to use it responsibly because they haven't had it for thousands of years and the world is painfully short on good examples. And there are actually two dangerous aspects in play, which between them cover much of the map: 1) oppressed people tend to become expert at oblique influences and attacks, if they want to survive; and 2) given a position of real power, formerly oppressed people are greatly tempted to use it against others as others did to them, and not all of them can -- or even try to -- resist that temptation.
I don't have a lot of ideas for solving this mess. I do know that in order to get rid of it completely, we'd need large-scale overhauls of how people relate to each other in our society, and almost nobody wants to do that. It's a daunting prospect.