![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
[Everything herein will be extremely old hat to many regular readers, but it's new to me and so I thought I'd share. Consider this part of my ongoing project of self-education.]
Charlie Stross, in the comments to his most recent blog post, posted a link to the site Derailing for Dummies. The conceit is that it's a guide to arguing with members of marginalised groups for people who want to drive them to apoplexy and/or despair as quickly as possible - this allows the author to explain why such conversational gambits as "you're just being oversensitive" won't help your interlocutor's blood pressure.
As a "white, heterosexual, cisgendered, cissexual, upper-class male" (plus a bunch of other things besides - able-bodied, literate...) I've only had conversations about race, sexuality, etc, from the perspective of a member of the privileged¹ group [from which perspective the conversations often look like this :-( ]. So I found the site to be rather uncomfortable reading, but also very educational, and I'm glad the author chose to ignore their first two points (If You Won't Educate Me How Can I Learn? and If You Cared About These Matters You'd Be Willing To Educate Me). I've definitely used the lines
If You Won't Educate Me How Can I Learn
You're Just Oversensitive
You're Interrogating From The Wrong Perspective
Aren't You Treating Each Other Worse Anyway
Well I Know Another Person From Your Group Who Disagrees!
You Are Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry
from the page (in all innocence! And with the best of intentions!), and probably a bunch more. If I've said that to you, I'm sorry, and can only plead that I didn't know how upsetting it would be. Now I have some idea of how that feels to the other person, I'll try not to do it any more.
¹ "Privilege" in this context is a term of art that (AIUI) means something like this. Suppose group X is in some way marginalised. Then the world will be set up in such a way that non-X people benefit from their non-Xness in all sorts of ways, big and small, that the non-X people simply don't notice, because they've known them all their lives and think that that's just how the world works for everyone. This means that (a) they simply don't realise many of the ways in which life sucks for X people, unless they've made a positive effort to find out, (b) they are almost certainly unwittingly contributing to the further marginalisation of X people, because they don't understand the effects of their actions - as non-X people, they never experience said effects. Hence, if you haven't made an effort to educate yourself about the lives and difficulties experienced by X people, you're probably part of the problem.
This effect could, I suspect, be understood as an especially unfortunate interaction of various well-understood cognitive biases. To my utter lack of surprise, I am not the first person to think of this.
Non-X privilege also applies to people who are non-X but members of some other marginalised group Y: while the difficulties experienced by X and Y people will probably have some overlap, they won't be identical, and privilege applies to those experienced by X but not Y. The D4D author actually wrote the piece after observing exactly this: conversations in which X¬Y people used the same lines on Y people that ¬X people had previously used on them.
Charlie Stross, in the comments to his most recent blog post, posted a link to the site Derailing for Dummies. The conceit is that it's a guide to arguing with members of marginalised groups for people who want to drive them to apoplexy and/or despair as quickly as possible - this allows the author to explain why such conversational gambits as "you're just being oversensitive" won't help your interlocutor's blood pressure.
As a "white, heterosexual, cisgendered, cissexual, upper-class male" (plus a bunch of other things besides - able-bodied, literate...) I've only had conversations about race, sexuality, etc, from the perspective of a member of the privileged¹ group [from which perspective the conversations often look like this :-( ]. So I found the site to be rather uncomfortable reading, but also very educational, and I'm glad the author chose to ignore their first two points (If You Won't Educate Me How Can I Learn? and If You Cared About These Matters You'd Be Willing To Educate Me). I've definitely used the lines
If You Won't Educate Me How Can I Learn
You're Just Oversensitive
You're Interrogating From The Wrong Perspective
Aren't You Treating Each Other Worse Anyway
Well I Know Another Person From Your Group Who Disagrees!
You Are Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry
from the page (in all innocence! And with the best of intentions!), and probably a bunch more. If I've said that to you, I'm sorry, and can only plead that I didn't know how upsetting it would be. Now I have some idea of how that feels to the other person, I'll try not to do it any more.
¹ "Privilege" in this context is a term of art that (AIUI) means something like this. Suppose group X is in some way marginalised. Then the world will be set up in such a way that non-X people benefit from their non-Xness in all sorts of ways, big and small, that the non-X people simply don't notice, because they've known them all their lives and think that that's just how the world works for everyone. This means that (a) they simply don't realise many of the ways in which life sucks for X people, unless they've made a positive effort to find out, (b) they are almost certainly unwittingly contributing to the further marginalisation of X people, because they don't understand the effects of their actions - as non-X people, they never experience said effects. Hence, if you haven't made an effort to educate yourself about the lives and difficulties experienced by X people, you're probably part of the problem.
This effect could, I suspect, be understood as an especially unfortunate interaction of various well-understood cognitive biases. To my utter lack of surprise, I am not the first person to think of this.
Non-X privilege also applies to people who are non-X but members of some other marginalised group Y: while the difficulties experienced by X and Y people will probably have some overlap, they won't be identical, and privilege applies to those experienced by X but not Y. The D4D author actually wrote the piece after observing exactly this: conversations in which X¬Y people used the same lines on Y people that ¬X people had previously used on them.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'd encountered a few of the ideas in the piece before, but the one that really struck me was the stuff about requiring debate forms and standards of evidence that the marginalised (due to lack of education, which I imagine correlates well with marginalised status) are ill-equipped to provide. Obvious, in retrospect, but not something I'd thought of before.
no subject
I sympathise with people if they want to have an "advanced" discussion without getting sidetracked into basic principles, particularly if they've already argued about the basics several times before. I also remember Priest (comics writer) saying that when he goes to conventions people always ask him about race issues (the black perspective on topic X), whereas people ask Mark Waid about whether Superman or the Flash would win a race, and he (Priest) would prefer to get general superhero questions for a change.
On the other hand, I think that a lot of topics associated with Privilege (e.g. feminism) are poorly defined, and they include a lunatic fringe. The xkcd comic on YouTube is a good example, where there are complete idiots on both sides of the argument (pro/anti moon landings). Given that everyone has a finite amount of spare time, how much should I spend investigating any particular theory before I decide that it's rubbish? If I read a particular book on a topic, but disagree with it, can I treat it as representative of the topic as a whole, or should I keep reading more books until I find one that I agree with (which may never happen)? Surely it would be fairer for the people who advocate a particular theory to actually say what their views are?
An extreme example is the "Hollow Earth" theory. Raymond Chen has reported on a proposed (but repeatedly delayed) expedition to the North Pole to visit the hole: 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007. Personally, I don't believe that theory, but then again I'm not a geologist and I've never been to the North Pole. Is it fair for me to dismiss their arguments out of hand, or should I read their books, and join the expedition so that I can see for myself?
Taking a more useful example, here is a comment from a feminist blogger:
"It seems like the guys who almost agree with feminism are the hardest ones to reason with, because they think they're doing so well, taking that women's studies class, learning about these theories, engaging with the feminists about these issues, and even agreeing that women should be treated equally. Except the thing is, these guys are kind of just as dangerous as the outrightly hateful misogynists."
That implies that "You're either with us or you're against us" - no middle ground. In order to stop being the enemy, I need to agree with her 100%, but she won't tell me what her views are because it's not her job to spoonfeed me. That's the point where I just say "sod it", and decide that it's best just to follow my own conscience.
no subject
...
Re: ...
Re: ...
I've come across feminists who claim (apparently in all seriousness) that it's impossible for women to consent to sex because of the Patriarchy; she might think that she's consenting, but she's wrong. Therefore any man who has sex with a woman is a rapist, and any other man who doesn't condemn the sexually active people is tacitly endorsing rape ("silence is alliance"). However, I'm guessing (hoping!) that there are other feminists who would be embarrassed to be associated with those views. If I lump the whole group together, that seems unfair, e.g. I wouldn't want people to dismiss NASA based on the "Louis Armstrong went to the moon" idiots. On the other hand, if I say "Well I Know Another Person From Your Group Who Disagrees!" then that's one of the forbidden techniques from the list at the top. That's why I think that "bingo cards" like that aren't particularly helpful.
Re: ...
Louis Armstrong went to the moon
He did? Zomg. I thought that was his cousin Neil :-)
that's one of the forbidden techniques from the list at the top
I think at least one of us has misunderstood the point of the list, but need to think further.
no subject
how much should I spend investigating any particular theory before I decide that it's rubbish?
Depends on the topic, I'd have thought. In the case of feminism etc, you don't have to look far to find real-world negative effects of prejudice against women, gay people, trans people and so on. So there's obviously something real there, and it's at least plausible that people who've thought hard about this stuff for decades will have better ideas about how to tackle it than you'll come up with on your own. So I'd say that this topic at least merits a reasonable investment of time and tolerance of apparent craziness.
should I keep reading more books until I find one that I agree with
Coming back to the education thing, this is something else that bugs me about it. By Sturgeon's Law 90% of writing on a given topic is crud, so if I just pick books off the "Feminism" shelves at the library at random I'll expect to read 10 before I hit one that's OK. In practice I can do a bit better (by looking at Amazon rankings and so on), but this is where the personal touch is really appreciated: if my friend knows a lot about this stuff, then a personal recommendation from them carries a lot more weight than one from an Internet random, because I have some idea of how extreme and/or well thought-out their views are and I can calibrate accordingly.
In practice, though, I've read exactly one book on feminism, and that was this one (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introducing-Feminism-Susan-Watkins/dp/184046058X), some years ago. So I should probably make a bit more effort.
Surely it would be fairer for the people who advocate a particular theory to actually say what their views are?
And again, on the education thing... different people use words in different ways, and the question "The word 'foobar' seems to mean a variety of things depending on who's speaking: what do you mean by it?" seems to me entirely legitimate, but (given the anti-kyriarchy crowd's cultural norm against expecting spoonfeeding) it's important for the student to differentiate that question from "What does 'foobar' mean, I can't be arsed to Google it?"
That implies that "You're either with us or you're against us" - no middle ground.
I don't think that's what she's saying - I think she's saying that if you know a bit (or even a lot) about this stuff, you can kid yourself into thinking you know it all, and consequently do Bad Stuff while thinking "I'm so enlightened, I never do sexist things, go me". The answer here, I guess, is to realise that it's really hard to not be sexist if you've been raised in a sexist milieu, and that overconfidence leads to slip-ups.
That's the point where I just say "sod it", and decide that it's best just to follow my own conscience.
Yeah, that kind of conversation can be really frustrating, can't it? The trouble is, if privilege theory is right then your conscience is miscalibrated, and you'll end up doing hurtful things unintentionally :-(
no subject
But stereotypes are so useful, why can't I use them all the time???
no subject
no subject
I think there are conversations in which at least some of those lines would be perfectly reasonable.
Sure. Demands for decent evidence in support of a proposition, for instance - are we to abandon everything we've learned about evidence and logic because not everyone has had an opportunity to learn those things? No, obviously not. But, it's worth knowing that people who haven't had that training might find it belittling to be asked for it, especially if it makes them feel that their Lived (but sadly anecdotal) Experience (TM) is being ignored.
no subject
But I could be wrong. I don't tick many point-scoring boxes either ;-)
no subject
*laughs* I think that's a conversation for a more private medium. :)
no subject
The trouble is - in response to my personality I now have to ask the question 'What action can one take'? [And am I now putting my responsibility on you for educating me? Ha Ha - I have made you a member of the 'following this philosophy' minority, and I shall relentlessly use the abuses I have just learnt about!] I generally try to be fair and nice to people. As an unemployed person, I'm not really in a position of power so I can't really stop oppressing the minorities, because I don't really get a chance to oppress them, or do I and I just don't notice it?
no subject
And am I now putting my responsibility on you for educating me? Ha Ha - I have made you a member of the 'following this philosophy' minority, and I shall relentlessly use the abuses I have just learnt about!
See the violence inherent in the system! Fortunately, I have no problem with educating others - in fact, I have an almost compulsive need to do so. Unfortunately, I'm not very well-informed on this topic myself :-(
Of course, as a person with a job, I am oppressing you even as we speak. Muahahaha.
I generally try to be fair and nice to people.
Good for you. Trouble is, "nice" should be judged on the recipient's terms, and these might be different from yours in nonobvious ways.
As an unemployed person, I'm not really in a position of power so I can't really stop oppressing the minorities, because I don't really get a chance to oppress them, or do I and I just don't notice it?
See the stuff about X¬Y people in the footnote. [Note to self: stop using so many footnotes! Make the effort to structure your thoughts coherently instead.] Short answer: yes, probably :-(
no subject
One nice resource (that
no subject
There is also the issue (discussed somewhat here and here) that there is a difference between 'relative advantage' and 'unearned benefit which the group shouldn’t have'. That is to say, some relative advantages are fair, or at least natural ('I can generally run 100m in a lower time than a woman'), whereas an unearned benefit probably never is. [Of course that could potentially lead into the whole 'what is natural' debate.]
I suppose though, one could use such lists to construct a list of actions one needs to take, or at least to bear in mind, e.g., based on here:
1. If I am conducting recruitment for a job, I will be aware that I will probably rank the male applicants as better, and try to mentally correct for this.
2. I will not, even in jest, speculate or assume that a woman has got a job because of her sex.
3. I will promote based upon merit, keeping in mind that I may subconsciously rank male performance as better.
4. I will not use the performance of a woman in the workplace to judge her whole sex.
5. I will never sexually harass a woman. I will stand up and object where I see harassment.
...
Of course some are difficult - point 8 on the linked list is: 'On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.' and I wouldn't really support actions of either:
8.i) I will not teach any daughters to fear walking alone after dark;
or
8.ii) I will teach my sons to fear walking alone after dark.
In other constructive things, doing a little research reveals this: this which seems, erm, 'nice' - you know.
no subject
Sure, and the authors acknowledge this. To quote the author of the male privilege checklist: So, not perfect but still useful.
Walking after dark in public spaces: another option might be "I would ensure that my daughters learn (a) some self-defence skills, (b) to run really fast".
In other constructive things
Great link - thanks!
no subject
Like
no subject
One difficulty is that the whole idea has aspects of the 'emperor's new clothes' about it. That is to say only the members of a self-selected elite can apparently diagnose this privilege, and you have to acknowledge it to get into their club. It's not saying 'when you do x you hurt me*', it's saying that merely by you being you, you are hurting me.
* and ultimately yourself, and society, under the whole 'the patriarchy oppresses men too' concept.
The other thing I suppose is the middle ground argument above. I cannot say that I accept your idea and I will act upon it in a way I see fit - it appears that if I accept your argument I must accept your course of action.
I suppose I also want someone to explain it to me in my own language - that is to use a clichéd idea, physical scientists don't get the language of the social scientists.
Ultimately I just want to scream out 'stop being oppressed!' to people, but I don't imagine for a second that is useful.
no subject
Perhaps not, but I think it's a useful idea to have in your mental toolkit.
[To be used with care, mind: I've seen it used in ways that looked very much like a fully general counterargument (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Fully_general_counterargument).]
That is to say only the members of a self-selected elite can apparently diagnose this privilege, and you have to acknowledge it to get into their club.
I don't think so. I think the idea is that in the ordinary way of things you wouldn't notice the ways in which your privilege benefits you, but you can learn to recognise those ways with a bit of effort. But yes, this will probably involve comparing notes with someone who doesn't have that privilege.
It's not saying 'when you do x you hurt me*', it's saying that merely by you being you, you are hurting me.
No, it's saying "because of what you are, and the way you were consequently raised and treated, you unwittingly participate in systems that hurt me". You can learn to recognise these systems and cease participation.
I suppose I also want someone to explain it to me in my own language
I think this counts as a desire for spoon-feeding :-(
Ultimately I just want to scream out 'stop being oppressed!' to people
Would that it were so easy :-(
no subject
Yes it does - I keep being tempted in this discussion to say something cuttingly ironic like 'But I suppose that's just your liberal privilege'. So far I have restrained (apart from there, but that was in quotation marks so doesn't count).
You can learn to recognise these systems and cease participation.
But can you? If the job market discriminates against minorities you can't really make a conscious decision not to have a job. If the tax system discriminates then you can't just give up on paying taxes.
I think this counts as a desire for spoon-feeding :-(
Pretty much - but I'm not actually asking for that... that is to say I will struggle on trying to understand it in my own terms. [And maybe express it in the way I want it expressed if I do feel it ultimately has merit].
no subject
But you can, as you suggested earlier, notice the likelihood for bias in such decisions and take steps to try and counter e.g. internal bias when in a hiring-type position. That's certainly a conscious decision.
no subject
"I don't want to sound/be cruel/rude/mean, but...."
Just saying that you don't want to be something doesn't make it so. And you're actually pointing out that you are being deliberately nasty, but want to be forgiven because you know you're doing it. The world doesn't work that way.
no subject
no subject