tabari_avaren ([info]tabari_avaren) wrote in [info]feminist_101,
@ 2006-06-01 16:36:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Privilege, gender and otherwise
This question really would fit in better at [info]feminist, but as the fine folks there rejected me for membership (I guess because I registered too recently, or something like that), I'm posting it here, because this is bugging me.

I see the word "privilege" thrown out a lot on lj comms like feminist, fem_rage, bad_feminist, etc., and I've figured out what it means by now (hah), but I'm not quite sure what an appropriate response would be to the challenge, "check your privilege", or something along those lines.

Myself, for instance. I'm not male, so I don't have male privilege, but I'm white, upper-middle class, attending a top-flight liberal arts college, and come from a well-educated family. Clearly, I have class privilege and race privilege. While I regret that my race and class privilege must, by definition in this capitalist society, lower the race/class privileges of other less fortunate individuals, I'm not much for flagellation - I don't blame myself for being fortunate, as I didn't create the system, and I'm not going to say something ludicrous, like that I wish I'd been born poor and Black in the ghetto, or were a semi-illiterate illegal immigrant from Latin America.

As someone who is conscious of her privilege, what sort of duty to I have to society in general and to the less privileged in particular? Is it enough to be a decent human being, to harm no one and not to abuse my relatively privileged position in society? Or is "the system" set up in such a way that any passive existence in said system is by default an abuse of the less privileged? Is it enough that I donate a little every Christmas to appropriate charities, or do I have an obligation to become politically active? Do letters to my congressmen and senators suffice, or must I participate in rallies?

Hell, I want to be a lawyer - but if I wanted to go into business, sales, for example, would I be exploiting others due to my privilege in a capitalist society?

While I'm talking mostly about class here, I think these questions can broadly apply to gender, too, which I think makes it appropriate.

I find that pointing fingers at people and telling them that they have privilege is generally unproductive. Unless you tell people what they can do, as privileged members of society, to help change society so that "privilege" diminishes, they're going to feel a little guilty, and then feel a lot angry, because people don't like feeling guilty for things that they "can't help" anyway. None of us choose how and where we are born, is a common defense - and it is to a point true. But those of us born into privilege have to do something to help society if we want to be seen not as exploitative but as decent human beings.

Thoughts?



(Post a new comment)


[info]anunicoli
2006-06-01 09:00 pm UTC (link)
But those of us born into privilege have to do something to help society if we want to be seen not as exploitative but as decent human beings.

I don't see it as something that you SHOULD do, because this implies that you don't really want to. I think that there are two types of people, those who care enough to help because they genuinely, actually CARE and those who think that they don't have to help. Regardless of if you have the means to help (money-wise or time-wise), caring is the important part. Educating yourself on things that are outside your microcosm is huge, and something that not a lot of people do.

SHOULD people who are privileged help those less fortunate? Yes. Does everyone believe this to be true? No.

An argument that some might have is that each person has every opportunity to better their lives. There are cases of people coming from third world countries and thriving in the U.S or Europe. They made better lives for themselves, but they did not just do it on their own. Those opportunities to go to school, and to leave their country, or whatever the case may be, were created by someone else. You can't just somehow come from a poor ghetto and get into college- there are scholarships and funding and all that but it comes from people who have the means to help others.

Class privilege is different from gender privilege. I'm not totally sure that gender privilege exists, but I'm still looking into it.

Also, a really great community for these kinds of questions is [info]anti_feminism.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]anunicoli
2006-06-01 09:01 pm UTC (link)
forgot the close the italics. sorry!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]trinityva
2006-06-02 04:01 pm UTC (link)
Why would [info]anti_feminism be good for that?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]anunicoli
2006-06-02 08:33 pm UTC (link)
it's good for discussion. It's not a community of people that hate feminism, as the name may imply. It's a community that was basically created (I believe) when members of the lj group [info]feminist found that their ideas were either different than generally accepted or whose lack of knowledge hindered their debating ability. It's also a great place to receive many different opinions.

I like it, anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-03 02:13 am UTC (link)
I was going to ask that. I find myself distrustful of going for advice on feminism for any group which openly declares its distaste for my political sympathies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tenthet
2006-06-01 09:09 pm UTC (link)
I've wrestled with your basic question myself quite a bit. I find that it is useful to have discussions about priveledge, and that as difficult a concept as it seems to be for people to understand and/or admit to, it totally informs how we interact with our world. There is a time and a place for people to answer a question with 'you might want to examine your privlege'.

My major problem with it is the way I see it banded about as a method to shut people up, as if the questioner can't possibly have already considered it as a factor in their querey, and their ideas can't have any merit. I find it infuriating in intellectual conversations. Frankly, this 'STFU' method of using it I've really only seen on LJ, when the level of discourse is relatively high. When I participate on discussions on MySpace... well... I'm lucky if most people even know what the word means.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-01 09:13 pm UTC (link)
Mmhm, I know what you mean. I guess what annoys me most are those people who over-correct for class/race/gender privilege, thus making it a disadvantage to be white, heterosexual, well-educated, and middle class in some circles - feminist ones, for instance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tenthet
2006-06-01 09:21 pm UTC (link)
I don't know that I've ever seen it implied as a disadvantage, but I've definitely seen it used as a means of invalidating opinions. Like, 'You're white, so you can't weigh in on (insert topic here)' or a response that simply states 'check your priveledge'. Not that I'm naming any names, but I've seen that held up as an appropriate answer in certain lj communities.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]madamjolie
2006-06-01 09:30 pm UTC (link)
Check your privilege does not necesarrily mean "lose your privilege". That would be damn nigh impossible.

It means your argument is coming from a place a privilege.

So let's say someone makes a post and my answer to them is "Luce Irigaray clearly refutes this in An Ethics of Sexual Difference. Why don't you just read that?" That will get me a "check your privilege".

That does not mean "Drop out of college, you asshole, and get down to our level." It means that my privilege of being educated to the point of being useless is informing how I think other people should do things.

Like so.

1. Irigaray is not exactly beginner stuff. It's not like saying "Read Feminism is For Everybody." You've got to have a certain education level to understand more than three words. It's ridiculous.

2. There's also the consideration that it takes a certain amount of money to reach that education level.

3. Given that you can sit down and read it by yourself, it also a certain level of time. A single mother with two kids and a job is probably not going to have time to sit down with An Ethics of Sexual Difference and the complete dictionary of philosophical terms.

And so on.

So by telling someone to sit down and read this book, I am coming from my own place of privilege. Because I have read that book. I read things like that because of where I am in academics, because I don't have a kid to take care, because I have a partner who can do the dishes while I read these books, I have money to spend on ridiculous books.

That is me expecting that everyone has the advantages I do.

"Checking my privilege" would mean that my reply says "Irigaray discusses this in...she says..." It does not mean "Drop out of school, quit your job, stop reading, get a job for minimum wage to lose all your privilege."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mineral
2006-06-02 01:54 pm UTC (link)
That is definitely the most informative response I have ever read regarding privelege.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]madamjolie
2006-06-02 05:11 pm UTC (link)
Gees, maybe there is something to be said for posting sober...
NAH!

;)

Thank you :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]purpledusk
2006-06-01 09:34 pm UTC (link)
I think I'm seeing why you were refused membership in [info]feminist it doesn't look like you'd have much fun there.

Checking your privilege doesn't have to have anything to do with being politically active, necessarily. It's much more difficult than that. It's changing the way you think about the world, changing the way you interact with people, looking at the way you think, act, and judge the world around you. I think everyone SHOULD reject that privilege whenever it is humanly possible. I think all people are obligated to recognize and work to change a society which judges, based on race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, some members to be more worthwhile than others.

(Reply to this)


[info]trinityva
2006-06-01 11:30 pm UTC (link)
There isn't really something specific that one is supposed to do with, or about, one's privilege. It's more the idea that you live in a world that's friendly to you in ways it's not to other people. So often those other people will bring something up and go, say, "Wow, this stuff here is really racist!"
and you'll go "Wait, but I love that stuff there and I don't think I mean it like THAT! Don't be so sensitive! Don't tell me what to like!"

And that's a privileged response because often people saying "Whoa, that bothers me/us" isn't saying other people have to give up everything they like. It's saying "Whoa, WHY don't people get why this is weird or offensive? What's so 'cool' about it?" Privilege tends to make people take things really personally that... aren't.

Like, for example, a lot of people I know don't really pay attention to ableism because they don't know what it's like to have disabilities. So one of the things that gets done to DEATH that I see all the time is people will get their panties in a bunch because some people with disabilities don't like the slang term "lame." If we say anything, it's never taken to be about "wait, where did this term come from and what does it imply?" but about somehow ruining the language for expressive, creative speakers of English.

And that's ridiculous, especially since some people who do think it's worthwhile to talk about the word's origins and use don't necessarily then say "Never use this word." I don't say that. It's this knee-jerk, "OH GODDESS YOU MADE ME THINK ABOUT THAT AND NOW I FEEL BAD AND YOU SUCK AND RUINED MY LANGUAGE!! OMG WAAAAH!" that... makes... zero... sense.

Things like that. "Checking" one's privilege is about thinking about those defensive reactions, a lot of the time. What are people saying? Why are they saying it? How familiar are you with the situation of their group? It's about thinking about that before you respond. Or before you use that group's slang, copy its style, its ways of being.

(Reply to this)


[info]misswong
2006-06-02 01:40 am UTC (link)
Here are some resources about privilege:

Male Privilege Checklist</>
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Napsack
Anti-Oppression Tools for Action

I feel like what is happening is that you are defensive and angry because someone has called you on your privilege, shattering your image of yourself as "good white person". I know for me, a big step in trying to be an ally against oppression was to try and get my mind right about how being the kind of "good white person" my upper-middle-class, white liberal upbringing trained me to be did not make me any less of a racist and did not mean I benefited from white privilege any less. It hurts like hell because the image of racism I was taught was all about lynching and the KKK and nazis and it's still something I struggle with.
In my mind, "racist" is still a vile person who wants to kill poc and it's painful to embrace an (accurate) description of racist as something that includes me. So when people call me out on some dumb racist or ablist or just ignorant thing that comes out of my mouth there's still a part of me thinking that they are saying "you are a big mean evil person and I hate you" and that wants to respond defensively.





(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-02 02:02 am UTC (link)
Um. Nobody's called me on my privilege, personally. I brought up my privilege here as an example to illustrate a point.

Are you guys reading my questions as sarcastic? Because honestly, they weren't. I was throwing ideas out there, to get a range of responses from people, and I was actually sincere. I really do want to know - what do you people think the obligation is for those of us who happen to be privileged, in society, to change a society that contains people of greater and lesser privilege? I want to do something to help, because I'm aware that I have unfair advantages over others. What I'm asking is, as a general rule - how much of an obligation do all people with privilege have?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]madamjolie
2006-06-02 02:18 am UTC (link)
See, that's the tricky thing.

No one has an obligation to do shit. I don't have to check my privilege. I can roll around in it all day if I feel like it.

However, if you want to try to make the world a little better, the only obligation I can think of is to be self-aware and aware of how these things play out.

You know, what am I gonna do? I pass. Ain't nothing I can do about that.

I can be aware, however, that I most likely got my job because my resume has Washington, DC on it and not Harlem, NY. And that I won't get followed around in stores for the color of my skin (I get followed for other reasons). I can notice that the default color for bandaids and face creams that are "tinted" are tinted to my skin tone.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-02 02:24 am UTC (link)
Yes, I get that. I don't know, though - should privileged members of society have a greater obligation to strive for change than the underprivileged, because they've reaped the benefits of their privilege, however unwittingly?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]madamjolie
2006-06-02 02:28 am UTC (link)
Yes and no.

Yes because of what was listed above.

No because of what was listed above.

Isn't that a big help.

I mean, I see it this way. I am happy to have male feminist allies. I like them. I like seeing someone who's way up there going "Oh shit" and trying to even the playing field. It certainly helps.

On the other hand, this is our revolution. We get to be in charge this time. I don't need a man striving for change on my behalf because I'm a poor wittle woman and can't possibly do it on my own. You know, there's something terribly patronizing about a man coming into feminism and going "Ladies, I am going to use my privilege to stop sexism for you!"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswong
2006-06-02 02:30 am UTC (link)
On the other hand, this is our revolution. We get to be in charge this time. I don't need a man striving for change on my behalf because I'm a poor wittle woman and can't possibly do it on my own. You know, there's something terribly patronizing about a man coming into feminism and going "Ladies, I am going to use my privilege to stop sexism for you!"

That is totally the concept I was trying, unsucessfully to express.
thanks!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]madamjolie
2006-06-02 02:32 am UTC (link)
Yeah, I'm not bad when I'm sober ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]misswong
2006-06-02 02:08 am UTC (link)
I find that pointing fingers at people and telling them that they have privilege is generally unproductive. Unless you tell people what they can do, as privileged members of society, to help change society so that "privilege" diminishes, they're going to feel a little guilty, and then feel a lot angry, because people don't like feeling guilty for things that they "can't help" anyway

This statement implied to me a level of defensiveness that I was trying to respond to. It's not a person of color's responsibility to be aware of not hurting a white person's feelings when addressing that white person's racism. It's not my responsibility to be sensitive to a guy's feelings when I call him out on his male privilege.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-02 02:11 am UTC (link)
No, it's not. It's certainly not. When someone's being a bigot, racist, or sexist, you're not supposed to stop and pause that you're hurting his or her feelings. What I'm talking about is the discussion of privilege in general in a scholarly or academic fashion - the best way to accomplish political or social change is to identify a problem, and then come up with solutions, or means to achieve a solution. That's what I'm getting at.

Consciousness-raising has a valid and rich history in feminism, but once consciousness has been raised, you have to give people instructions on what to do now that they're aware of these terrible problems in society. I'm thinking of this from an activist perspective - in order to mobilize people for the greater good, you have to help them out a little by telling them how to mobilize, and for which specific goals.

Do you get what I'm saying?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswong
2006-06-02 02:17 am UTC (link)
feminist conciousness-raising and addressing privilege are two very different animals. I don't think it's worthwhile to compare the two in this instance.
Conciousness-raising was about making women aware of the discrimination they faced than brainstorm strategies for fighting it.
When I am calling somebody out their unchecked privilege I primarily want them to shut the hell up. In fact, I'd say that "shut the hell up" is probably the single best way to deal with your privilege in most circumstances.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-02 02:20 am UTC (link)
*sigh* That's not what I was trying to address above, though. I briefly mentioned the "check your privilege" response, but what I was honestly getting at was whether or not there was any consensus within the feminist community about what should be done actively, politically, to change the privilege vs. underprivilege of members of society, and whether the privileged have a greater responsibility to participate in this activism than the underprivileged.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswong
2006-06-02 02:25 am UTC (link)
well, of course you should. I assume that's a given.

"shut the hell up" is pretty relevent when it comes to participating in the activism of less privileged groups though, since white people and men are both socialized to feel their contributions are the most important and their opinions the most valid. I feel like we're tempted to take over and make it about us, about what good white people we are. I've seen dudes do this all the time with feminist organizing and it drives me batshit.

This article is a good checklist for privileged activists.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]effrenata
2006-06-02 04:56 am UTC (link)
An individualist feminist perspective:

No one is under an obligation to do anything merely for being born a certain way. The only obligations a person has are those which she has freely entered into by voluntary contract.

The doctrine of unconditional obligation is a form of slave mentality, as it asserts that people must serve others, without the right to refuse or to receive anything in return. If one person must or should work for the sake of others, that is servitude. It's not a beneficial attitude for anyone to hold, regardless of their position.

That aside, there are a number of valid reasons why a privileged person would want to work for change. Improving the world improves things for everyone. The benefits of privilege are far less than those of a truly just, equal society without the current imbalances, hypocrisy, hostility and other detriments.

I would say: Don't worry about "obligation". Think about what you want to do, what matters to you, what kind of world you want to live in. What can you personally do that will bring that vision into reality? What are you best at, what do you enjoy? Who can you relate to, who can you communicate with, who can you reach? What issues do you find most important and moving? What changes would you wish to see in the world around you, and what can you do now to promote them? If you force yourself to act because of a "should", you will likely be far less effective than if you follow your genuine interests and talents.

What you "should" do is simply what is personally meaningful and worthwhile for you to do. Such actions are their own reward, whether or not they also lead to a tangible one.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]trinityva
2006-06-02 03:24 pm UTC (link)
I may be taking this too far afield by asking this, but

What you "should" do is simply what is personally meaningful and worthwhile for you to do.

In this situation? Or always? Because if you think this is always true, you're opening yourself up to claiming that people who have no altruistic motives ever are just fine -- or worse, claiming that people who have openly destructive motives are just fine as long as they find doing harm worthwhile. So how do you mean this?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]effrenata
2006-06-03 01:33 am UTC (link)
I was speaking within the OP's situation. While I do not believe that people are "born with" positive obligations to others, they have a negative obligative to respect others' rights. In libertarian social theory, this is called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): people are free to act as they wish as long as they do not initiate aggression (force or fraud) against others.

As for someone who has no altruistic motives at all: if the person's actions are peaceful, for example, a hermit who chooses to live completely alone, I have no problem with that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]candika
2006-06-02 06:29 am UTC (link)
I don't think the issue is so much being privileged. It's in assuming that you deserve it and that you're better than someone who doesn't have it. If you use it to be helpful to someone who doesn't have it it can be a good thing. The point is not to take it away from everyone who has it but to acknowledge that everyone deserves it and to work to make that happen.

(Reply to this)


[info]hexennacht
2006-06-02 06:30 am UTC (link)
Please don't take this the wrong way, for I mean no harm:

But those of us born into privilege have to do something to help society if we want to be seen not as exploitative but as decent human beings.

Is your interest in what you should do because you truly want to help society, or because you don't like feeling bad when people point their fingers at you?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]hexennacht
2006-06-02 06:34 am UTC (link)
Never mind. I missed the comment where you said that nobody has yet. (=

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-02 11:02 am UTC (link)
I'm honest enough to say that it's going to be a bit of both. Nobody likes to feel guilty, and however pathetic "white guilt" may be, it still exists, and there are plenty of young white people out there who feel it, and thus want to do something that will lessen it somehow.

That said, I do honestly want to change things. I've had a series of eye-openers over the past few years, with my (continuing) discovery of feminism being one of many, and I'm just young enough and idealistic enough to want to throw myself into some worthwhile cause, and this is as worthwhile as any.

I'm not trying to be glib; I'm just being -honest, I guess.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]amfora
2006-06-02 08:42 am UTC (link)
"were a semi-illiterate illegal immigrant from Latin America. "

:Sputters::

WHAT? We're not all semi illiterate, for your information.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-02 10:58 am UTC (link)
I wasn't saying that all immigrants from Latin America, legal or otherwise, were. I was throwing it out there as an example. I'm aware that there are many well-educated people "south of the border" with much to offer the United States.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]trinityva
2006-06-02 04:04 pm UTC (link)
with much to offer the United States.

Er... whoa, hang on. You seem to be saying that immigrants are only good if they are educated, and/or if they "have something to offer" the country. Why can't they just be people who move here, not people who come bearing gifts for the country? That's... weird. And a little creepy, honestly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-03 02:20 am UTC (link)
With much to offer the United States means simply that they are not criminals, and that they have a means of supporting themself! I honestly don't see where you're finding my supposed malice toward immigrants, nor why you think it at all odd that I would prefer immigrants to the United States be able to support themselves through useful labor of some kind - because, after all, that will make assimilation easier, which is not a small concern.

You seem determined to find offense in my words. I apologize for having offended you, as I am aware that I am not so well-educated as you and your compatriots here in the feminist communities on livejournal on bigotry intentional and unintentional, but I still do not see why anything I have said so far has been offensive enough to merit me being called "weird" and "creepy". If you think I am a bigot, tell me, and I shall try to rectify my thinking if you can give me a decent explanation why. As it is, however, I am absolutely confused why wishing that immigrants to the United States be able to support themselves is somehow offensive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]trinityva
2006-06-03 02:24 am UTC (link)
I'm not determined to find anything in yoru words. I thought I was being quite polite. I'm merely asking you to think about the words you use and what they might imply. You've asked about privilege, and that's all checking privilege means: what might that sound like to an immigrant? What might it say about who is valuable and why? Asking you to be aware is not attacking you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-03 02:30 am UTC (link)
Though I hardly think calling someone weird and creepy is the height of politeness, I'll assume you were acting from good will (if perhaps a dismaying ignorance of politeness - just as I appear to be ignorant of privilege).

Alright, I'll lay my cards on the table, then, and possibly risk being called out as a bigot. I would prefer that immigrants to the United States be educated, because educated immigrants are more valuable to the United States than poorly educated immigrants. Any immigrant, however, who can make a decent living for him or her or themselves, however, and who enters legally, and who passes all other tests and criminal background checks, should be allowed to immigrate.

Sometimes, even those who cannot fully support themselves should be allowed to immigrate to the United States - cases of political asylum; refugees from wartorn nations; relatives of already-arrived immigrants, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]trinityva
2006-06-03 03:54 am UTC (link)
I'll say it again, though I don't think you're hearing me: assuming people have "worth" makes people into commodities, which they are not. People do not exist to add resources to a nation. The worth of people is measured on other scales, if it's measured in any way at all. (Not sure if you've ever read Kant, but his distinction between "dignity" (the infinite worth of people) and "price" (the worth of objects, goods, services, etc.) is relevant here.

The US is not struggling for resources in such a way that illegal immigration threatens economic collapse. And illegal immigration is not a matter of people having full options to immigrate legally or illegally and deciding to be slothful and lazy. Education is also not such a matter. What kind of personal experience do you have with uneducated illegal immigrants? Unless they all told you school bored them, it's quite unrealistic to expect they come with an impeccable education.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tabari_avaren
2006-06-03 03:14 pm UTC (link)
No, the United States is not near collapse economically. Nor do I think that immigration is bad for the nation; I disliked the House immigration bill as much as most liberals across the nation. I'm aware that many illegal immigrants are just as hard-working as their legal counterparts, whether they be from Thailand or Nicaragua.

In an ideal world, I'd think that those illegal immigrants who could pass crimanl background checks etc., and who could prove that they'd been gainfully employed while in the United States, should be allowed the chance to gain citizenship. It's unrealistic to think that illegal immigration can be ended by erecting ever-higher walls and barriers, physical or political; it simply means that illegal immigrants would be more likely to face brutal and unfair treatment.

At the same time, however, I do think that the United States, as a government, has a right to impose some limits and limitations on the number and kind of people it legally allows to immigrate, because imposint such limitations will allow for greater ease of assimilation, which is in fact a good thing - because if immigrants assimilate more easily, their lives and the lives of their children will likely be better, and popular opinion among established citizens is less likely to be anti-immigrant.

I'll admit, I have absolutely no personal experience with illegal immigrants. None whatsoever. Zero. Zip. I don't think, however, that should totally disqualify me from expressing an opinion on immigration, legal or otherwise.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]one_in_progress
2006-06-02 09:11 pm UTC (link)
I think the question of how much is enough is very interesting and probably un answerable. I kind of think that nothing is ever enough but at the same time, anything is better than nothing. In the end, it comes down to your own (and your community's) feelings. Some people have religious beliefs that tell them that if they do don't do certain things, Peter will/won't wave them through at the gates of heaven. For the rest of us, we all have to find a way to live with knowing that we *could* always be doing more and we're not. "Do your best" is cliche partly because (imo) it's deeply true.

(Reply to this)


[info]unformed
2006-06-24 02:07 pm UTC (link)
I also got denied at Feminist for having registered too soon, it's a mechanism to deter flamers and people who want to cause trouble. I retried after a month or two and was accepted, there is a lot of good discussion there, so go for it if you're interested.

As far as living with privledge, I struggle with this too because I also come from a well-educated, middle class family, and I am white. I acknowledge my privledge, and sometimes use it to my advantage (like in court last week, being an "innocent white girl" helped me out) but most of the time, I try to help my peers (also white and class privledged for the most part) recognize their own privledge without blaming them, helping my family see that their privledge allows them to easily be something that less privledged people have to struggle for. That it's not a "lack of will power" or "work ethic" that causes the poor to be poor, but an intersecting and complicated system where the chances of comming out of an unprivledged childhood to privledged adulthood is near zero.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…