Jamie Utt reflects on listening, privilege, and Twitter conversations
Talking about identity, power, privilege, and oppression are hard enough when we have unlimited characters in which to conduct the discussion. In turn, why so many (including myself) decide to have these tough conversations over Twitter is beyond me, but it happens. Recently a highly-publicized conversation took place on Twitter between The Good Men Project founder Tom Matlack and some feminist and anti-racist women and men concerning the language and perspectives Tom had taken in some pieces here on GMP.
The majority of the conversation related to feminism, male privilege, and the concept of being a male ally, and the conversation inspired such controversy, that much publishing has been done in its wake (see here, here, here, and here as a place to start). However, a small strain of the conversation related to a comparison Tom made between black men being overrepresented in prisons and a piece Hugo Schwyzer published explaining why it’s understandable for men to be “guilty until proven innocent” when it comes to rape.
Race scholar Sarah Jackson took issue with his comparison and tried to engage in a discussion with him about why the analogy is problematic.
If there’s anything we White folks are good at, it’s getting defensive when we think we’re being called racist, and we’re especially good at getting defensive when we’re told that we may, in fact, be benefitting from White Privilege.
In reading through the Twitter conversation, I had to stop here for a minute because this hit a little too close to home. In my attempts to become an ally to Women, People of Color, LGBTQ folks, and other traditionally-marginalized identities, I’ve definitely messed up – A Lot. One of the hardest things for me in attempting to build ally relationships, then, has been to hear that I’ve messed up and not simply get defensive and retreat into my privilege.
A professor of Color in college once told me, “The best thing you can learn to do if you want to be an ally is realize that you’re going to fuck up, and you’re going to do it a lot, so you will need to learn to apologize with honesty and a true desire to change. Then don’t get hung up . . . move forward and do better.”
At this point in the Twitter conversation, that’s what I was hoping to hear from a man I greatly respect, but instead, Tom dug in:
From there, the conversation about race in the Twitter feed mostly stops, but the conversation about feminism and male allies has continued for quite some time in many mediums and contexts.
What I haven’t seen addressed widely, though, is the ways that Whiteness and privilege clouded what should have been an otherwise cut and dry issue. It could have ended like this:
Sarah: “That language is hurtful and spurious.”
Tom: “Wow . . . I can see where you’re coming from, and I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make such a problematic comparison. Consider it recanted.”
♦◊♦
Now, let me be clear. I am not writing this piece to further attack Tom Matlack. Instead, I see this conversation as an incredible growth point for talking about listening and privilege.
In A Language Older Than Words, Derrick Jensen discusses the dominant culture of destruction that allows genocide, starvation, rape, and so many more atrocities by saying, “Silencing is central to the workings of our culture. The staunch refusal to hear the voices of those we exploit is crucial to our domination of them.”
I was raised into a culture where I benefit from a great many privileges. I am Cis-Male, White, Straight, and Able-Bodied, and I come from a family of wealth privilege. In the words of Louis CK, “How many advantages can one person have!?” With those advantages comes a little voice that tells me that I am always right, that I am above reproach, that I have power and deserve power.
As such, I’ve done a lot of silencing in my life, but most of it wasn’t active. I haven’t necessarily talked over someone or shouted someone down. Instead, I’ve resorted to one of my most powerful weapons as a person of privilege: my refusal to listen.
As White folks, we’re taught that we shouldn’t listen to voices of Color. After all, if we did, we wouldn’t need study after study to prove that racism is real and that we don’t live in a “post-racial” society. We would simply be able to hear it in the stories and voices of those of Color that must live in our very-racialized society every single day.
In his piece resigning from The Good Men Project, Hugo Schwyzer put it this way, “Power conceals itself from those who possess it. And the corollary is that privilege is revealed more clearly to those who don’t have it.” As a person of privilege, I know that I cannot see all of the ways that my identity silences other voices, and I cannot see the ways that my privilege works to empower me while disempowering others.
Thus, when criticized for my language, the space I am taking up, or for the ways in which my actions reveal my privilege, my first response needs to be to listen. No matter how defensive that statement makes me, I need to listen. No matter how much I would like to retort with a story about how I’m not as privileged as the other is assuming, I need to listen.
Listening is the root of justice.
♦◊♦
It is notable in his conversation with Sarah that Tom was never called a racist. Sarah points out something very important (excuse my translation from character-saving-speak): “It is possible for people not to be racist and still be capable of saying less-than-accurate/sensitive things regarding race.”
I don’t know Tom’s character, so I can’t say whether or not he, in the core of his being, is a racist, but I don’t think that matters in the conversation. To pull the “BUT I’M NOT A RACIST!!!!!” defense (as we White folks so often do) effectively diverts the conversation from the problematic nature of what was said to a conversation about whether the person who said it believes they are racist, a perhaps interesting but otherwise relatively pointless conversation that the White person should really just be having with themselves.
I love the way that Jay Smooth from Ill Doctrine puts it when he says we need to avoid the “what they are” conversation and, instead, focus on the “what they did” conversation. If what I said was hurtful and spurious (and I agree with Sarah that what Tom said was pretty darn spurious and problematic), “we don’t need to see inside [my] soul to know that [I] should not have said all that.”
Rather than finding it “demeaning” when folks of Color (or other White folks) try to tell me how my comments or actions made them feel or may have been problematic, I need to realize that this is an incredible opportunity to listen and self reflect.
In the end, though, we have to realize that listening is only the beginning. It is the beginning of a life-long process of critical self-reflection, reflection regarding our thoughts, actions, and words. We must be willing to hold ourselves to the highest standards and ask ourselves, “Do my actions align with my anti-racist values?” If not, we need to work to change. Perhaps my greatest privilege as a White person is my ability to walk through this life and never self reflect and never listen. But I must choose to listen and to follow those truths to their ends, even if those ends mean I must change the way I live.
After all, the worst thing that can happen is that I can learn that there is work to be done and, in the words of my professor, “apologize with honesty and a true desire to change, move forward, and do better.”
Maybe one place I can start is to read up on the two pieces Sarah linked Tom to in their conversation:
“Why I Don’t Want to Talk About Race” by Steve Locke
“Why I Want to Talk About Race, and Why You Should, Too” by Sarah J. Jackson
—
Read Tom Matlack’s point of view around these same events here:
Why I DO Want to Talk About Race
—
photo by cameronperkins / flickr
Here is why I believe that blacks do indeed commit a disproportionate number of crimes: 1. Arrest and victimization surveys 2. There are a disproportionate number of black victims of crime. This is the most important point. Criminals are opportunistic and tend to commit crimes in places that are familiar. I would expect a disproportionate number of white victims since whites should have more access to the criminal justice assuming that society is racist. . More black victims imply more black perpetrators. 3. I know the academy, media etc is heavily biased to not believing blacks commit more crimes due… Read more »
I will say the same thing to you that I said to “Mike.” The problem is that you are not disaggregating the data. Violent crime is a problem of poor communities, not Black communities. When you disaggregate to look at poor White communities (or poor Latino communities or poor Asian communities, etc) you find that similar rates of violent crimes exist. Numerous studies (chief among them the work of Ching-Chi Hsieh and M. D. Pugh as published in the Autumn 1993 edition of Criminal Justice Review) prove that there is a causation relationship between poverty and violent crime. The problem… Read more »
i agree… we must listen more…
The problem starts with Hugo saying “guilty until proven innocent”, which is a bad idea in any context. Much better if he had said “dangerous until proven safe”, which is much more reasonable. By and large, everyone gets to choose what counts as “safe” on pretty much whatever bases suggested by their own judgement, including gender and actually also including race.
Then Tom picked up the wrong end of it, and it all went downhill.
I’m a guy. I’m not a rapist. If a woman wants to take precautions because I’m around, I’m good with that. If she didn’t, I’d thinking about telling her she ought to.
I am willing to concede to the argument that what Tom said was problematic to get at the meat of what he was trying to say in the twitter conversation. What Tom was getting at is that there is no rational reason why women ought to believe that men are guilty until proven innocent. There is a reason why we have the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” and a very good reason why it is the cornerstone of America’s Justice System. I’m just going to go into a brief anecdote. One day, when I was in college, I was just… Read more »
I am really surprised that despite living in a free, liberal democracy, people are throwing around words like “privileges” and “oppression.” There is no place for any privilege or oppression in democracy. Everybody has to take responsibility for his own choices and face its consequences. Slavery was abolished in the U.S. on December 6, 1864, about 147 years ago. All discrimination are banned under Civil Rights law. The African American community has to introspect why it has fallen behind other groups and has high rate of incarceration. The use of the term “People of Color” is just a distraction to… Read more »
“There is no place for any privilege or oppression in democracy. Everybody has to take responsibility for his own choices and face its consequences”
I believe the argument against that would be that racism/sexism is simply no longer overt but it still manifest itself covertly. At least that is the argument I have heard used. I would still argue that it is just too easy to assume that everything that happens is a result of our actions and none of our circumstances are due to blind luck/being unlucky or racism/sexism.
“I would still argue that it is just too easy to assume that everything that happens is a result of our actions and none of our circumstances are due to blind luck/being unlucky or racism/sexism.”
I do not deny the contribution of luck or hindrances caused by personal prejudices of other people, but the institutionalized discrimination against minority ethic groups do not exist. When cannot always rely on luck to get goodies in life despite all hindrances. One has to take charge of his life and work towards success in life.
” but the institutionalized discrimination against minority ethic groups do not exist.”
I don’t know whether or not this is true (i.e. whether or not institutionalized racism/sexism exists). It is often asserted that it does exists but the proof I’ve seen given, if any is given at all, has always been underwhelming. I do believe that individual people out there, or heck even groups of people like the KKK, are still racist and sexist but I’m not quite sold on the idea that discrimination against race/sex is “institutionalized” (whatever that means).
” but the institutionalized discrimination against minority ethnic groups do not exist.”
This statement is not correct. If we take a step back to note that discrimination can be a rational tool, it’s not a great leap of logic to conclude that it can often be used irrationally – by both individuals and institutions.
Can you provide some examples of institutionalized discrimination against minority ethnic groups.
Hi Rapses – I’ll provide an example that does not depend on a numerical minority:
The Hutu and Tutsi ethnic conflict in Rwanda that resulted in genocide.
Well you seem to be missing the point. We are discussing that there is institutionalized discrimination against ethnic minority communities in the U.S. or not. Where does Hutu and Tutsi ethnic conflict in Rwanda fit in the context.
I did not realize the discussion was scoped to the U.S. only. I take it you agree with my example otherwise, right?
I don’t live in the U.S. – there are residents posting here that are better suited.
But that’s never stopped me before…..not sure if it has been corrected as of yet, but how about the disparate sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine and how that difference impacts certain groups more than others?
The ethnic violence in Rwanda was due to civil war between two ethnic groups for dominance. It is totally different issue from institutionalized discrimination against ethic minority groups in free and democratic country. As for difference is sentencing for crack and powder cocaine, the U.S. congress has declared powder cocaine as Schedule II substance. It can be administered by doctor for legitimate medical uses, like serving as a local anesthetic for some eye, ear, and throat surgeries. Crack cocaine is cheaper and highly addictive with no current medical use.
Rick. Thanks for explaining aggravating circumstances and the importance of “intent” as a part of the prosecutor’s choice of charges, and the sentencing. Part of society that tells us theses things is the NCVS, which is about victims, from victims, prior to any racist justice system getting involved. And a disproportionate number of the victims are black. And they are not victims of whites, for the most part. Grossly, disproportionately not. The question of differential incarceration can’t be answered, nor even discussed, if people are unwilling to discuss differential rates of criminal activity. Or, in fact, if they are going… Read more »
Julie – to be fair I understand your point that a first article to point MediaHound in the right direction is a nice idea but, in reality, what that ends up creating is an environment where I’m somehow required to supply an article each time I state something long ago proven as fact. This is inappropriate and a waste of my time. In fact, comments like this from Ieta are exactly why I won’t supply citations for each established fact I present : “If you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence to back up your assertions why on earth… Read more »
Yes, I have been involved in social justice long enough to know that argument Andrew. I”m not a newbie. In fact I’m an oldbie. And the argument has merit and I’ve used it when threads were being seriously derailed, in this case, your statement was unclear even to me. I assumed you were speaking of abortion and reproductive issues, but it was relatively vague. A legal case? Historical precedent? And refusing to give additional clarifying information…I don’t know, this type of comment is one thing I tend to dislike about social justice. I mean I get it. It isn’t your… Read more »
Julie I defer to your status as an oldbie, appreciate, and agree with what you’ve said. I’m not trying to be caustic. I’m just a human being that doesn’t want to take the time to track down an article that relevantly articulates the issues on behalf of another person. I agree my reference was vague. That was intentional. There have been a host of reproductive rights issues; issues related to contraception, access to adequate health care, shaming, etc for as long as this has been a country. I didn’t pick an article both out of conservation of my own energy… Read more »
Andrew – you seem to be worried about Teaching Others. You have not been asked to do that. You were asked to clarify your point. I have also pointed out that there are Cultural and Social differences caused by readers and contributors coming from all over the world. It is not just a USA centric site. When you are making comments that are US centric it is actually rude to assume that they understand your reference. You seem to even acknowledge this, but can’t seem to grasp the evident need for clarity? As I said, I believed your response was… Read more »
MediaHound, I know my inclusion of a hyperlink in another comment seems contradictory. My explanation for that is that is a link and an article I’ve used numerous times as a researcher. It is near, dear, and familiar to me. It took no time to link to it. On the other hand, it would take a fair amount of time to find just the right one article to share with you to further illuminate my point. I guess my point is an entire library of information is but a mere few keystrokes away if the motivation is there. I don’t… Read more »
I guess it would help if you clarified the topic. Abortion and repro rIghts? The irony is you’ve probably wasted more time commenting about commenting then by being specific to begin with. Oh well.
Andrew. If you happen to murder somebody in the process of robbing a convenience store in a white neighborhood while your primary residence is in a black neighborhood, the presumption of intent is stronger than if you got into a fight at a bar in a black neighborhood and knocked a guy down who hit his head and died. Sort of happened in a small town where I used to live. Not much of a fight, a shoving match. One participant died of a heart attack. The prosecution was not for first-degree, and our state doesn’t have the death penalty… Read more »
Richard, I appreciate your elaboration. I think the picture you paint relies too heavily on black and white. I mean to say that it *sounds* prejudiced to say that there are black and white neighborhoods and that when a person leaves one of these imaginatively racialized neighborhoods to travel to another it indicates some sort of intent to commit a violent act. This kind of example reminds me of South African establishment propaganda during apartheid. Richard I seriously, and from my heart, beseech you to read from some new and different sources; maybe even the two that Jamie and I… Read more »
Andrew — he’s not attempting to suggest that people who leave unmixed neighborhoods are a threat. He’s saying that crimes of passion — the sort which usually do not receive the death penalty — tend to happen in your own neighborhood because it probably happened in the course of your regular life (fight with your wife, bar fight, etc). If you happen to live in an unmixed neighborhood, this makes it highly likely that this crime of passion will be committed against someone of your own race. If you commit the crime in a separate neighborhood, it’s less likely that… Read more »
Jamie. Talk to the black victims. Also, see the disproportion in interracial crimes.
As to the death penalty, you need aggravating circumstances to qualify for capital punishment. That means a crime of sudden rage might not qualify. But to kill a person of another race usually means leaving one’s own surroundings with intent, which may amount to aggravating circumstances.
In any event, the fact is that the woman in question is dead and the disproportion is obvious.
Pick up the book, read it, and then we can talk. Until then, I have no patience for this overtly-racist perspective.
Wow Jamie, did you just shut someone down using the word “racism”? Do you usually dismiss opponents with shut down words or do you sometimes remove your fingers from your ears?
“Pick up the book, read it, and then we can talk. Until then, I have no patience for this overtly-racist perspective.”
Ok if you agree to read a book on Quantum Mechanics. What is the use of reading your book if it is about sentencing. It has nothing to do with racial disproportion in the number of crimes committed.
Richard,
As a person born to a Black Father and a White Mother I am suddenly troubled by the point you make. I am poised to leave my surroundings with intent (exactly as you describe) but find myself half in each surrounding. To which do I endeavor to aggravate circumstances?
Andrew.
I don’t make up the stats. I don’t commit the crimes. If you have a problem with them, talk to the guys who do commit the crimes, or perhaps you could have a word with those who keep the figures.
We don’t, or should not, apply generalized statistics to individuals. That’s different from pretending generalized statistics don’t exist.
Much like Andrew, I don’t have the energy to lay out how incredibly asinine this train of logic is, but fortunately, others have already done the work. All I have to say is pick up a copy of Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” There you will find research that proves such fun facts as White people use and sell drugs at rates equal to or higher than Black people, yet Black youth are 20-50 times as likely to see prison for drug offenses than White youth. You will find that Black men… Read more »
Jamie, You have twice saved me from an exorbitant number of keystrokes, written yet another insightful follow up comment, and also made a heck of a reading recommendation – thanks! I believe the ways in which crime has been racialized on the news is also an important factor in forming perceptions of reality so, as a mass media nerd, I would like to add this important article to the fray: https://images.komunikasipublik.multiply.multiplycontent.com/attachment/0/RiWOkgoKCowAABYWXF41/Victimization%20on%20Local%20Television%20News.pdf?key=komunikasipublik:journal:99&nmid=25195083 I’m not sure if the moderators allow for links to be embedded in comments. I’m guessing not. In case it doesn’t work Richard, hop over to my Twitter account… Read more »
Wow, now it not just white “privilege”, its white “supremacy”, and an “overt” supremacy at that! I can’t wait to tell those homless white people on the corner how “supremely” good they’ve got it!
Jamie, the focus on drug statistics is a purposeful attempt to mislead. Look at Victim Data Reports (you know, for crimes where there is an actual victim) and you will find that certain groups (blacks among them) commit massively disproportionate numbers of violent crimes. The real kicker is that the victims are ALSO members of those same groups: young black men tend to shoot other young black men. This removes racism from the equation: it’s not about who the police arrest, it’s about who actually did what according to victims of crime. This means that young black men are pointing… Read more »
The problem is that you are not disaggregating the data. Violent crime is a problem of poor communities, not Black communities. When you disaggregate to look at poor White communities (or poor Latino communities or poor Asian communities, etc) you find that similar rates of violent crimes exist. Numerous studies (chief among them the work of Ching-Chi Hsieh and M. D. Pugh as published in the Autumn 1993 edition of Criminal Justice Review) prove that there is a causation relationship between poverty and violent crime. The problem in your logic, though, is that you ignore the fact that Black people… Read more »
“Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” There are a disproportionate number of black victims of crime. This fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate that blacks commit more crime than whites. “There you will find research that proves such fun facts as White people use and sell drugs at rates equal to or higher than Black people, yet Black youth are 20-50 times as likely to see prison for drug offenses than White youth. You will find that Black men are twice as likely to get the death penalty for killing a White Woman… Read more »
What did you miss about “White people use and sell drugs at rates equal to or higher than Black people…”? Is that not committing crime?
Unfortunately, any discussion of racial, gender, or class issues is often a one way conversation where the struggles of only one segment of society is focused on. Analogies don’t work well because of the complexity and interaction of the many variants. My main critique would be of the use of generalized statistics applied to individuals. Surely a black man growing up in the burbs has a much better start than a white man growing up in the Ghetto. Why is all the focus on Whites, when Asians and Jews do so much better in socioeconomics? I’m not shifting blame, I… Read more »
We can listen. We can hear those speaking of the experience of being victimized, and decide they have no clue. For example. blacks and crime stats. They are what they are. Disproportionately, compared to whites and Asians. Since the bulk of the victims are also black, we can be pretty sure the crimes aren’t made up by whites out of whole cloth. So to hear somebody say the whole disproportionate number of blacks in the criminal justice system is due to racism is to hear nonsense. They should speak to the (black) victims about it. Perhaps we should consider the… Read more »
Richard, I just want to go on record as having openly said that what you have written is offensively devoid of truth and value. Your words are exactly the kind of gentle prejudice and silent privilege we as persons of color have to endure day after day. I can’t prove how hurtful and ignorant what you have said is in anything less than 5,000 words which is precisely why what you have said is so dangerous. I also have no interest in giving you that much of my time and energy. However, I will encourage you to look beyond whatever… Read more »
Richard is right. Blacks commit more crimes than whites. PERIOD. “Your words are exactly the kind of gentle prejudice and silent privilege we as persons of color have to endure day after day” Please speak for yourself. Not all POCs agree with you. “However, I will encourage you to look beyond whatever scant sources have brought you to so absurdly vacant a position as you have written here so that you may some day understand the very real, very powerful phenomena you clearly do not yet understand. If not for yourself, do it for the next generation. They deserve to… Read more »
As I read through these comments, there is a great deal to which I’d like to respond. However, in my limited time, there are two main points that I’d like to make. First, in response to those who say that Tom’s analogy is, in fact, not spurious at all, I cannot speak for why Sarah saw the comment as problematic. However, why I see the comment as spurious (at best) lies in its ignorance of power structures. Essentially Tom is comparing the experience of an oppressed minority (black men) and their perception among the dominant majority culture with the experience… Read more »
And this, “As White Men, both Tom and I have the privilege of hearing our voices reflected back to us in just about every possible context. Thus, Sarah has listened to Tom’s perspective countless times. God forbid, then, that those of us with privilege take a minute to stop, listen accountably while trying to work through our defensiveness, and consider the ways that the perspective across difference might hold truth and power. This is not to say that with every listening experience, I must then say, “Oh . . . that Black man said it. This is my new truth!”… Read more »
My issue, though, is with the idea that because some white guy said something my voice no longer counts because I’m a white guy and “white voices” are common. Well, there’s nothing inherently different about being white, though of course our stupid society likes to pretend there is. So being told to be quiet because another white guy already had his say is pretty infuriating, as though in No Privilege Land every race gets a single representative at the table to speak for their entire race. That’s just silly. I’m not one to believe I’m entirely a unique and beautiful… Read more »
They aren’t that daft. It’s just what they say to shut people up.
Again on that basis your feminist view is the dominant and privileged view.
It’s almost impossible to get any feminist to listen to anything which contradicts their privileged views. Look around this site and you see that all the time. or any other site that has feminists on it.
No my privilege as a white person is why I should listen and ask questions. I was born, by dint of fate into a white body in a system that has for a very long time privileged whites. I should also listen and ask questions and listen to the answers of men. I do that. I’m aware I have a great deal of privilege. White, straight, able bodied, married, well educated. That’s part of why I’m interested in privilege to begin with. I have benefits that are arbitrary based on my race, class, sexual orientation and I don’t think it’s… Read more »
I have no problem with looking to equalize things. What I have a problem with is the view that because I’m white, the fact that other white men talk means that what I have to say isn’t valuable or worth hearing. Race is a real division, but it doesn’t have to be, and I’m not at all persuaded that people invested in identity politics are effectively ending that division. They just tend to mock the ideal of a color-blind society, as though our society is fated forevermore to privilege certain specific people and not others. I think most of identity… Read more »
Absolutely Rick. I think we all have valuable things to say. That’s not, in fact, what I mean. I did not mean that because one person speaks others do not get to or do not have valuable things to add. It might take more time to write than I have, but that was not my intention.
Right, my response was mainly to Jamie, who really seems to be arguing that other white voices render mine irrelevant and unimportant.
“No my privilege as a white person”
You also have a privilege as a leftist feminist which is that your privilege concept is accepted. I HATE IT and don’t accept it. And don’t like hearing it. So maybe my perspective as a non-leftist, non-believer in privilege should be HEARD. I don’t accept the bullshit concept of privilege.
You don’t have to accept any concept at all. Doesn’t mean that people in the world aren’t utilizing it as a way of understanding the world. There are things posted here I don’t necessarily accept or buy into but I still listen and examine them. And who is telling you that you shouldn’t be heard? I’m listening, for one.
Essentially Tom is comparing the experience of an oppressed minority (black men) and their perception among the dominant majority culture with the experience of members of the dominant majority (men) and how they are perceived by those who are oppressed by the dominant majority (women). Actually, women outnumber men, so technically men are a minority. More importantly, the comparison was not about who is oppressed, but about the prejudice that one group holds against another. I imagine Matlack used black people for this comparison because most people would understand what he meant. Even if the comparison were as you described,… Read more »
As to your first point, when I was referring to “majority” and “minority,” I should have been more clear. For someone to be of the dominant majority class, they do not need to be in the numerical majority. For instance, the wealthy are in the vast minority in this country, but they have a grossly-disproportionate voice in media, business, politics – you name it. In much the same way, men may be 49% of the population, but they are in control in business, politics, media – you name it. You’re right – the point is not about who is oppressed,… Read more »
So you are advocating collective punishment of men here? Because some tiny minority of men have positions of power the other men must shut up? That’s an immoral and irrational position. You were asked: “Where in “mainstream, dominant culture” do you see or hear anyone talking about how unfair it is to label all men rapists?” To your credit you did apparently try to Google some sources and failed. Against your credit you didn’t cop to it. So your position is false. Why can’t you admit that? You stated that Tom’s position was a privileged one that was very commonly… Read more »
“Second, where in the mainstream don’t you see male perspectives?!? Take film, for instance: “Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female” (Dr. Stacy Smith, Ph.D. at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism). Take news media where none of the major news networks are owned or helmed by a woman. Take business business where 17 of the top 500 companies are run by men. As to your specific point, when you google “rape accusations,” almost all of the sites are dedicated to the perception that men are disproportionately falsely accused of rape, something… Read more »
“which, notably, Hugo did not argue in his piece; instead, he argued that it is understandable that women often view all men as rapists, and that we are the ones who need to be responsible for changing this reality by changing the reality of sexual violence in our culture).”” Its also understandable for a lot of prejudices. It is still wrong. I am not responsible for the actions of other men and women are not responsible for the actions of other women. All black people are not responsible for the actions of some black people. Holding understandable but irrational prejudices… Read more »
Jamie, I disagree that Matlack’s analogy was problematic because the purpose of an analogy is not to recognize a particular ideological position, which is what you are talking about, but to simply make a comparison to demonstrate a point. Arguing over “privilege” dodges Matlack’s point that it is wrong to label an entire group based on a few people’s actions. Examples of places where men outnumber women do not prove that men’s feelings, emotions, and opinions are “reflected and heard constantly in the mainstream, dominant culture.” The WSJ article does not argue that all men are not rapists. It objects to… Read more »
“My point is that Tom’s perspective (and mine, quite frankly) are reflected and heard constantly in the mainstream, dominant culture. As White Men, both Tom and I have the privilege of hearing our voices reflected back to us in just about every possible context. Thus, Sarah has listened to Tom’s perspective countless times.”
I feel like screaming. Your perspective is that of a liberal who believes in the concept of privilege. Indeed your leftist, feminist perspective is heard many times. AND I WANT TO HEAR LESS AND LESS OF IT.
I really appreciate this piece. Jamie’s points about listening have sometimes become sidelined in these comments, as some with privilege have tried to play the game of “we’re actually oppressed, based on [insert criteria like money, supposedly not being listened to in feminist conversations, etc.] .” Privilege–which does overlap with oppression, of course, so that no one is exclusively privileged OR oppressed–is operating here in ways that Jamie has pointed to: being more likely to listen to privileged voices on a subject like race or gender, rather than the voices of those who really are oppressed by such categories (i.e.,… Read more »
Thanks Josh, and Jamie, of course, who started this —
We are going to do a whole series on “privilege” in the near future, as I think a big part of the problem is that people are interpreting that word in different ways. We are hoping to get a a range of voices on the subject — from female feminists, to male feminists, to MRA’s at both ends of the MRA spectrum. If you or anyone else would like to write on the topic, please email me lisa at goodmenproject dot com.
Maybe you should ask Jeremy Stangroom over at talking philosophy. He seems to make a good argument against the ‘check your privilege’ card
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4010#comments
Having now read that piece I find myself wishing Jeremy had invested as much time in actually studying privilege as he did combing through his thesaurus. I’m going to have nightmares later about his rampant over-reliance/misuse of the word “epistemological”. I know I sound cavalier – but to pose as an authority on privilege while clearly demonstrating an alarmingly troubling and blatantly ignorant view of it is a bit too audacious for me to seriously address. I suppose I could paste this from Jeremy’s piece just for fun though: “…that people do not necessarily experience what most us would take… Read more »
You clearly don’t agree with his POV. Perhaps you repost your post at talking philosophy and see what Jeremy has to say in his defence.
I made the suggestion because there is always more than one perspective on any issue.
It’s not his POV I disagree with. It’s his being wrong that I disagree with. What Jeremy has written is dangerously devoid of truth, persuasively written, and clearly bigoted. I’m not going to engage with someone so clearly steeped in his own putrid fumes. I will however hold firm to my desire not to see him involved in any meaningful discussion of privilege here or anywhere else. I’m noticing a problem here in the comments on this site. People want so very desperately to value the contributions of all who comment. In doing so they take people that write clearly… Read more »
“but to pose as an authority on privilege while clearly demonstrating an alarmingly troubling and blatantly ignorant view of it is a bit too audacious for me to seriously address.”
– Andrew, there are those who read your responses on this cite feel exactly the same way about your views. Thank you for providing such an unthinking and dismissive response that can be applied to your comments in the future.
Okay I have a serious question. In his piece resigning from The Good Men Project, Hugo Schwyzer put it this way, “Power conceals itself from those who possess it. And the corollary is that privilege is revealed more clearly to those who don’t have it.” Please explain to me how in the realm of gender this seems to be only held true when talking about men. When talking about how power conceals itself, who has power, and how it affects others in the realm of gender people are so quick to bring this up about men BUT talk about women… Read more »
Feminists’ arguments why any comparisons between treatment of men and blacks are wrong reminded me of this piece on Feministe: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/11/29/why-men-rape/
In this short piece there is made a gross generalisation based on a bad survey that two thirds of men in South Africa RAPED WOMEN at some point in their lives: when called out on and pointing out the obvious minsandrist title (not even mentioning the contents) feminists accuse of “trolling” or using a banhammer.
I find this part of your writing the most poignant and wherein I think sums everything up:
“Silencing is central to the workings of our culture. The staunch refusal to hear the voices of those we exploit is crucial to our domination of them.”
“Listening is the root of justice.” Very true words!
THIS.
I, also, have a shit-ton of privilege. Absofrigginlutely. And, as has been made clear on numerous occasions, I can be fantastically naive. Which is fine. I am ok with being naive – because it is only by making my ignorance clear that I can seek to learn.
One thing I didn’t expect was how much I would learn and come to understand just by becoming a blogger. It’s pretty awesome. That you for this piece, it is spot effing on.
The irony is that Matlack’s tweet was a criticism of feminist language and feminists’ failure to listen to him. Imagine what would have occurred if feminists considered how accusing all men of being rapists until proven otherwise is a spurious and problematic comment. Imagine if this had happened: Tom: “That language is hurtful and spurious.” Hugo: “Wow . . . I can see where you’re coming from, and I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make such a problematic comment. Consider it recanted.” But that did not happen. No feminist took the incredible opportunity to listen and self reflect on how… Read more »
“Tom: “That language is hurtful and spurious.”
Hugo: “Wow . . . I can see where you’re coming from, and I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make such a problematic comment. Consider it recanted.””
Jacob – if I had seen that I might have been looking for a star in the east and the Second Coming” or even the “Rapture”!
Creativity comes from a conflict of ideas.
Donatella Versace
… and Donatella does know just how conflict changes like fashion.
At the very least (even according to their own bizarro logic) they should have said sorry for calling all the non-white, non-hetero, non-abled men rapists.
Thanks for this Jamie. The whole interaction had really troubled me. In the midst of such difficult interactions on several fronts it took me time to process why. It also took taking to friends I trust on these issues. And writing some stuff that frankly wouldn’t have been helpful. Where I landed after all that is here:
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-i-do-want-to-talk-about-race/
I don’t expect that to answer all your concerns or Sarah’s. But it is my attempt to bridge the gap in a constructive way and have a civil conversation about what upset you so much about my response.
Tom!
I loved reading your piece, and thank you for posting it. While you are right that it doesn’t answer all of my concerns, I very much appreciate your willingness to confront these tough issues. Thank you for your courage and your honesty.
Jamie
” I am Cis-Male, White, Straight, and Able-Bodied, and I come from a family of wealth privilege”- is this some sort of political correct mea culpa ? I always thought that personal preferences concerning, for example, sex, were a private matter. Pardon me for not self-flagellating for being white. Besides, wealth is usually an outcome of wise decisions made by yourself and your ancestors- something to be proud of, not of shame and guilt. As for the term “people of color”- for me, it is highly offensive. It implies that there are whites and virtually everybody else on the other… Read more »
Wirbelwind, “…wealth is usually an outcome of wise decisions made by yourself and your ancestors…” I’d like to focus first on this because I see it as a fascinating window into your thought process. You express wealth as success rather than expressing the interconnected nature of wealth and those that have worked (often in oppressive circumstances) in order to amass that wealth for others. For every iPhone there’s a worker mercilessly toiling away for rare earth metals; every diamond some blood. Take any symbol or institution of wealth and you’ll find a similar relationship between wealth and oppression. That is… Read more »
Andrew, Your concept of “wealth” does not match reality for three distinct reasons. First, you do not seem to appreciate that commerce is the voluntary exchange of work-product for work-product. So while you see “toil” in the production of an iPhone, you do not admit that the person who has the money to buy the iPhone ALSO “toiled” in order to get said money in the first place. I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so I will not speculate on why you have this misconception, but there it is. Second, you seem to be mistakenly equating… Read more »
I find this Ongoing Dissection of Twitter Gate fascinating – and how it always comes back to TOM apparently not having twitted a correct response to others. I keep wondering why not one of the Twits thought to use this format? “@ TMatlack your last GMP post is of #Concern. You OK Dude? ” Now that is a Twit that fits within the 140 character format and even has a clear message. It even can be seen as social or even courteous before ASSUMING you have the green light to roll out a whole personal and even professional agenda via… Read more »
Does anyone here not get how stupid the term ‘people/persons of color’ sounds? Its just another way of saying colored or colored folk.
Right now it seems like a challange for feminists to drop their ‘privilege’ bullshit.