…are the two gender-related topic options listed under “Causes & Issues” on Yahoo!Groups.
…are the two gender-related topic options listed under “Causes & Issues” on Yahoo!Groups.
And here is where a convo i had comes real clear.
Equal Pay is set up like women who have ” earned ” the right almost always middle class white shouldn’t have to be embarrassed professionally by unequal pay.
A fundamental check against the fact that business target low-low middle income women as ways to cut costs
and thereby starve families
AS A BUSINESS MODEL.
so it’s organized around and treated as part of some kind of sick self worth competition with the dudes you have beer with/date/argue in your liberal arts sociology class
than something killing families and throttling economies.
BEcause it’s a shock
Shock is a DEFENSIVE response
Also: add in businesses where the bad pay and outrageous work load is supposed to be balanced by someone moving up and out by promotion/seniority, but they pass the women, or press just a little too hard and when (naturally, inevitably) someone slips up or breaks down just a little, they can let them go and get someone else up on the line to start the process over.
The lack of maternity leave isn’t just about money in the obvious sense - it’s about forcing women to eventually drop things while juggling far too much for too long, so they can rationalize letting them go or passing them up for the raises and benefits that were promised along the way.
Ain’t nothing but a game of chutes and ladders but they done stole all the ladders…
— Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay (via tgadding)
SAN ANTONIO (CN) - A 14-year-old boy got into a fight at a school bus stop and the school district’s police officer responded by shooting him to death, the boy’s mother says. She says the cop had been reprimanded 16 times in the previous 4 years, suspended without pay 5 times, and “recommended for termination for insubordination,” but the school kept him on the force “without remedial training.”
Denys Lopez Moreno sued the Northside Independent School District, of San Antonio, the district’s Chief of Police John Page and the alleged shooter, Daniel Alvarado, in Federal Court.
Lopez says her son, Derek, got into a fight with another boy at a school bus stop and punched the other boy once, in November 2010.
“Defendant, Alvarado, having responded to a call regarding a bus with a flat tire, witnessed Derek strike the other boy. He ordered Derek to ‘freeze.’ Derek hesitated and then ran from defendant Alvarado,” according to the complaint.
“In his patrol car, Alvarado began chasing Derek in the neighborhood across the street from the high school. Alvarado lost sight of the boy in the neighborhood and returned to the location of the school boy fight. At that time, he called dispatch. Dispatch recordings reflect that his supervisor directed Alvarado to stay with the other boy and to ‘not do any big search over there.’
“Ignoring his supervisor’s orders to ‘stay with the victim and get the information from him,’ Alvarado placed the second boy into the patrol car and sped into the neighborhood to search for Derek.”
Lopez says her son jumped over a fence and hid in a shed in the back yard of a house. The homeowner saw him, called 911, and alerted a neighbor, who pointed Alvarado in Derek’s direction. Lopez says her son never left the shed, never approached the house or threatened the homeowner or her daughters, and posed no threat to anyone.
Nonetheless, she says: “In violation of NISD police department procedures, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting the patrol car. With his gun drawn, he rushed through the gate and into the back yard. Within seconds from arriving at the residence, Alvarado shot and killed the unarmed boy hiding in the shed.”
Jesus fucking christ.
Two boys have a fist fight & a cop shoots one to death, but we’re supposed to teach our kids to trust authority? Yeah…no. Whether anyone wants to face it or not, police forces across the country contain some deeply flawed individuals who have no business with a badge or a gun. You cannot tell at a glance which one you’re dealing with & thus you cannot trust the police.
Dear middle-aged man with the anti-Walker sign that included the word “FOOLISH” circumnavigating the Capitol at about 2pm on Thursday, August 25th:
When I saw you with your sign as I headed across the Capitol Square, I thought we had something in common. I spent almost every day at the Capitol for a month and a half, after all.
When as you passed me, you turned to me and gleefully pronounced, with no effort to provide even a shred of context, “Did you know it’s legal to CHOKE A WOMAN in Wisconsin?” I knew without a shadow of a doubt that there was a hell of a lot that we didn’t.
I regret that all I was able to muster in response in the moment was “Wow, you are creepy as fuck,” although I stand by my statement.
I wish, when you replied, seeming slightly taken aback, “Well, PROSSER did it,” that I had actually followed you instead of waiting at the corner for you to make it the rest of the way back around to me, which you never did, or at least not before I had to leave for the appointment I was on my way to in the first place.
But since I didn’t follow you, here is what I wanted to say to you, in addition to the 100% accurate evaluation of your behavior that I was able to personally deliver at the time:
You clearly have no idea what it means to be a woman navigating public spaces. I guess I’m not surprised, since I never really expect men to have any clue what it’s like to be a woman, even if women have been trying to explain it to them, possibly for decades. Had I been able to tell you all this in person, for instance, I suspect that you would have ignored me.
But I, a woman (read by the general public as a woman in my gender presentation), have grown accustomed though not inured to the simple fact that every time I go out in public, there is a good chance that some random asshole will say something crudely sexual or possibly just generally threatening to me, for having the sheer temerity to take my woman’s body out alone into the world. When some guy with a sign makes a context-free comment about violence against women to me, I have 100 reasons to assume that he is in favor of it and pretty much no reason to assume that he’s not. The fact that it didn’t seem to even OCCUR to you that your question, delivered with obvious relish, would be read by me as threatening just demonstrates how little you know about women—how little you NEED to know about women. Because you have always enjoyed the privilege of feeling safe in public spaces, you apparently neither have a clue nor give a shit about how unsafe you make anyone else feel.
One of the things that I hate the most about our current governor and his administration is how much they obviously hate women—anyone with a uterus, yes, but specifically people they would identify as women (as well as anyone whom they could identify as LGBTQ). When you throw out a random one-liner about choking women in Wisconsin, I assume that you hate women, too. We may share a disdain for Scott Walker, but I am quite sure that you are not my friend. If you think you are a friend to ANY woman, I am here to tell you that you suck at it.
Your protest sign is not a Get Out of Misogyny Free card. You are not a person I want on my side, largely because you couldn’t be on my side if you tried. You don’t even understand where it is.
The limits of “solidarity” have never seemed so sharply defined. It is no wonder to me right now that this movement has largely failed to grant even lip service to poor people, people with disabilities, people of color—all the most vulnerable attacked by Walker and his cronies, instead limiting its focus almost entirely to the middle class who were lucky enough to have labor unions in the first place. As I saw from the beginning from the sheer volume of anti-Walker signs centered around metaphors of rape and prostitution, but which was particularly personalized for me today, too many of its members don’t even give a shit about women (or anyone who fails to meet their idea of “man”), middle class or not.
Not your sister,
A woman against Walker
I noticed some privilege-denying/questioning arguments being floated in response to the thin privilege stuff from yesterday, and I wanted to take a quick swipe at some of them because I can:
1. “Thin women are oppressed, too.”
Do thin women (and by thin, rest assured I don’t just mean size 0 or whatever) experience disadvantages? Of course. Body size isn’t the only dimension of privilege that exists; in fact, it is one kind of privilege among a whole constellation of privileges. Does thinness negate the experience of the disadvantages of womanness for thin women? Or the experience of the disadvantages of non-Whiteness? Or poorness? No, no, and no.
Thin people are treated preferentially, both personally and structurally, for their thinness, but as with other kinds of privilege, simply because they have it doesn’t mean it dominates the experience of their lives.
Thin women feel the full force of gender disadvantage, too, although for them, it manifests in their daily lives differently - you know, because when different privileges and disadvantages intersect, they create different outcomes - than it does for larger women. They are still subjected to gender norms and body policing and shit that affects all women, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have body size privilege, too.
2. “It’s just that making things for thin people is cheaper, so thin privilege is just a consequence of efficiency.”
Because efficiency always trumps an obligation to treat - personally and through social structures - people as human beings with dignity, amirite?
Even if this were true — which is dubious: many of the products/places that privilege the thin are that way through design inertia, which is often antithetical to efficiency — it doesn’t mean the world ought to be this way. If you think efficiency has moral content that trumps other moral considerations, then you best be prepared to argue that straight down the line, and not just with regard to chair widths and clothing sizes. (And - spoilers - you’ll still be wrong if you do.)
3. “You can choose what size your body is, and you can only be privileged/disadvantaged for things you haven’t chosen.”
a. It is simply not true that you can “choose” your body size. And, see also: the first point about intersectionality. Even if you can change your body size, you don’t always have the resources (material, physical, and psychological) to do so.
b. We recognize other dimensions of privilege that are matters of “choice”: education (“go to college!”), class (“bootstraps!”), religion (“convert!”), occupation (“what color is your parachute?”), etc.
c. What does choice really have to do with it? Should you not be treated with dignity in public because you choose not to exercise (or, rather, people assume that you don’t)? What role does the ability to exit really play in discussions of privilege? Being disadvantaged and treated poorly is really a-okay if you are “responsible” (in some ass-backwards way) for your own disadvantage? It’s not the fault of social inequality and systemic oppression: it’s your fault for choosing to be/remain disadvantaged! Just no.
Not everyone will agree with me on this latter point, but the questions are worth thinking about, and point a) and b) still stand.
4. “Accommodating larger people is unhealthy and bad because it makes being fat okay.”
Hey there, asshole!
You know what’s really unhealthy for the US population? How about … not having universal health care? You want a fucking public health problem, there’s your fucking public health problem.
Thinness is not inherently good. Thinness does not indicate health. Fatness is not inherently bad. Fatness does not indicate poor health. Hurting and humiliating those who are not thin does not encourage them to become thin … it just hurts them and humiliates them because they are human beings who have feelings - not just fat flesh - and who ought to be respected as such.
5. “Being thin is hard because people make fun of you.”
Everyone tends to privilege their own experiences; it is hard not to. We also tend to overinflate our own challenges. In some minds, being told to, “Ew, go eat a sandwich” is equivalent to being told, “Ew, you’re gross and not welcome here because you’re fat.” It sucks to be insulted, and an insult is an insult, right? Well, sort of. Insults occur in a fully developed social world, where privilege and disadvantage is in full bloom. Even when told to “eat a sandwich,” a thin person has a body that is idealized, a body that can easily fit in an airplane seat, a body that is associated with goodness, status, and prosperity, a body that can easily be clothed, etc. That thin person may be insulted, but she is still thin and still privileged. Being insulted hurts personally, but it doesn’t take one’s social privilege away.
And, it sure as fuck isn’t silencing to thin women to point out thin privilege because it “ignores” the experiences of thin women. Identifying privilege is not ever itself silencing, nor is it a personal attack on the individual. A thin woman benefits from being thin in a variety of ways, but that isn’t her “fault” as a thin person, and calling out her privilege oughtn’t be construed as such. (It is derailing and misses the point.) However, it is her fault if she is a privilege denying asshole when she encounters evidence of her privilege. That’s the point at which she turns into an oppressor.
6. “God, people complain about everything. Doesn’t this just dilute the idea of privilege?”
Nope, sorry. Where groups of people are systemically treated unfairly and unequally, I - and many others - will “complain,” even if others don’t deem those issues “worthy” of complaint.
Carefully applying the concept of privilege (which is general and widely applicable) outside the most commonly identified dimensions of privilege (race, gender, class) does not dilute the concept, nor does it take away from discussion of those kinds of privilege. Dialogues about privilege don’t occupy a “zero-sum” critical space, and talking or writing about thin privilege does trivialize or distract from discussions of other types of privilege. For example, talking about thin privilege isn’t stopping anyone from talking about class privilege, and you know what? Talking about thin privilege might illuminate certain aspects of class privilege that would otherwise go unnoticed. Why is it, for example, that Saks stocks women’s sizes that are so much smaller than Old Navy’s? And, really, the practice of social critique generally ought to be broadened, not narrowed … especially when that narrowing is according to arbitrary (and often biased-by-privilege) standards of what is “worthy” of discussion and what is not.
There’s no Oppression Olympics. Oppression is oppression, social disadvantage is social disadvantage, privilege is privilege. It isn’t a contest about who has it worse, or which kinds of privilege are more socially noxious, or whatever.
is that it implies that people in poor countries (which you are tacitly calling ”third world” which is kind of problematic by itself) don’t ever have love problems, technology problems, etc, little problems that may not be a big deal, but still hurt.
And they do have those problems, because they are people. They don’t just spend all their time being miserable and posing for patronizing charity commercials. Sometimes they have — gasp! — computers and everything! Using this phrase denies part of their experience and tries to make them into a stereotype, a conception of what poor people are like, as if they are all the same, and obviously different from rich people. It is dehumanizing and othering.
Poor people do not exist for middle-upper class folk to use as a moral example to make themselves feel better than other middle-upper class people. They also do not exist for middle-upper class folk to use to try and jokingly excuse their privilege.
Useful for all dominant group members (cisgender people, straight people, White people, abled people, etc.) when talking to members of marginalized groups, not just men and women:
1. Every woman is an expert on her own life and experiences.
2. No woman speaks for all women.
3. No woman speaks for all feminists.
4. Because of the way cultural dominance/privilege works, marginalized people are, by necessity and unavoidability, more knowledgeable about the lives of privileged people than the other way around. Immersion in a culture where male is treated as the Norm (and female a deviation of that Norm), and where masculinity is treated as aspirational (and femininity as undesirable), and where men’s stories are considered the Stories Worth Telling, and where manhood and mankind are so easily used as synonymous with personhood and humankind, and where everything down to the human forms on street signs reinforce the idea of maleness as default humanness, inevitably makes women de facto more conversant in male privilege than men are in female marginalization. That’s the practical reality of any kind of privilege—the dominant group can exist without knowing anything about marginalized group, but the marginalized group cannot safely or effectively exist without knowing something about the privileged group and its norms and values.
5. Which is not to say that men can’t become fluent, with effort. But it is important to remember that it does take effort. Even though men’s and women’s lives can look so similar at first glance, it is shocking how very different they can actually be. (For example.)
6. A woman with intersectional marginalizations cannot wrench herself into parts. Asking a woman to set aside her race, or disability, or sexuality, or body size, or stature, or whatever, in order to discuss a “woman’s issue,” is to fail to understand that one’s womanhood is inextricably linked to the other aspects of one’s identity.
7. It is similarly unfair to ask a woman to leave aside her personal experience and discuss feminist issues in the abstract. You are discussing the stuff of her life. Asking her to “not make it personal” is to ask her to wrench her womanhood from her personhood.
8. You are not objective on women’s issues because you’re not a woman. Your perception is just as subjective as hers is, but for a different reason. Either we stand to be marginalized by privilege or stand to benefit from it. That’s the reality of institutional bias; it compromises us all.
9. Don’t play Devil’s advocate. Seriously. Just don’t.