5 ms·

thus demonstrating the conflict rather concisely. his/her* solidarity is taboo and you can attack him by saying he's just playing for the team _as if that's a

thus demonstrating the conflict rather concisely. his/her* solidarity is taboo and you can attack him by saying he's just playing for the team _as if that's a bad thing._ would you do that to a girl? a more balanced equality would not qualify arguments based on group membership. *just making a point with the 'her', I'm sure he's a guy, too.

Cushman 15y ago
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the corollary to "Solidarity has historically been acceptable in disadvantaged groups and frowned upon when exhibited by privileged groups" is that privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence). As a member of the privileged class, your perception that you are not privileged isn't taboo, it's just wrong.
- benmccann 15y ago
  Girls do better in school than boys. I'm curious why you'd suggest that boys are privileged in this environment.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    First of all, there isn't enough evidence to say whether that's because of privilege or because women are naturally more intelligent than men. Second, we can sure talk about specific environments. Talk to any white kid who grew up in a black neighborhood, they sure don't feel like they're better off for being white. And, yeah, that's bad. We should be doing something to help that kid. But his bad experience doesn't change the reality that when he leaves his neighborhood, when he goes to a job interview or to court or really just about, he is better off for being white. So, sure. Girls are doing better than boys in school. The last entering freshmen class at my school was almost 2:1 female. Am I worried? Not really. Men still run the world. We should be talking about how to help boys do better in school. We should also make sure we don't forget that women are an oppressed class, and that any solutions we try aren't contributing to the overall oppression of women. Which probably means we should get women to do it.
    - Helianthus 15y ago
      >First of all, there isn't enough evidence to say whether that's because of privilege or because women are naturally more intelligent than men. I'm amused. Does it matter which is true if men aren't getting the education they need? >Men still run the world. Also an old, old statement that reveals why we need to get rid of gender as a real concept. How many men run the world? Not most of them. In what sense does it carry to include the homeless and the destitute who are men in the same group as those who rule? >We should also make sure we don't forget that women are an oppressed class HERE. Here it is. This is the error in your thinking. All people are oppressed. But when you start categorizing people into those who are Allowed To Be Recognized As Oppressed and those who are Oppressors By Association: They Have A Dick, you're making arbitrary distinctions that are inflexible and rigid. There is not a single person on this earth who does not experience oppression. A person who does not belong to any of your protected classes will still be oppressed by your exclusion: or what, did you think it didn't count if _you_ oppressed someone based on what sort of person they were?
      - Cushman 15y ago
        Have I said something to make you think we shouldn't be fighting all oppression? No doubt the elephant in the room is class — in fact fixing class might just fix everything else automatically — but that doesn't mean we should ignore racism, sexism, homo- or Islamophobia. But I have to say, at this point I'm not sure what you want from me. I'm advocating for the rights of other people according to my personal idea of what's right. That women are outperforming men in school is worrying from an educational standpoint, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's the result of endemic, institutional sexism against men— unlike that which evidence suggests still exists towards women, which, while very much improved in the last decades, is still real and dangerous. If someone thinks that it's gone because of one metric in which women have surpassed men, then I'm going to speak out against that. I'm going to speak out against that pretty loudly. I'd be saying the same thing if someone thought that Obama being President means that no one ever gets stopped and searched for DWB, or that gay marriage in New York means no one in high school is going to call someone else a faggot until they kill themselves. We've come a long, long way. We're not done. (For productivity reasons, this'll be my last comment on the subject, but I'll read your response if there's one— Just wanted to say I dug the civil exchange of ideas. Stay cool.)
- Helianthus 15y ago
  My point, in fact, was that the conflict is _over_ the perception of privilege. Indeed, it has to be. The corollary to your statement: >privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence). ... is that disadvantaged groups tend to perceive equality after its true emergence. Please disentangle the current context (gender) from this discussion so we may examine a power struggle in the abstract--which is to say, I am _not_ commenting on whether or not gender equality has 'emerged' because such a question is a) too detailed, and b) probably way too ambiguous, because equality is not well defined. (and c) true gender equality, at least from my perspective, require an abolition of gender using lgbtq viewpoints) Groups act in their self-interest. Privileged groups are required to act as if they do not--equivalently, they are asked to place disadvantaged groups within their 'self'--equivalently, their sense of identity is dissolute. Thus (to bring the discussion back in context) my statement was not about 'correctness' or 'taboo,' but the fact that the conflict is _over_ what is 'correct' and 'taboo.' There is a vague discomfort in this topic with the idea of 'girl power.' The wave is beginning to build in the other direction. But those who stray too far, to identify with their group, are shot down by the taboo. (Incidentally, I was not trying to toe that line, merely trying to comment on the line's existence.) We are not in stasis. At some point the wave will have crashed and those 'privileged' with 'unprivileged' status will lose that privilege, and those 'unprivileged' with 'privileged' status will as well. Finally, I consider myself 'queer.' Examine which 'status' that accords my viewpoint, since you are readily prepared to ascribe membership to classes based on viewpoints.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    First, since it wasn't clear, my use of "you" in that last bit was rhetorical. Wasn't intending to address anyone in particular, sorry about that. But since you mention yourself, sure, let's talk that— What would you make of a heterosexual, cisgendered man saying that he doesn't really think people with non-standard gender identities are discriminated against? Again, that's not a taboo thing to say. He's not speaking from bigotry, just ignorance. He has no reason to know or care whether discrimination is going on or not. That's privilege. That's the hallmark of privilege. It's taken for granted. We're just "them". The wealthy, the white, the straight, the cisgendered, the male— we don't need identity, not in this country, not today. We don't need marches or flags or bumper stickers. Every day is our day. And so of course we feel worried by a phrase like "Girl Power" or "Gay Pride" because, not knowing real discrimination, we think that's what it looks like. So I just stopped by to say, you know... No.

Cushman 15y ago

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the corollary to "Solidarity has historically been acceptable in disadvantaged groups and frowned upon when exhibited by privileged groups" is that privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence). As a member of the privileged class, your perception that you are not privileged isn't taboo, it's just wrong.

benmccann 15y ago
Girls do better in school than boys. I'm curious why you'd suggest that boys are privileged in this environment.
- Cushman 15y ago
  First of all, there isn't enough evidence to say whether that's because of privilege or because women are naturally more intelligent than men. Second, we can sure talk about specific environments. Talk to any white kid who grew up in a black neighborhood, they sure don't feel like they're better off for being white. And, yeah, that's bad. We should be doing something to help that kid. But his bad experience doesn't change the reality that when he leaves his neighborhood, when he goes to a job interview or to court or really just about, he is better off for being white. So, sure. Girls are doing better than boys in school. The last entering freshmen class at my school was almost 2:1 female. Am I worried? Not really. Men still run the world. We should be talking about how to help boys do better in school. We should also make sure we don't forget that women are an oppressed class, and that any solutions we try aren't contributing to the overall oppression of women. Which probably means we should get women to do it.
  - Helianthus 15y ago
    >First of all, there isn't enough evidence to say whether that's because of privilege or because women are naturally more intelligent than men. I'm amused. Does it matter which is true if men aren't getting the education they need? >Men still run the world. Also an old, old statement that reveals why we need to get rid of gender as a real concept. How many men run the world? Not most of them. In what sense does it carry to include the homeless and the destitute who are men in the same group as those who rule? >We should also make sure we don't forget that women are an oppressed class HERE. Here it is. This is the error in your thinking. All people are oppressed. But when you start categorizing people into those who are Allowed To Be Recognized As Oppressed and those who are Oppressors By Association: They Have A Dick, you're making arbitrary distinctions that are inflexible and rigid. There is not a single person on this earth who does not experience oppression. A person who does not belong to any of your protected classes will still be oppressed by your exclusion: or what, did you think it didn't count if _you_ oppressed someone based on what sort of person they were?
    - Cushman 15y ago
      Have I said something to make you think we shouldn't be fighting all oppression? No doubt the elephant in the room is class — in fact fixing class might just fix everything else automatically — but that doesn't mean we should ignore racism, sexism, homo- or Islamophobia. But I have to say, at this point I'm not sure what you want from me. I'm advocating for the rights of other people according to my personal idea of what's right. That women are outperforming men in school is worrying from an educational standpoint, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's the result of endemic, institutional sexism against men— unlike that which evidence suggests still exists towards women, which, while very much improved in the last decades, is still real and dangerous. If someone thinks that it's gone because of one metric in which women have surpassed men, then I'm going to speak out against that. I'm going to speak out against that pretty loudly. I'd be saying the same thing if someone thought that Obama being President means that no one ever gets stopped and searched for DWB, or that gay marriage in New York means no one in high school is going to call someone else a faggot until they kill themselves. We've come a long, long way. We're not done. (For productivity reasons, this'll be my last comment on the subject, but I'll read your response if there's one— Just wanted to say I dug the civil exchange of ideas. Stay cool.)
Helianthus 15y ago
My point, in fact, was that the conflict is _over_ the perception of privilege. Indeed, it has to be. The corollary to your statement: >privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence). ... is that disadvantaged groups tend to perceive equality after its true emergence. Please disentangle the current context (gender) from this discussion so we may examine a power struggle in the abstract--which is to say, I am _not_ commenting on whether or not gender equality has 'emerged' because such a question is a) too detailed, and b) probably way too ambiguous, because equality is not well defined. (and c) true gender equality, at least from my perspective, require an abolition of gender using lgbtq viewpoints) Groups act in their self-interest. Privileged groups are required to act as if they do not--equivalently, they are asked to place disadvantaged groups within their 'self'--equivalently, their sense of identity is dissolute. Thus (to bring the discussion back in context) my statement was not about 'correctness' or 'taboo,' but the fact that the conflict is _over_ what is 'correct' and 'taboo.' There is a vague discomfort in this topic with the idea of 'girl power.' The wave is beginning to build in the other direction. But those who stray too far, to identify with their group, are shot down by the taboo. (Incidentally, I was not trying to toe that line, merely trying to comment on the line's existence.) We are not in stasis. At some point the wave will have crashed and those 'privileged' with 'unprivileged' status will lose that privilege, and those 'unprivileged' with 'privileged' status will as well. Finally, I consider myself 'queer.' Examine which 'status' that accords my viewpoint, since you are readily prepared to ascribe membership to classes based on viewpoints.
- Cushman 15y ago
  First, since it wasn't clear, my use of "you" in that last bit was rhetorical. Wasn't intending to address anyone in particular, sorry about that. But since you mention yourself, sure, let's talk that— What would you make of a heterosexual, cisgendered man saying that he doesn't really think people with non-standard gender identities are discriminated against? Again, that's not a taboo thing to say. He's not speaking from bigotry, just ignorance. He has no reason to know or care whether discrimination is going on or not. That's privilege. That's the hallmark of privilege. It's taken for granted. We're just "them". The wealthy, the white, the straight, the cisgendered, the male— we don't need identity, not in this country, not today. We don't need marches or flags or bumper stickers. Every day is our day. And so of course we feel worried by a phrase like "Girl Power" or "Gay Pride" because, not knowing real discrimination, we think that's what it looks like. So I just stopped by to say, you know... No.