Audre Lorde stresses education as the tool to truly unite women of all kinds: Black and white, poor, middle and upper class, gay and straight. She urges us as a society of females to acknowledge our differences in order to achieve female interdependence, for "without community there is no liberation." According to Lorde, "difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged." If we take advantage and utilize our differences, we can find freedoms we have not yet encountered. Surely it is important to understand our differences in race, socioeconomic background, and sexual preference; yet I'm not sure that this is, as Lorde says, "key to our survival as a movement." The women's liberation movement would definitely be strengthened by taking into account the various positions of its members. Just as we discussed in relation to Levy's book, the main women affected by/involved in raunch culture are white, straight and of the middle class. Yet how are we to find "new ways of being" as a divided movement in seeking to strengthen and unite women of all kinds? Doesn't this seem contradictory?
On this note, I find McIntosh's point a valid inquiry into how white women are unaware of the ways in which they live out their white privilege. I can identify with her stance, and in particular, was struck by her idea that "whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow 'them' to be more like 'us.'" As I near the end of my collegiate years, I seek to find a career that brings meaning to my daily life; ironically, I am interested in working to benefit people of a lower socioeconomic status than myself, and by association, this involves people of a different race. In applying to such jobs, do I myself feel that in helping others, I'll actually be helping 'them' to be more like 'us,' like myself? This thought had not crossed my mind, until reading McIntosh, and I now realize that though such is not my intention, the idea behind her words reigns true. I seek to work for an organization that indirectly supports white privilege. Now that I'm aware of it, I must ask myself and my peers, in what ways do we unknowingly perpetuate aspects of white privilege?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Peggy McIntosh’s piece about her backpack of privilege was interesting, but noting groundbreaking. Again, she offered commentary on the system that exists, but no way to change it. Audre Lorde’s piece was also remarkable but came off as incredibly angry and kind-of condescending to the people who sponsored her at the conference. I seem to find this as a running theme through almost all of the pieces we read- there is either no offered solution or if a solution is offered it is with an angry tone (“you people need to stop doing this”). Maybe I need to write a piece with a clam tone that offers real solutions!
ReplyDeleteThis relates to our conversation from class on Tuesday about which type of activism is better- grassroots or political. While in the end I think we need both, I would that grassroots or lifestyle activism puts too much pressure on the individual so that he or she becomes angry. Miles put this feeling nicely in her essay On the Rag, “And although we all felt the problem, we did not know how to excise it. As more people joined the collective, the situation worsened” (Findlen 175). Without a goal and purpose for activists to focus their passion, they can’t find ways to make the changes they want. They feel frustrated and take their anger out on people who feel the same way as them, but seem to not be doing “enough.” Lorde’s piece was all about how little the organizers of the convention were doing and about how what they were doing was wrong. The women On the Rag were also caught up in their own politics instead of taking true political action. McIntosh says that “disapproving of the system won’t be enough to change them;” I agree. However, as Eileen said, if I choose to work for political action, am I just perpetuating a system to help them be like me?
The women involved in the creation of the Declaration of Sentiments understood the necessity of a rallying point and used the Declaration as a unifying document that transcends personal socioeconomic status. By focusing their efforts to address these specific issues, they were able to create a real movement. I feel like the feminist movement now is too scattered to make sustained changes.
I also wanted to comment on a few of Peggy McIntosh’s word choices. She refers to men as “overprivileged” not privileged. How can someone be overprivileged? Later, when she discusses the use of the word privilege, she is referring to dominance as a norm and oppression as other. She again uses the word over when describing over empowering certain groups. I think all of this is misleading. The privileged group feels that they are the norm and that they are empowered because of it. None of those feelings are “over” what they should be, feelings simply exist. The issue is the “under” feelings that the oppressed groups experience.
Further addressing "white privilege" discussed in Eileen's post.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, before reading McIntosh's article, I found it difficult-as a white person myself-to define my white privilege. I found her numbered list of reasons to be very helpful and eye-opening. One of the effects of white privilege that especially struck me was #21: "I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group." This comment is very true. While attending Colgate University, I have-unfortunately-witnessed many instances in which a Professor addresses a Black student to speak on behalf of their race. Probably the most powerful example is when a Professor was discussing race issues in the American South and he blatantly stared at the single Black student in our class. My class was quite impressed when she humorously yet effectively responded with a statement resembling this: "I'm a Nigerian who is merely studying in America so I cannot speak on behalf of African Americans in 19th Century South Carolina, sorry" It astounded me that a professor would just assume she was African American and could thus speak on behalf of all African-Americans simply because of her race. Furthermore, even if she was African American why should one assume that should could speak on behalf of her race. That's like asking me to speak on behalf of all Irish Catholics in America-it just doesn't make sense. This situation would probably never happen to a white student.
One thing, however, where I disagreed with McIntosh is the idea that "in women's studies work" we "ask men to give up some of their power." Does fighting for equality have to do with one group giving up power so another group can have more? I don't think we can take away privilege in order to even the playing field. I think the key is to give power to those who don't have as much with out taking away the privilege and power of another. Afterall, privilege and power aren't concrete, numerical terms that can be measured so why would asking men to give up their power be necessary?
To comment on Lindsey's comment as well, I am curious if any of these feminist writers have any concrete solutions to the problems that anger them. The first wave had the vote, the second work/education legislation. The 3rd Wave of Feminism has many issues (porn culture, maternity leave, etc) but have there been any significant solutions to these third wave problems? What does everyone think are the most significant women's issues of today? And does anyone have any effective, plausible solutions?