Discrimination against men

[Beeth]

I once read on facebook (or some networking site) that when it comes to relationships (dating, etc.) men are discriminated against. For instance, it is usually the man who has to do the 'pursuing' - and this puts men under tremendous stress, plus there is the fear of rejection, hurts, etc. Women therefore are protected from this, cuz they dont usually do the pursuing.

The standard response is, these days women also do the pursuing. But lets face it - that's almost a negligible amount (usually reserved for male celebrities etc.). When it comes regular people, women usually wait for the man to come to her.

So his logic is that, men are discriminated against in this context, it scars them emotionally. Agree or disagree?

[Thirsty Crow]

So his logic is that, men are discriminated against in this context, it scars them emotionally. Agree or disagree?
In other words, men bear the brunt of patriarchal relations and do not benefit from them in a straightforward and universal way.

Nope, there's no discrimination here. If society in general posits the woman as inherently weaker, it's only logical that men will find themselves in the position of "pursuing" romantic contact.

Plus the fact that fear of rejection cannot be reduced to this aspect of "courting" (for lack of a better word) and is experienced by both men and women.

[Sasha]

If you make more you pay more, so that's already 20%, plus restitution and damages for millennia of patriarchy plus macho/misplaced chivalry fine.... Same goes for doing the "work" in/towards a relationship

But no, in all seriousness, while we should strive for equal relationships and we should break through patriarchal role patterns, anyone who claims that men are "discriminated against" needs to shut the fuck up.

[#FF0000]

I once read on facebook (or some networking site) that when it comes to relationships (dating, etc.) men are discriminated against. For instance, it is usually the man who has to do the 'pursuing' - and this puts men under tremendous stress, plus there is the fear of rejection, hurts, etc. Women therefore are protected from this, cuz they dont usually do the pursuing.

The standard response is, these days women also do the pursuing. But lets face it - that's almost a negligible amount (usually reserved for male celebrities etc.). When it comes regular people, women usually wait for the man to come to her.

So his logic is that, men are discriminated against in this context, it scars them emotionally. Agree or disagree?

Linksradikal got it in one, but even if we gave you this and agreed that this is discrimination, then "discrimination against men" isn't even worth talking about.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I once read on facebook (or some networking site) that when it comes to relationships (dating, etc.) men are discriminated against. For instance, it is usually the man who has to do the 'pursuing' - and this puts men under tremendous stress, plus there is the fear of rejection, hurts, etc. Women therefore are protected from this, cuz they dont usually do the pursuing.

The standard response is, these days women also do the pursuing. But lets face it - that's almost a negligible amount (usually reserved for male celebrities etc.). When it comes regular people, women usually wait for the man to come to her.

So his logic is that, men are discriminated against in this context, it scars them emotionally. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. First the whole "chivalry" buy the dinner and ask the women out thing in courting comes as customs from older phases of sexism where women were largly barred from being able to make their own income and were dependants of their family until they became dependants of their husband. Now it is different and though some of the customs remain, it's also common that working women and men trade-off or split costs of things.

Second, I think the first argument you paraphrased is actually not an example of discrimination against men, but a sexist argument and assumptions about women. It implies that women don't have desire of their own and so are therefore objects of male affections and must choose among suitors. I honestly don't know how anyone who has ever known a dating-age women who hasn't felt unrequited affections or hasn't been hurt by rejection.

[DarkPast]

Some men do suffer discrimination (e.g. a man working in child care is looked down upon, gay men face greater discrimination than lesbian women, men are more likely to get harsher penalties for committing the same crime, men are more likely to be homeless).

But here's the catch: ALL of these forms of discrimination are related to patriarchal gender role norms. Basically, when society discriminates against a man, it's because he acts "unmanly" i.e. he becomes a "woman" in some way (think of the insult "pussy").

Some of this is also internalized (if that's the right word?). For example, men are taught from an early age no to show "weakness", so they are less likely to seek medical (or social) assistance. It's one of the reasons why men live shorter on average.


For instance, it is usually the man who has to do the 'pursuing' - and this puts men under tremendous stress, plus there is the fear of rejection, hurts, etc. Women therefore are protected from this, cuz they dont usually do the pursuing.

To address this specific example: notice how it also implies that women are supposed to be passive?Like Jimme Higgins said, this is a holdover from the traditional idea of chivalry.

It looks like some men just don't get that placing women on a pedestal, "worshiping" them is just as restrictive and discriminatory as more traditional "domination" sexism. While the woman might be on a pedestal, she is still expected to conform to a certain "role"... set by the man. Women are human beings too - and pedestals are narrow, confining places.

[Beeth]

Thanks for all the insights.

Here is something else I found on that page. For instance, if a bunch of female fans scream and swoon (and tear off clothes and do all kinds of weird stuff) when they see celebrities, nobody calls them perverted. But if men were to so much as utter a word or make a wrong gesture, he's called a perv, freak, and whatnot. This is just an example - you can keep extending it to other situations (like women complimenting a man's body part vs men doing the same to women, etc. etc.) and reach similar conclusions.

Is this also discrimination? It is good to discuss these things without becoming too pc and accusing people of sexism.

[argeiphontes]

I would say that gender roles in courtship, though subject to social distortion, are ultimately based in biological facts. Men swoon over women because women control access to sex, just like in any other mammal species. There is no question of discrimination here for the males; it's the natural order of things.

Sometimes the males do little else (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-iii) -- note how the male lions just bask in the sun all day while the females do the real work of hunting? It's similar in patriarchal hunter-gatherer societies: the males do the showy but less productive war and hunting-related tasks, while the women gather the bulk of the tribe's sustenance.

Unlike animals, Homo sapiens have self-consciousness and reason, so you need a patriarchal ideology to justify a privileged position like that.

[DarkPast]

Thanks for all the insights.

Here is something else I found on that page. For instance, if a bunch of female fans scream and swoon (and tear off clothes and do all kinds of weird stuff) when they see celebrities, nobody calls them perverted. But if men were to so much as utter a word or make a wrong gesture, he's called a perv, freak, and whatnot. This is just an example - you can keep extending it to other situations (like women complimenting a man's body part vs men doing the same to women, etc. etc.) and reach similar conclusions.

Is this also discrimination? It is good to discuss these things without becoming too pc and accusing people of sexism.

I think this, too, stems from patriarchal notions about gender roles: women's agency is often not taken seriously - or at least *as* seriously - as men's ("Man up, she's just a woman, she can't really hurt you!")

This is related to the fact I mentioned above, about how men get longer time in jail than women, for the same offenses.

About complimenting body parts - I don't really think this is true. A woman complimenting a man about his penis in public wouldn't really come across as good manners would it?
Also, complimenting a woman on her looks is one thing. Complimenting a woman on her looks in a suggestive way and expecting to get in her pants is another. Some guys, surprisingly, don't quite get the difference. I guess it can happen the other way around, but it's just not as common.


I would say that gender roles in courtship, though subject to social distortion, are ultimately based in biological facts. Men swoon over women because women control access to sex, just like in any other mammal species. There is no question of discrimination here for the males; it's the natural order of things.

Sometimes the males do little else (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-iii) -- note how the male lions just bask in the sun all day while the females do the real work of hunting? It's similar in patriarchal hunter-gatherer societies: the males do the showy but less productive war and hunting-related tasks, while the women gather the bulk of the tribe's sustenance.

Unlike animals, Homo sapiens have self-consciousness and reason, so you need a patriarchal ideology to justify a privileged position like that.

I wouldn't go down that road. The only reason lions have sex is to reproduce. But for humans sex is also a bonding behaviour, or sometimes even simply leisure activity. Women control access to reproduction, not sex.

Off-topic: While the bit about women gathering the bulk of the food is true for the earlier periods in humankind's development, later on it was the hunters who brought in more. In fact they became so successful that in many regions they hunted the large mammals to extinction. This is one of the main reasons why agriculture was introduced in the first place.

In any case, we've gone a long way from hunter-gatherer society. I'll grant that gender roles may have made sense back then, but in modern society they're pointless. Today women are taking up even the most "masculine" jobs - this year women were finally allowed to serve on the front lines in the US armed forces, for example.

[BIXX]

I can come up with a theoretical way to oppress men (because they're men), but I doubt it exists in reality. It is potential that something similar to what I describe exists in really small circles of the left. This is just a light glance at the subject, as I am writing a section about "reverse oppression" in a piece I'm doing.

It has a lot to do with identify politics and revenge.

Basically, it's like when someone says "you can't comment on sexism because you're a man" except taking to the extreme. Those people who demonize men and say they are the root of all problems (this is some shit I heard from a group of "leftists" at my school, I'd just like to use it as an example). Now, the group has a power base (their informal membership) and they continuously are using said base to tell guys that they cannot comment on sexism and that their opinions regarding oppression don't matter (which would be harmful) because they are inherently an asshole and oppressive. So if a guy was in that group, I could potentially see him as being oppressed by that group.

This isn't saying we need some stupid fucking MRA or any of that bullshit, but simply that we need to avoid simplifying everything down to "the straight white male in America" is the cause of all problems (which seems to happen an awful lot). Cause saying that logically results in the beliefs that they should be repressed, which, while fucking ridiculous, is something many more immature or unthinking comrades have began to think is correct.

I do still think this is the result if patriarchy though. I wish I had more time to explain what I am saying but I gotta go to school.

[argeiphontes]

The only reason lions have sex is to reproduce. But for humans sex is also a bonding behaviour, or sometimes even simply leisure activity. Women control access to reproduction, not sex.


I knew I should have put a ";)" after the lion sentence. I was trying to criticize male privilege in a humorous way...



In any case, we've gone a long way from hunter-gatherer society. I'll grant that gender roles may have made sense back then, but in modern society they're pointless.

I agree, and I wasn't trying to argue for any social discrimination or differences in social roles. I support women's substantive equality and see that we still have a ways to go in that regard.

Since the OP was about courtship behavior, I just wanted to say that there are biological or psycho-biological realities that are more or less immutable on some level, so even with substantive social equality, men and women are doomed to be "separate but equal" in some ways (NOT social roles, but biologically-determined roles or attitudes or whatever, like courtship behavior). Also not meant to imply that capitalist distortions of courtship behavior, like the influence of property relations, shouldn't be dismantled.

In any case, I'll shut up about this now.

[Bea Arthur]

Men, by definition, cannot be the victims of sexism. White people, by definition, cannot be the victims of racism. If somebody chooses to do something bad to a white person just because that person is white, it is not racism. It is fighting racism by striking out against whiteness! Similarly, if somebody does something bad to a man just because it is a man, that person is striking a blow against sexism by striking a blow against the sexist class!!

[JPSartre12]

The idea that "men" are "discriminated against" seems to pre-suppose a whole host of philosophic problems.

Comrade Bea Arthur said

Men, by definition, cannot be the victims of sexism
and I disagree completely. Not only is sexism very anthropologic, but the idea that "men" cannot be victims of "sexism" is based on the philosophic foundation that there is a "man" that is defined as such by its relation to "non-man" (that is, "woman"). Whether intended it or not, the statement perpetuates the concept of an absolutist, structural-gender binary wherein it is male-vs-female, with a bourgeois definition of what is "man" and "woman" based on a domestic division of labor.

Discrimination against "men" cannot exist without pre-supposing that there is a "man" which can be subject to a sociologic politic.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Men, by definition, cannot be the victims of sexism. White people, by definition, cannot be the victims of racism. If somebody chooses to do something bad to a white person just because that person is white, it is not racism. It is fighting racism by striking out against whiteness! Similarly, if somebody does something bad to a man just because it is a man, that person is striking a blow against sexism by striking a blow against the sexist class!!

That's asinine, if someone mistreats a white person due to their skin color its still discrimination even if it can't be categorized as racism, the same goes for your gender based example. Discrimination is wrong, fuck you if you think otherwise.

To be clear, I do not think men or white people for that matter are discriminated against in any meaningful capacity. This is just a stupid thing to say, hopefully you're joking

[Sea]

Men, by definition, cannot be the victims of sexism. White people, by definition, cannot be the victims of racism. If somebody chooses to do something bad to a white person just because that person is white, it is not racism. It is fighting racism by striking out against whiteness! Similarly, if somebody does something bad to a man just because it is a man, that person is striking a blow against sexism by striking a blow against the sexist class!!

1. Yes it can happen. The difference, which your half-assed analysis completely misses, is that sexism against men and racism against whites is on a strictly individual basis -- it is not systemic, and is not a manifestation of any systemic gender or racial prejiduce in society. It is thus not a part of our fight against patriarchy and white dominance.

2. If people go around doing "something bad", as you advocate, to men (how witty that you refer to men as "it"), because of their being men, how does this help us in the fight against sexism?

3. What the fuck sort of un-materialistic rambling is this? Men aren't a class!
Comrade Bea Arthur said

and I disagree completely. Not only is sexism very anthropologic, but the idea that "men" cannot be victims of "sexism" is based on the philosophic foundation that there is a "man" that is defined as such by its relation to "non-man" (that is, "woman"). Whether intended it or not, the statement perpetuates the concept of an absolutist, structural-gender binary wherein it is male-vs-female, with a bourgeois definition of what is "man" and "woman" based on a domestic division of labor.We're analyzing bourgeois society. Of course bourgeois structures, like the gender binary, are going to turn up in the analysis. That shouldn't be surprising.
You're serious?I'm pretty sure it's serious.

[synthesis]

3. What the fuck sort of un-materialistic rambling is this? Men aren't a class!

It's a symptom of the petit-bourgeois aversion to class analysis that is pervasive among some sections of the left who don't exist separately from their identity politics.

[Bea Arthur]

That's asinine, if someone mistreats a white person due to their skin color its still discrimination even if it can't be categorized as racism, the same goes for your gender based example. Discrimination is wrong, fuck you if you think otherwise.

To be clear, I do not think men or white people for that matter are discriminated against in any meaningful capacity. This is just a stupid thing to say, hopefully you're joking

My, my! We sure touched a sensitive nerve, didn't we? What's the matter, Ethics Gradient? Is overcoming your race privilege creating too steep of a gradient for your conscience??

Discrimination means discerning or judging. Independent of context, it doesn't necessarily have negative connotations. Somebody judging a white person as being a member of a privileged racial class is certainly discrimination, but it's not racism!! Acting on that judgment to the detriment of the privileged group is scoring a blow against privilege and therefore a blow against racism!!

This is why we agree that white people cannot be the victims of racism. Racially privileged groups by definition cannot be the victims of racism. The racially prejudicial acts that they suffer are logical responses that objectively act to redress racial grievances and fight racial privilege. Those acts making dominant groups less privileged by cutting them down to size. They act to --undermine-- race privilege!! If you do not recognize this, you are complicit in bolstering race privilege!!!

[Sea]

My, my! We sure touched a sensitive nerve, didn't we? What's the matter, Ethics Gradient? Is overcoming your race privilege creating too steep of a gradient for your conscience??

Discrimination means discerning or judging. Independent of context, it doesn't necessarily have negative connotations. Somebody judging a white person as being a member of a privileged racial class is certainly discrimination, but it's not racism!! Acting on that judgment to the detriment of the privileged group is scoring a blow against privilege and therefore a blow against racism!!

This is why we agree that white people cannot be the victims of racism. Racially privileged groups by definition cannot be the victims of racism. The racially prejudicial acts that they suffer are logical responses that objectively act to redress racial grievances and fight racial privilege. Those acts making dominant groups less privileged by cutting them down to size. They act to --undermine-- race privilege!! If you do not recognize this, you are complicit in bolstering race privilege!!!There is no privileged involved. Once again, you have it backwards. It is not that whites are privileged, it's that non-whites are disadvantaged.

The goal is to eliminate disadvantage, not, as your analysis would have it, to disadvantage whites too so that everyone is equally disadvantaged. Racism is a burden on the shoulders of ethnic minorities. We want to eliminate the burden that is racism, not burden whites for their "race" too.

[Devrim]

Somebody judging a white person as being a member of a privileged racial class is certainly discrimination,


This is really confused.


This is why we agree that white people cannot be the victims of racism. Racially privileged groups by definition cannot be the victims of racism.

I am not sure who 'we' is in this sentence. Perhaps it is people who have no connection to reality, or perhaps it is people who make generalisations about America and apply them to the world.

If you think that white people are never oppressed, I would recommend taking a look at German history. I think the Jews, who are white, were certainly oppressed under the Nazis, and Turks, who are also white, are oppressed today.

Devrim

[Sea]

If you think that white people are never oppressed, I would recommend taking a look at German history. I think the Jews, who are white, were certainly oppressed under the Nazis, and Turks, who are also white, are oppressed today.

DevrimI'm pretty sure that by "white" it means "caucasian", not just light-skinned.

[Devrim]

I'm pretty sure that by "white" it means "caucasian", not just light-skinned.

What does Caucasian mean? That is a completely undefined word. When the talk about 'white' they are talking about some concept of how different ethnic groups fit into the terrain of American racial concepts, which is why you have all of this nonsense about 'how the Irish became white'. This would be another example actually. The Irish are white, and what would generally considered 'Caucasian' yet they faced discrimination in the US. How do the privilege theorists solve this? By making them not white of course.

Devrim

[Bea Arthur]

What does Caucasian mean? That is a completely undefined word. When the talk about 'white' they are talking about some concept of how different ethnic groups fit into the terrain of American racial concepts, which is why you have all of this nonsense about 'how the Irish became white'. This would be another example actually. The Irish are white, and what would generally considered 'Caucasian' yet they faced discrimination in the US. How do the privilege theorists solve this? By making them not white of course.

Devrim

Weren't you the creature who was criticizing bcbm's wonderful article about how white people (among other groups) are still a disgrace fifty years after the March on Washington? Why am I not surprised to see you in this thread defending race privilege?! What's disappointing is to see you tag-teaming with others who are trying to deny that race privilege exists. Denying it exists just serves to reinforce it!

Defenders of race and sex privilege, like you and your "comrade", should be prohibited from posting on the discrimination subforum!!

[Devrim]

Weren't you the creature who was criticizing bcbm's wonderful article about how white people (among other groups) are still a disgrace fifty years after the March on Washington? Why am I not surprised to see you in this thread defending race privilege?! What's disappointing is to see you tag-teaming with others who are trying to deny that race privilege exists. Denying it exists just serves to reinforce it!

Defenders of race and sex privilege, like you and your "comrade", should be prohibited from posting on the discrimination subforum!!

Yes, I think that privilege theory is quasi-Maoist American academia sociological nonsense. That doesn't mean that I don't think that there is no discrimination. There obviously is, and it needs to be opposed. I just don't think that pro elite theory is in any way a useful tool for doing this.

It is nice how your rant manages to avoid all the points I made.

Devrim

[Sea]

Defenders of race and sex privilege, like you and your "comrade", should be prohibited from posting on the discrimination subforum!!But those who advocate doing "bad things" to men and whites, should not!

Well, if you want to refute my posts with logic and reason instead of insults and fallacy, bea my guest.
What does Caucasian mean? That is a completely undefined word. When the talk about 'white' they are talking about some concept of how different ethnic groups fit into the terrain of American racial concepts, which is why you have all of this nonsense about 'how the Irish became white'. This would be another example actually. The Irish are white, and what would generally considered 'Caucasian' yet they faced discrimination in the US. How do the privilege theorists solve this? By making them not white of course.

DevrimRacism, like other doctrines not grounded in material reality, is rarely consistent, so pretty much any term is troublesome. The problems with using a term like white or caucasian to describe an ethnicity that, in this context, is not systematically discriminated against originate in the inconsistencies of such racism itself, not necessarily in any inconsistencies in the term. Any label, be it "white" or "Caucasian" will thus take on the idiosyncrasies of the context, so it's rather useless to squabble over terms...

[Bea Arthur]

I am appalled at the white male privilege rearing its nasty little head on this forum!! Attacking white privilege is being equated with harming white people, and the Nazi holocaust is being equated with anti-white oppression! Did I just accidentally stumble upon a secret right-wing subforum???? Sickening!! I am alerting the administrators to this misconduct immediately!!

[Devrim]

I am appalled at the white male privilege rearing its nasty little head on this forum!! Attacking white privilege is being equated with harming white people, and the Nazi holocaust is being equated with anti-white oppression! Did I just accidentally stumble upon a secret right-wing subforum???? Sickening!! I am alerting the administrators to this misconduct immediately!!

I didn't compare 'attacking white privilege with harming white people. Nor did I equate the holocaust with 'anti-white oppression'. I merely commented on the absurdity of your statements.

Devrim

[synthesis]

9.5/10 trolling

Assuming you're not just some neckbeard fucking with us, some of us like to actually discuss these things instead of engaging in moralistic mudslinging.

I mean, you say that it's good to harm a white person just for being white, on account of it being a "strike against whiteness." So if I'm not white, and on a completely unrelated note I happen to be planning to mug or defraud someone, I can single out a white woman "just for being white"? Or harming a man just for being a man because it's a "strike against male privilege" - does this apply to a white female cop assaulting a handcuffed black man, as long as she wouldn't have also done it to a black woman? I think Devrim is right, you really are very confused. The fact that you haven't even considered these issues is further evidence of your petit-bourgeois aversion to class analysis.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

in case it wasn't already obvious, that Bea Arthur poster's just trying (really tying) to parody what they think leftist anti-racists/anti-sexists sound like.

Nothing 2 see here folks

I really hope that is the case, but certain segments of the radical liberal movement - the "social justice through blogging" brigade - really do sound like Bea Arthur, and I think it's statistically improbable that they're all trolling. Bizarre, anti-materialist notions about women being a class and so on are also par for the course for bourgeois feminism.

Oh, and since Bea Arthur presents herself as such a paragon of the struggle against privilege, it should be noted that her idiotic statements about it being alright to assault men simply for being men directly lead to transphobic violence, particularly when radical bourgeois feminists decide to start a little pogrom against the evil men infiltrating their grrrrl spaces in schools and so on.

[#FF0000]

I really hope that is the case, but certain segments of the radical liberal movement - the "social justice through blogging" brigade - really do sound like Bea Arthur

Yeah on a very superficial level they might, and there are definitely tumblr-babies out there who don't know what the words they are using mean and do end up sounding like our pal Bea Arthur here. But, it's pretty easy to tell when someone is dumb but sincere.

Our best buddy Bea here, though, is simply trollin'.

But yo their dumbness does bring up a really neat point by accident: it would be so much easier if academic dorks didn't make discussing racism and other kinds of bigotry so difficult by using them in a way that is wildly different from how it's colloquially used e.g. "racism" meaning the whole white-supremacist power structure and structural racism in society rather than "discrimination based on race", which is how everyone else uses it.

[bcbm]

Yeah on a very superficial level they might, and there are definitely tumblr-babies out there who don't know what the words they are using mean and do end up sounding like our pal Bea Arthur here. But, it's pretty easy to tell when someone is dumb but sincere.

Our best buddy Bea here, though, is simply trollin'.

But yo their dumbness does bring up a really neat point by accident: it would be so much easier if academic dorks didn't make discussing racism and other kinds of bigotry so difficult by using them in a way that is wildly different from how it's colloquially used e.g. "racism" meaning the whole white-supremacist power structure and structural racism in society rather than "discrimination based on race", which is how everyone else uses it.

could you elaborate

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm pretty sure that by "white" it means "caucasian", not just light-skinned.

"Caucasian" is not an ethnic group.

Also, funnily enough people in Britain are much closer ethnically to people in Turkey and Iran ('Caucasian') than they are to most people in the actual Caucasus mountains. Funny that.

The whole concept of 'races' being 'Asian', 'African', 'Hispanic' and 'Caucasian' is insanely unscientific and at times even Eurocentric.

[Sea]

"Caucasian" is not an ethnic group.

Also, funnily enough people in Britain are much closer ethnically to people in Turkey and Iran ('Caucasian') than they are to most people in the actual Caucasus mountains. Funny that.

The whole concept of 'races' being 'Asian', 'African', 'Hispanic' and 'Caucasian' is insanely unscientific and at times even Eurocentric.Yes, I've already admitted that was a sloppy choice of words. I've already engaged in self-criticism for that. Problem is, there's not a scientific way to put it. See the last part of this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2665418&postcount=25).

[bcbm]

The whole concept of 'races' . . . is insanely unscientific

there we go

[Flying Purple People Eater]

there we go

I was going to add that in as well, but thought it might ruin the cohesion, hence the apostrophes.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah on a very superficial level they might, and there are definitely tumblr-babies out there who don't know what the words they are using mean and do end up sounding like our pal Bea Arthur here. But, it's pretty easy to tell when someone is dumb but sincere.

I think you are being far too charitable. There is no reason to assume that all of these people are systematically misusing words, and that they actually mean something innocuous, particularly since there are serious political organisations whose ideology amounts to pretty much the same thing, though the rhetoric is toned down a bit. And since such opinions are the logical consequence of certain bourgeois soundbites that have become ubiquitous in certain segments of the left - and indeed, are commonly expressed on this site.


Our best buddy Bea here, though, is simply trollin'.

I think that is the case, given how they don't actually respond to anything people write and the amount of punctuation they use. But I really wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they're sincere.


But yo their dumbness does bring up a really neat point by accident: it would be so much easier if academic dorks didn't make discussing racism and other kinds of bigotry so difficult by using them in a way that is wildly different from how it's colloquially used e.g. "racism" meaning the whole white-supremacist power structure and structural racism in society rather than "discrimination based on race", which is how everyone else uses it.

Perhaps, but dorkspeak is often more precise and more useful when evaluating the material situation.

[#FF0000]

could you elaborate

I'm talking about the people who make a big deal about racism being "discrimination + power" and not just "discrimination". I don't know if insisting that individual prejudice and discrimination isn't "racism" is a good idea, or if it's just obscurantism

[#FF0000]

I think you are being far too charitable. There is no reason to assume that all of these people are systematically misusing words, and that they actually mean something innocuous

That isn't what I'm assuming. I know what they are saying and what they mean. White people do not face structural, systemic racism. Men do not face structural, systemic sexism. That is what they mean, and in their jargon, racism and sexism are inherently structural and systemic.

[Devrim]

I long ago stopped trying to talk sense into people who think that white people are the victims of racism, and men the victims of sexism. You're more than welcome to keep pretending you're leftists while defending male and white privilege. What's the HTML color code for "white sexist"? I suggest #FU.

I'd just like to stress that I don't think men are sexually discriminated against, and I don't think that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants are discriminated against in the US.

What I am objecting too is privilege theory, and it's more absurd general pronouncements such as white people are never discriminated against, which as well as being factually wrong (Turks in Germany, Bosnian Muslims to name but two current examples) also shows the complete American centric self-obsessed viewpoint of the people pushing this theory, which is quite ironic considering that in the traditional use of the word university educated Americans are one of the most privileged groups on the planet.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This would all make sense if we substituted WASPs (I think?) for white people. Obviously 'white' people like Jews, Irish (catholics), and other groups mentioned in this thread have faced racism that has been institutionalised to varying degrees, for varying periods in time, through history.

[Devrim]

This would all make sense if we substituted WASPs (I think?) for white people. Obviously 'white' people like Jews, Irish (catholics), and other groups mentioned in this thread have faced racism that has been institutionalised to varying degrees, for varying periods in time, through history.

It wouldn't make privilege theory make any more sense though it would only make some of its more outlandish statements appear slightly less absurd. It would still have its basic problems.

Devrim

[Beeth]

I'd just like to stress that I don't think men are sexually discriminated against, and I don't think that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants are discriminated against in the US.

What I am objecting too is privilege theory, and it's more absurd general pronouncements such as white people are never discriminated against, which as well as being factually wrong (Turks in Germany, Bosnian Muslims to name but two current examples) also shows the complete American centric self-obsessed viewpoint of the people pushing this theory, which is quite ironic considering that in the traditional use of the word university educated Americans are one of the most privileged groups on the planet.

Devrim

In your examples, it is the other whites doing the oppressing ... so it may have less to do with race and more to do with politics. Point here is, it is virtually impossible to come across situations where 'whites' are suffering systemic oppression at the hands of nonwhites.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It wouldn't make privilege theory make any more sense though it would only make some of its more outlandish statements appear slightly less absurd. It would still have its basic problems.

Devrim

Well, the premise that WASPs cannot be the victims of racism, would hold a lot more water than merely saying the same about white people.

The thing about marrying ideas of class struggle and privilege is balance. It's surely possible to recognise privilege and build it into a theory of class struggle. In fact, i'd argue that it's vital to do so, because the empowering of socially discriminated groups into movements means that there are far greater numbers of, for example, non-white workers, non-heterosexual workers and non-male workers, who are demanding an end to the discrimination they face. That can't be ignored in the name of 'class' - that would strike me as rather reductionist, given contemporary context.

[Devrim]

The thing about marrying ideas of class struggle and privilege is balance. It's surely possible to recognise privilege and build it into a theory of class struggle.

I don't think that it is in any way. I think that it is diametrically opposed to class analysis.


In fact, i'd argue that it's vital to do so, because the empowering of socially discriminated groups into movements means that there are far greater numbers of, for example, non-white workers, non-heterosexual workers and non-male workers, who are demanding an end to the discrimination they face. That can't be ignored in the name of 'class' - that would strike me as rather reductionist, given contemporary context.

Nor do I think that privilege theory has anything to offer 'non-hetorsexual workers and non-male workers', or in fact non-white workers either. I don't think it helps discussions about discrimination in any way.

I think also people, particularly Americans who may think that this theory is generally accepted on the left, should be very aware that although it has taken hold on the American left, and has made certain inroads into the left in other English speaking countries, not only is this not accepted by hardly anyone in the rest of the world, but it is virtually unheard of.

Of course one could obviously conclude that this is because 'communists' in the US are completely correct, and the rest of us are racists, sexists, homophobes. Then again, it could also be possible that 'the left' in the country in the western world where the working class is weakest has, in its complete lack of faith in the working class itself, bought into academic sociological analysis instead.

The last time this came up I raised some points about it in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2657155&postcount=16), but you chose not to respond to them.

Devrim

[Quail]

This thread is a bit of a mess. Can we stay on topic please?

I think privilege theory had its merits, especially when it comes to things like dealing with sexism within the leftist movement. The truth is, if a group is dominated by young men, they often don't realise that they're excluding women because they don't think to have meetings somewhere child-friendly, they don't notice that they're interrupting women or not giving them space to speak, etc. so I think in that respect the notion of privilege is useful.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Devrim;2665525] I think also people, particularly Americans who may think that this theory is generally accepted on the left, should be very aware that although it has taken hold on the American left, and has made certain inroads into the left in other English speaking countries, not only is this not accepted by hardly anyone in the rest of the world, but it is virtually unheard of.

I've seen a fair few people subscribe to intersectional views in Britain, particularly on feminism. I guess that, whilst privilege theory in its rawest form sits outside such a paradigm, the idea of intersectionality does necessitate the idea that dimensions other than class must be documented and addressed if we are to accurately summarise and act, politically, on the experience of the working class.


Of course one could obviously conclude that this is because 'communists' in the US are completely correct, and the rest of us are racists, sexists, homophobes.

Just for the record, I wouldn't subscribe to this notion at all.


Then again, it could also be possible that 'the left' in the country in the western world where the working class is weakest has, in its complete lack of faith in the working class itself, bought into academic sociological analysis instead.

Possibly some have, but I don't think that means we can't incorporate sections of said analysis into our own political analysis of society. As I said earlier, the rise of self-emancipatory movements representing socially discriminated groups in society other than class necessitates that we need to update (note: not replace) theories that abounded on the left in the 20th century.


The last time this came up I raised some points about it in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2657155&postcount=16), but you chose not to respond to them.

Devrim

Sorry I did mean to respond but have just been overloaded with work. I don't have time to go point-by-point with you on the libcom post, but i'll just say a couple of things:

1) That there are two relationships in question - the exploiter-exploited class relationship, and the oppressor-oppressed 'social relationship' (probably not the best phrase, but i'm talking about elements of discrimination under capitalism as opposed to class relations under capitalism) - is perhaps a valid point, but I would just question the extent to which it results in a practical difference in terms of outcomes. If the class analysis framework chooses only to allow consideration of - and therefore political action on - 'exploiter-exploited' class relationships, then it is going to face practical problems, chief of which is that it will fail to connect to those members of the working class who highlight their dis-privilege in ways other than class, for example gender, sexuality, race.

2) You do raise an important point - that we cannot allow such analysis to morph into the idea of a 'rainbow coalition of oppressed groups'. A logical solution would be a framework that allows for the understanding that:

the working class are the exploited class in capitalist society;
discrimination and oppression can happen, distinctly, to those who are subject to a social dis-privilege in society (i.e. gays, non-whites, women);
the working class cannot be emancipated from their position as the exploited class as long as capitalism remains (ergo, a gay worker, a female worker, a black worker cannot be fully emancipated under capitalism);
the emancipation of the working class - through a revolution and move to a post-capitalist society - does not necessarily mean the end of dis-privilege, or social oppression.

With the above four in mind, it seems only logical to conclude that any socialist, political analysis of capitalist society must accordingly give weight to the struggle against oppression of socially dis-privileged groups, whilst maintaining the key tenet that the emancipation of any worker, be they white, black, straight, gay, male, female, or other, can only be achieved through the ending of capitalism.

This would suggest, just as Rosa Luxemburg noted the importance of the inter-twining of the economistic struggles for 'pay and conditions' of (unionised) labour and the political struggles of the working class, that the struggles for emancipation against exploitation and for emancipation against oppression, rather than being two separate struggles, overlap in many areas (as i've noted - gay workers, non-white workers, non-male workers) and, practically, the result of this should be a linking of the struggles, working towards two separate but non-mutually exclusive goals.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That isn't what I'm assuming. I know what they are saying and what they mean. White people do not face structural, systemic racism. Men do not face structural, systemic sexism. That is what they mean, and in their jargon, racism and sexism are inherently structural and systemic.

Fair enough, but that isn't quite what I had in mind. I actually think this sort of "jargon" is useful - obviously there is a difference between the sort of systematic violence that women and men who offend patriarchal norms (by being "like a girl", of course) face and someone acting like a dick. I was talking about statements, made by both Bea Arthur and the tumblr kiddies, but also by the more unhinged section of the bourgeois feminist movement, about how targeting men with violent action is justified because it goes against patriarchy somehow (Bea Arthur apparently subscribes to the Pol Pot school of resolving social conflicts - but there's me white privilege acting up again, how dare I implicitly criticise Pol Pot, 'e's brown).


What I am objecting too is privilege theory, and it's more absurd general pronouncements such as white people are never discriminated against, which as well as being factually wrong (Turks in Germany, Bosnian Muslims to name but two current examples) also shows the complete American centric self-obsessed viewpoint of the people pushing this theory, which is quite ironic considering that in the traditional use of the word university educated Americans are one of the most privileged groups on the planet.

Hell, even their terms are blatantly American-centric, and white-centric at that. "People of color", right. Much of privilege politics is simply pig-headed American conservatism stood on its head. The world is still divided into the true Americans and the darkies, it's just that the darkies are the good guys now. Well, it's better than the alternative, strictly speaking, but it's still an incredibly stupid way to view the world.


The thing about marrying ideas of class struggle and privilege is balance. It's surely possible to recognise privilege and build it into a theory of class struggle. In fact, i'd argue that it's vital to do so, because the empowering of socially discriminated groups into movements means that there are far greater numbers of, for example, non-white workers, non-heterosexual workers and non-male workers, who are demanding an end to the discrimination they face. That can't be ignored in the name of 'class' - that would strike me as rather reductionist, given contemporary context.

No one who has posted on this thread, I would hope, advocates that the struggle against special oppression be abandoned "in the name of class" (why the inverted commas?). That doesn't mean that privilege theory is a good description of special oppression or that it provides successful strategies for combating this oppression. In fact, several decades in which liberal political activism has been dominated by the sort of "consciousness raising" advocated by privilege theory adherents seem to have done something between bugger and all.


Of course one could obviously conclude that this is because 'communists' in the US are completely correct, and the rest of us are racists, sexists, homophobes.

Well, unfortunately there really are quite a few leftists, both inside the US and outside, that are racists, sexists, homophobes and transphobes. But despite their rhetoric, some of the groups that are the most fixated on privilege theory and related academic quasi-socialist notions are just as racist, etc. etc., as the most stereotypical workerist hardman, given how eager they are to throw women, LGBT people, and similar groups under the bus if it means they can tail some new mass movement.


I think privilege theory had its merits, especially when it comes to things like dealing with sexism within the leftist movement. The truth is, if a group is dominated by young men, they often don't realise that they're excluding women because they don't think to have meetings somewhere child-friendly, they don't notice that they're interrupting women or not giving them space to speak, etc. so I think in that respect the notion of privilege is useful.

Surely, though, the solution is to encourage women to assert themselves, not for male members to flog themselves over acting assertively (and to act decisively against male members who consciously coerce women)? The response of privilege theorists to shitty treatment of women, and other specially oppressed groups, doesn't help these groups, but forces other groups to be quiet. Taken far enough, this results in really, really bad theory that no one dares to challenge because it comes, at least nominally, from an oppressed person/

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I just had an odd little experience this morning that made me think of this thread. I'm traveling for work, but I ended up finishing the job early. So this morning I was just farting around the hotel room watching TV. I decided to head downstairs to the lobby and grab a cup of coffee. As I returned to the elevator to go back to my room I see that I will be sharing it with a young blonde girl probably about the age of 9 or 10 who is alone. I instantly hesitate about getting into the elevator, wondering if it will look more suspicious if I get on or let her go on without me and wait for the next one.

I end up getting in and it becomes clear that she is as uncomfortable as I am. We get to my floor, I head to my room, whatever, end of story. But just looking back on it, how could one possibly separate anything regarding race, sex or class from each other in this encounter? I'm terrified of being wrongly accused, due to my skin color, of some wrong doing, shes clearly uncomfortable riding alone in an elevator with a man (justified in my opinion) and even worse that man is black. I clearly don't 'belong' in this hotel, I could never afford the room on my own, the only reason I am here is because my job insists it's employees stay at nice hotels on the off-chance of one of our customers asking where I am staying. Her family is likely in area on a late summer vacation.

Maybe someone else can analyze this situation better than I, but I just cannot see how any of those three threads can be separated from each other.

[Quail]

Surely, though, the solution is to encourage women to assert themselves, not for male members to flog themselves over acting assertively (and to act decisively against male members who consciously coerce women)? The response of privilege theorists to shitty treatment of women, and other specially oppressed groups, doesn't help these groups, but forces other groups to be quiet. Taken far enough, this results in really, really bad theory that no one dares to challenge because it comes, at least nominally, from an oppressed person/
I don't think those things are mutually exclusive though. Why can't women both encourage their male comrades to make a conscious effort not to dominate the discussion (for example) and try to become more assertive themselves? You ignore that many women find it harder to be assertive in a male dominated atmosphere because men are socially conditioned to be more assertive. It doesn't force men to be quiet if someone points out that the women in the meeting can't get a word in edgeways. It gives the women space to get their voices heard.

I also think that people in marginalised groups do have more insight into their oppression. That doesn't mean that they're infallible, but that's why (for example) women don't like getting catcalled but loads of men can't seem to comprehend why catcalling isn't very nice.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive though. Why can't women both encourage their male comrades to make a conscious effort not to dominate the discussion (for example) and try to become more assertive themselves? You ignore that many women find it harder to be assertive in a male dominated atmosphere because men are socially conditioned to be more assertive. It doesn't force men to be quiet if someone points out that the women in the meeting can't get a word in edgeways. It gives the women space to get their voices heard.

The problem is that "dominating the discussion" is very vague, and faced with such vague demands, many will choose to simply shut up. I mean, I have no problems with pointing out when an atmosphere that is uncomfortable to women has been formed, but that doesn't mean that this semi-ritual "privilege checking" is a good idea.


I also think that people in marginalised groups do have more insight into their oppression. That doesn't mean that they're infallible, but that's why (for example) women don't like getting catcalled but loads of men can't seem to comprehend why catcalling isn't very nice.

Alright, but not being nice is not the same as being oppressive, if we still wish to link oppression to systematised violence against an identifiable group. As it happens, catcalls are connected to violence against women. That doesn't mean that women have some sort of privileged understanding of the problem, and in particular, it doesn't mean that men should not engage claims about what is and what is not oppressive on a theoretical level. But privilege theorists want to stop that. I mean, it's a good thing privilege theory wasn't around when Marx and Engels were alive, they'd get chewed up for their bourgeois privilege and "insultingly" telling proletarians how they need to organise themselves.

[Devrim]

I think privilege theory had its merits, especially when it comes to things like dealing with sexism within the leftist movement. The truth is, if a group is dominated by young men, they often don't realise that they're excluding women because they don't think to have meetings somewhere child-friendly, they don't notice that they're interrupting women or not giving them space to speak, etc. so I think in that respect the notion of privilege is useful.

But this isn't an argument for privilege theory. It is an argument for better chairing, and a more respectful attitude towards all members of your group. People shouldn't be interrupted by anybody but the chair. If certain people seem to be dominating a meeting to the exclusion of others, they should be told, by the chair, to stop it. Admittedly it is often young men who do this, but over my time in politics I have seen it done by people of both sexes, and all ages.


You ignore that many women find it harder to be assertive in a male dominated atmosphere because men are socially conditioned to be more assertive. It doesn't force men to be quiet if someone points out that the women in the meeting can't get a word in edgeways. It gives the women space to get their voices heard.

In my experience you could equally say this about university educated people, who are directly taught to be assertive in these sort of situations, and non-university educated people, yet privilege theory doesn't seem to talk about this that often for what I think are obvious reasons. That doesn't in an way imply that what you say about it applying to women is wrong. A good chair can do more to overcome this problem in both cases though than a sociological theory.

Devrim

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think this thread demonstrates why the left should ditch the terms "sexism" and "racism" in favour of "(hetero)patriarchy" and "white supremacy". I think the former are consistently understood to describe subjective attitudes, whereas the latter are far more useful for describing concrete material phenomena.
Since, (hetero)patriarchy and white supremacy both have clear histories in legal, economic, and political terms, it is easier, along these lines to show the ways in which they are inextricably tied to class. In this way, one has a framework for challenging liberal "identity politics" without saying dumb shit like, "That doesn't mean that women have some sort of privileged understanding of the problem." It's like, no, in fact in does: condition precedes consciousness.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think this thread demonstrates why the left should ditch the terms "sexism" and "racism" in favour of "(hetero)patriarchy" and "white supremacy". I think the former are consistently understood to describe subjective attitudes, whereas the latter are far more useful for describing concrete material phenomena.
Since, (hetero)patriarchy and white supremacy both have clear histories in legal, economic, and political terms, it is easier, along these lines to show the ways in which they are inextricably tied to class. In this way, one has a framework for challenging liberal "identity politics" without saying dumb shit like, "That doesn't mean that women have some sort of privileged understanding of the problem." It's like, no, in fact in does: condition precedes consciousness.

And consciousness of a material condition does not proceed linearly from that condition - obviously without patriarchal violence, there would be no ideology of women's liberation, but that does not mean that patriarchal violence spontaneously generates the ideology of women's liberation in women. After all, the socialist ideology also largely originated outside the proletariat, and the proletarian status of, for example, Weitling, did not give him some sort of privileged insight into economics or anything like that.

[Quail]

The problem is that "dominating the discussion" is very vague, and faced with such vague demands, many will choose to simply shut up. I mean, I have no problems with pointing out when an atmosphere that is uncomfortable to women has been formed, but that doesn't mean that this semi-ritual "privilege checking" is a good idea.
But because the way that men often dominate the meetings is directly related to the way they were socialised as males rather than females, they are in a position of relative privilege going in to a meeting because it's harder for women for be assertive and they should know that, and use that knowledge to make a space less intimidating for women.


Alright, but not being nice is not the same as being oppressive, if we still wish to link oppression to systematised violence against an identifiable group. As it happens, catcalls are connected to violence against women. That doesn't mean that women have some sort of privileged understanding of the problem, and in particular, it doesn't mean that men should not engage claims about what is and what is not oppressive on a theoretical level. But privilege theorists want to stop that. I mean, it's a good thing privilege theory wasn't around when Marx and Engels were alive, they'd get chewed up for their bourgeois privilege and "insultingly" telling proletarians how they need to organise themselves.
I chose the example of catcalling precisely because it is part of an oppressive power structure. The thing is though, women do have a unique insight into how it contributes to their oppression because they actually experience it. There was a thread not long ago on revleft about catcalling, and despite several female posters explaining why it was unacceptable, there were still male posters defending it. It is insulting when people who don't experience a form of oppression tell you that essentially your experiences are invalid - and this is something that happens a lot. That's not to say that people who don't experience a form of oppression can't discuss it, but they should listen to the the people who do and take their views into account.


But this isn't an argument for privilege theory. It is an argument for better chairing, and a more respectful attitude towards all members of your group. People shouldn't be interrupted by anybody but the chair. If certain people seem to be dominating a meeting to the exclusion of others, they should be told, by the chair, to stop it. Admittedly it is often young men who do this, but over my time in politics I have seen it done by people of both sexes, and all ages.
Men dominating meetings was just one example, but I agree a good chair could help with the problem. I think part of it is also the way that men can come across. There can be a macho atmosphere, especially with anti-fascism, or women's concerns just get dismissed repeatedly, so I don't think a good chair is a complete solution.


In my experience you could equally say this about university educated people, who are directly taught to be assertive in these sort of situations, and non-university educated people, yet privilege theory doesn't seem to talk about this that often for what I think are obvious reasons. That doesn't in an way imply that what you say about it applying to women is wrong. A good chair can do more to overcome this problem in both cases though than a sociological theory.

I'm not too sure about this. I'm a university student but I haven't really been taught to be assertive in meetings - possibly because my degree is in maths and not a social science. I think a way of combating the problem of people (or women in particular) not feeling assertive enough to get their opinions across and their voice heard would be to organise workshops for those people to get together and work on it. But I also think people being mindful of why women might be less assertive can only help them to create a space where women can speak up.

[Comrade Maddog]

DarkPast: "But here's the catch: ALL of these forms of discrimination are related to patriarchal gender role norms. Basically, when society discriminates against a man, it's because he acts "unmanly" i.e. he becomes a "woman" in some way (think of the insult "pussy").

Some of this is also internalized (if that's the right word?). For example, men are taught from an early age no to show "weakness", so they are less likely to seek medical (or social) assistance. It's one of the reasons why men live shorter on average."

This was excellent, but even in its context, it is still man-on-man discrimination. If a woman were to insult a man based on a perceived "unmanly" weakness, the man would feel more likely to shrug it off than if it were from a man, especially a man who exceeds in exemplifying the "manly" roles.
Ultimately tho, when it comes down to it, no, men are not discriminated against if we simply look at men vs. women. Men in the vast majority of situation own the means of survival, direct the family, and usually are the ones demanding sex for their "service" to the family. Rape is not only to acquire pleasure obviously, but to reinforce the perceived superiority of the man in the relationship. So no, unless women were able to have some Darth Vader like telekinetic ability to force men to do more house work, men are not discriminated against, at least in the U.S.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But because the way that men often dominate the meetings is directly related to the way they were socialised as males rather than females, they are in a position of relative privilege going in to a meeting because it's harder for women for be assertive and they should know that, and use that knowledge to make a space less intimidating for women.

I think your explanation ignores the material mechanisms by which the bourgeois ideological image of women as passive is enforced, and blames the fact that men are (often) assertive. I would think that violence and coercion against women who try to assert themselves, structural discrimination in job assignment etc. (which is itself coercive) is the problem, not male assertiveness. Likewise, the fact that different-sex couples can openly express their affection is not a problem. The violence directed against same-sex couples who do so is.

In other situations, waiting patiently for everyone to speak up might be the polite thing to do. But one expects socialist meetings to involve an exchange of ideas, a heated exchange at times. A certain modicum of assertiveness is necessary. I realise women often find it difficult to reach that modicum, but surely the solution is to make that easier by removing the material barriers to women's participation, not imposing new barriers on male members.


I chose the example of catcalling precisely because it is part of an oppressive power structure.

Alright, but there are other things that members of oppressed groups find offensive or annoying, that are not oppressive as such. A lot of gay people loathe the stereotypical portrayal of male gay people, for example, but is it oppressive? I don't think so.


The thing is though, women do have a unique insight into how it contributes to their oppression because they actually experience it.

But many women don't realise that they are, in fact, structurally oppressed, or downplay the extent to which this is true, or fail to see the connection between sexism and, e.g., restrictions on abortion, and so on, and so on. Simply experiencing something doesn't give you a good theoretical insight into your experience. A certain theoretical framework is necessary.


There was a thread not long ago on revleft about catcalling, and despite several female posters explaining why it was unacceptable, there were still male posters defending it.

I imagine there are women who would also defend such activities - in fact I know there are. And this one example doesn't prove that whatever a member of an oppressed group claims is true. I think that is demonstrably false. No matter how much women talk about sisterhood, for example, popular fronts are still a bad idea, and they have accomplished little.


It is insulting when people who don't experience a form of oppression tell you that essentially your experiences are invalid - and this is something that happens a lot. That's not to say that people who don't experience a form of oppression can't discuss it, but they should listen to the the people who do and take their views into account.

But taking their views into account doesn't mean agreeing with them. Perhaps my statement about popular fronts above was perceived by some women as insulting, but that doesn't impact its theoretical justification. Communists, both members of specially oppressed groups and otherwise, should contradict the consciousness of the masses as it spontaneously develops, and that is sometimes perceived as insulting by the masses (consider Engels's comment about marriage and prostitution for example).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think your explanation ignores the material mechanisms by which the bourgeois ideological image of women as passive is enforced, and blames the fact that men are (often) assertive. I would think that violence and coercion against women who try to assert themselves, structural discrimination in job assignment etc. (which is itself coercive) is the problem, not male assertiveness. Likewise, the fact that different-sex couples can openly express their affection is not a problem. The violence directed against same-sex couples who do so is.

OK, the problem isn't that men are "assertive" (which, as far as I can tell, isn't what Quail has been saying): It's that men, with their particular material relationship to patriarchal capitalism, routinely act to reify intra-working class division. Often, this takes the form of silencing women within organizing spaces, refusing to examine the specificity of their own class relationship vis- women's reproductive labour, etc. This isn't just subjective douchebaggery, but a subtle deployment of systemic power.


In other situations, waiting patiently for everyone to speak up might be the polite thing to do. But one expects socialist meetings to involve an exchange of ideas, a heated exchange at times. A certain modicum of assertiveness is necessary. I realise women often find it difficult to reach that modicum, but surely the solution is to make that easier by removing the material barriers to women's participation, not imposing new barriers on male members.

OK, this is actually perfect for illustrating my point. For one, you point to the necessity of attacking the material barriers to women's participation. However, you suggest that asking men to shut up, step back, and quit being windbags would be "imposing new barriers" - as though asking simply that men be respectful is somehow equivalent to the systemic and systematic violence faced by women! This is exactly the type of patriarchal doublethink that is all too common, even in radical left organizing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

OK, the problem isn't that men are "assertive" (which, as far as I can tell, isn't what Quail has been saying): It's that men, with their particular material relationship to patriarchal capitalism, routinely act to reify intra-working class division. Often, this takes the form of silencing women within organizing spaces, refusing to examine the specificity of their own class relationship vis- women's reproductive labour, etc. This isn't just subjective douchebaggery, but a subtle deployment of systemic power.

Who said anything about "subjective douchebaggery"? Silencing women etc. is very much part of the material mechanisms that enforce passivity in women. So is ordering women to, for example, make tea or act as secretaries. But a man acting assertively is not part of these mechanisms.


OK, this is actually perfect for illustrating my point. For one, you point to the necessity of attacking the material barriers to women's participation. However, you suggest that asking men to shut up, step back, and quit being windbags would be "imposing new barriers" - as though asking simply that men be respectful is somehow equivalent to the systemic and systematic violence faced by women! This is exactly the type of patriarchal doublethink that is all too common, even in radical left organizing.

In fact, I do think that asking men to keep quiet is a barrier to male participation - I never said that it's comparable to the barriers faced by women, though. I don't know how the rest of your paragraph is connected to my post, though. I never said it's alright for men to be disruptive, merely that they should not be prohibited from speaking up, but that women should be encouraged to speak up.

[argeiphontes]

I don't know if insisting that individual prejudice and discrimination isn't "racism" is a good idea, or if it's just obscurantism

Institutional racism is going to be embedded in and reflected in individual people's actions and opinions (in their conscious or subconscious). Otherwise, how would it "work" in society? I.e. it's individuals who implement racism on a day-to-day level via discrimination.

[#FF0000]

Institutional racism is going to be embedded in and reflected in individual people's actions and opinions (in their conscious or subconscious). Otherwise, how would it "work" in society? I.e. it's individuals who implement racism on a day-to-day level via discrimination.

I'm talking about totally individual things e.g. black girl picking on a white boy and most weaksauce examples of "anti-white racism" on an interpersonal basis.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Racism is not the same thing as individual discrimination. Racism is systemic.
As a white male I have never in my life felt that I was treated unfairly because of my whiteness or my dudeliness.

[Sea]

Racism is not the same thing as individual discrimination. Racism is systemic.I thought racism was the belief that certain qualities can be determined along racial lines....

[synthesis]

Words can have more than one meaning, you know.

[argeiphontes]

I'm talking about totally individual things e.g. black girl picking on a white boy and most weaksauce examples of "anti-white racism" on an interpersonal basis.

I was actually agreeing with you. The reverse racism I would attribute to reactions to white racism, or some gains (expression of frustration, increased group cohesion, maybe keeping economic business among themselves more, whatever) a group makes via racist attitudes. I can't say much about a very strict materialistic interpretation of reverse-racism because I don't have one. Some racism will be reflected in / be a reflection of, institutionalized power structures, but because of individual agency, I allow for there not to be. I would suggest that anytime a group identifies itself contra another group, the oppressed group will form some sort of counter-identification. That counter-identity will still be a result of the original discrimination. People mingling on an interpersonal level usually mitigates these attitudes.

I could be wrong, of course.

[MrMillion]

Racism is not the same thing as individual discrimination. Racism is systemic.
As a white male I have never in my life felt that I was treated unfairly because of my whiteness or my dudeliness.

Yea bro, preach.

And as for OP, men has always been the pursuer in relationships, nothing new.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I thought racism was the belief that certain qualities can be determined along racial lines....

That's a pretty useless definition, insofar as it doesn't grapple with the ways in which "race" has been brought into existence by social relationships (and particularly colonialism). It posits race ahistorically, suggests that "racial lines" precede determination by certain qualities (a political act), rather than the political act of determination preceding race.

It's for this reason that, as I said earlier in the thread, I much prefer using "white supremacy" to "racism", since it underscores the particular historical forms that underwrite racism.

[blake 3:17]

Could we just not have 'men are oppressed' type discussions? They're fucking bullshit.

And- hey wait I got some reals complaints -- there are situations where boys and men do get fucked over, but they're pretty specific, not reducible to class, though that's often a big part of the picture, but overall thing is total nonsense.

[Sea]

That's a pretty useless definition, insofar as it doesn't grapple with the ways in which "race" has been brought into existence by social relationships (and particularly colonialism). It posits race ahistorically, suggests that "racial lines" precede determination by certain qualities (a political act), rather than the political act of determination preceding race.

It's for this reason that, as I said earlier in the thread, I much prefer using "white supremacy" to "racism", since it underscores the particular historical forms that underwrite racism.You don't need to lay out all the reasons why racism is BS. I never implied that I condone such a belief, I simply implied that I was using a working definition of racism as being such a belief.
This thread is a bit of a mess. Can we stay on topic please?

I think privilege theory had its merits, especially when it comes to things like dealing with sexism within the leftist movement. The truth is, if a group is dominated by young men, they often don't realise that they're excluding women because they don't think to have meetings somewhere child-friendly, they don't notice that they're interrupting women or not giving them space to speak, etc. so I think in that respect the notion of privilege is useful.

Actually.. that's a good point.

[#FF0000]

Racism is not the same thing as individual discrimination. Racism is systemic.
As a white male I have never in my life felt that I was treated unfairly because of my whiteness or my dudeliness.

Yo what you're saying is true but I don't know if this language is effective.

[Devrim]

Men dominating meetings was just one example, but I agree a good chair could help with the problem. I think part of it is also the way that men can come across. There can be a macho atmosphere, especially with anti-fascism, or women's concerns just get dismissed repeatedly, so I don't think a good chair is a complete solution.

I think that there can be a macho atmosphere especially with anti-fascism as much of it is about macho gang fighting, or at least the image of it, which is something that young boys tend to be attracted to. I don't think that it is very useful though. The problem here is with anti-fascism itself.

As for women's concerns being repeatedly dismissed, I think that a good chair shouldn't allow anyone's concerns to be repeatedly dismissed.


I'm not too sure about this. I'm a university student but I haven't really been taught to be assertive in meetings - possibly because my degree is in maths and not a social science.

So you have never done presentations to the rest of your group? (that is a real question. I don't really know what goes on at universities. I think that most university kids must do this sort of thing. Of course university educated people are 'privileged'. I think this is kind of obvious. Privilege theorists don't talk about it because they have all been to university.


I also think people being mindful of why women might be less assertive can only help them to create a space where women can speak up.

Yes, this is true. It doesn't justify privilege theory though.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

I thought racism was the belief that certain qualities can be determined along racial lines....Well this is the common definition now, yes, but it's generally not what revolutionaries and anti-racist activists mean and it's not the way the term was used in the 60s for example when it implied a system of racial control of some sort.

The problems with this current broad definition are that it's an abstraction first of all, secondly it accomodates too much to the post-70s racism backlash in the US. Specifically for this argument, rather than argue racist ideas, the mainstream politicians and pundits and whatnot have a strategy of dislodging racism from socity and abstracting it so that racism is not a social problem, but a problem of some induviduals. The conservatives and liberals both do this, in slightly different ways. So the right will claim reverse-racism as a way of deflecting arguments about their own racism, but also to make it seem like it's an issue of "each against all" in society. It's a diversion just like when people talk about Israel and Palistine like it's two equal actors both behaving badly or whatnot. Liberals tend to use it moralistically - these people are racists, that cop is a bad apple, etc.

I generally try and make the distinction as "Bigotry" meaning induvidual attitudes and "Racism" being a system of racial control. Racism doesn't need overt bigotry to function and the US legal system is proof of that. But in talking with people I also try not to make a big semantic deal about it and so I usually just try and clarify "systemic racism/sexism" rather than insist that my definition is the only one.

[Quail]

I think that there can be a macho atmosphere especially with anti-fascism as much of it is about macho gang fighting, or at least the image of it, which is something that young boys tend to be attracted to. I don't think that it is very useful though. The problem here is with anti-fascism itself.

As for women's concerns being repeatedly dismissed, I think that a good chair shouldn't allow anyone's concerns to be repeatedly dismissed.

So if a good chair doesn't allow people's concerns to be repeatedly dismissed, how would they achieve this? If they addressed the men in the meeting and told them to shut up and listen to the women's concerns instead of dismissing them out of hand, isn't there some kind of implicit privilege-checking going on anyway? I think it would make more sense to draw attention to the fact that men are socialised to be more assertive than women so that the men can take that into account in future.



So you have never done presentations to the rest of your group? (that is a real question. I don't really know what goes on at universities. I think that most university kids must do this sort of thing. Of course university educated people are 'privileged'. I think this is kind of obvious. Privilege theorists don't talk about it because they have all been to university.

I've done a total of 2 presentations in my 4 and a half years of uni, both of which I was a nervous wreck for - one was about operations on ideals and the other was about localisation. I'm not sure how it works for social sciences students. My degree was in mathematics. I am not an "academic feminist" (by which I mean I have had no formal education in political stuff). My interest in feminism came about through my life experiences. I do however think that privilege theory has its uses.

Another point to make is that I don't think that people who haven't been to university really experience social discrimination purely because they've never been to university. It's more likely to be related to "classism" and snobbery.

[Quail]

I missed this post somehow.

I think your explanation ignores the material mechanisms by which the bourgeois ideological image of women as passive is enforced, and blames the fact that men are (often) assertive. I would think that violence and coercion against women who try to assert themselves, structural discrimination in job assignment etc. (which is itself coercive) is the problem, not male assertiveness. Likewise, the fact that different-sex couples can openly express their affection is not a problem. The violence directed against same-sex couples who do so is.

I see what you're saying, but I also think the way that (some) men assert themselves contributes towards women being unassertive. Imagine that you are used to being dismissed and silenced, and then you find yourself in a room with a bunch of loud men aggressively debating with each other. Would you feel confident giving your opinion, or would you keep quiet out of fear of being shouted down? I don't see why it's a lot to ask that men in particular be aware of how they're potentially coming across to the women in the group.

I also don't think your analogy works properly because different sex couples showing affection in public doesn't directly stop same sex couples from doing the same but aggressively assertive men do directly impact the ability of women to express themselves.


In other situations, waiting patiently for everyone to speak up might be the polite thing to do. But one expects socialist meetings to involve an exchange of ideas, a heated exchange at times. A certain modicum of assertiveness is necessary. I realise women often find it difficult to reach that modicum, but surely the solution is to make that easier by removing the material barriers to women's participation, not imposing new barriers on male members.

It's not exactly imposing barriers on male members by asking them to be respectful and listen to their female comrades. I'd go as far as saying it's common fucking courtesy to make sure other people feel comfortable participating in a discussion.


Alright, but there are other things that members of oppressed groups find offensive or annoying, that are not oppressive as such. A lot of gay people loathe the stereotypical portrayal of male gay people, for example, but is it oppressive? I don't think so.

I think stereotypes are harmful though. Not only can there be pressure to live up to a certain image, but people who act in a certain way might end up as victims of homophobic bullying (for example) regardless of their orientation. Stereotypes of gay people tie into patriarchal ideas of masculinity/femininity.


But many women don't realise that they are, in fact, structurally oppressed, or downplay the extent to which this is true, or fail to see the connection between sexism and, e.g., restrictions on abortion, and so on, and so on. Simply experiencing something doesn't give you a good theoretical insight into your experience. A certain theoretical framework is necessary.

That is partly true. Just being a woman doesn't automatically make you a feminist, or even aware of structural sexism. However, actually experiencing stuff certainly does contribute towards your understanding. I examine patriarchy through the lens of anarchism, as do many men, but as someone on the receiving end of sexism my experience suggests that I notice it far more than anarchist men, and my experience tends to agree with the experiences of other anarchist women.


I imagine there are women who would also defend such activities - in fact I know there are. And this one example doesn't prove that whatever a member of an oppressed group claims is true. I think that is demonstrably false. No matter how much women talk about sisterhood, for example, popular fronts are still a bad idea, and they have accomplished little.

I never said that "anything an oppressed person says is true." My point was that if someone from an oppressed group explains why they find something oppressive you should listen to them and not dismiss them. If a conversation goes something like:

Woman: "Catcalling is oppressive because it makes me feel uncomfortable going out alone, and because it comes from the idea that men are entitled to women."
Man: "But catcalling isn't meant to make women feel uncomfortable. Some men just like giving women compliments."

then you are denying the experiences of the woman and effectively silencing her. That isn't okay.


But taking their views into account doesn't mean agreeing with them. Perhaps my statement about popular fronts above was perceived by some women as insulting, but that doesn't impact its theoretical justification. Communists, both members of specially oppressed groups and otherwise, should contradict the consciousness of the masses as it spontaneously develops, and that is sometimes perceived as insulting by the masses (consider Engels's comment about marriage and prostitution for example).
It doesn't mean dismissing them either. It is possible to have a respectful discussion with people in an oppressed group, but they get to define what is and isn't oppressive. If they don't, then their concerns just get dismissed. It's easy for men to sit there and tell women what they should and shouldn't find unacceptable but they have an interest in maintaining the status quo because they don't want to have to examine and challenge themselves.

[Devrim]

So if a good chair doesn't allow people's concerns to be repeatedly dismissed, how would they achieve this? If they addressed the men in the meeting and told them to shut up and listen to the women's concerns instead of dismissing them out of hand, isn't there some kind of implicit privilege-checking going on anyway?

Er...no. Meetings were chaired well, and also of course badly, before any one had even thought of privilege theory.


I think it would make more sense to draw attention to the fact that men are socialised to be more assertive than women so that the men can take that into account in future.

I think it makes more sense to draw attention to the fact that nobody should be allowed to repeatedly dismiss anyone's concerns and that it is not acceptable behaviour in a meeting.




I've done a total of 2 presentations in my 4 and a half years of uni, both of which I was a nervous wreck for - one was about operations on ideals and the other was about localisation. I'm not sure how it works for social sciences students.

Which is two more than most people do. I find it quite hard to believe that you don't think that university students are trained to be assertive. maybe you should try watching people who speak in a big meeting, and note the amount of speaking time of those who have and haven't been to university. Try it at your next AF branch meeting.


Another point to make is that I don't think that people who haven't been to university really experience social discrimination purely because they've never been to university. It's more likely to be related to "classism" and snobbery.

Again I have a real problem with this. I think the lack of self awareness is striking.

Devrim

[Quail]

Er...no. Meetings were chaired well, and also of course badly, before any one had even thought of privilege theory.
My point was, if it's mostly men in a meeting who have to be told to be quiet and let women talk, then that would clearly indicate an underlying problem. That is, that men tend to dominate meetings and women don't feel confident enough to speak up and/or don't get heard or listened to. Don't you see any value at all in trying to understand why this is?


I think it makes more sense to draw attention to the fact that nobody should be allowed to repeatedly dismiss anyone's concerns and that it is not acceptable behaviour in a meeting.
But... women do and have drawn attention to it repeatedly and yet nothing ever changes. You can go on about bad chairing all you like, but the reality of the situation is that our concerns are not taken seriously. Even if there is a good chair who gives everyone equal space to talk about sexism in the anarchist movement (for example), there is no guarantee that anything will get done whatsoever because people have the same discussions, time after time, and nothing changes.


Which is two more than most people do. I find it quite hard to believe that you don't think that university students are trained to be assertive. maybe you should try watching people who speak in a big meeting, and note the amount of speaking time of those who have and haven't been to university. Try it at your next AF branch meeting.
I don't personally feel that university has made me any more assertive, but perhaps other people have different experiences. I have no self-confidence whatsoever, I feel anxious about speaking in big meetings and I pretty much let people walk all over me a lot of the time. Maybe you could say that I am unassertive despite going to university.

The Sheffield AF branch only has a few people at the moment and I have known them for a while so that isn't a very good example. In larger meetings where I don't know everyone I don't know who has and hasn't been to university so I can't really comment based on that.

I think that assertiveness in meetings can be related to feeling confident in what you're saying - so someone with a PhD in social sciences is obviously going to feel very confident and sure of themselves, whereas someone with no formal education in politics is going to feel more wary of expressing their opinion.


Again I have a real problem with this. I think the lack of self awareness is striking.

Devrim
You can't tell from looking at someone whether or not they have been to university, so unless you're making assumptions about someone based on their appearance or manner of speaking you probably won't subconsciously decide their opinion is less valid. You can, on the other hand, see that someone is a woman, and people don't see something said by a woman as being as important as the same thing when said by a man.

[Hermes]

Er...no. Meetings were chaired well, and also of course badly, before any one had even thought of privilege theory.



I think it makes more sense to draw attention to the fact that nobody should be allowed to repeatedly dismiss anyone's concerns and that it is not acceptable behaviour in a meeting.

Devrim

I know that I'm intruding on this conversation, and it's not like what I'm going to say is probably going to be valuable, so apologies in advance.

Don't you think this type of thinking (i.e. everything can be reduced simply to the failings of individual meetings who chaired badly) is incredibly reminiscent of the same arguments used by those who refuse to acknowledge the systemic workings of racism or sexism? That is, that one black guy who got shot yesterday obviously had it coming to him, that woman obviously had it coming to her due to x, y, z, that is, a complete reduction of the problem down to the individual level (PLEASE NOTE I'm not in any way trying to say that you're racist/sexist/etc, I'm just giving examples of other systemic issues).

Sorry again if this is way off mark.

[Le Socialiste]

Er...no. Meetings were chaired well, and also of course badly, before any one had even thought of privilege theory.

I'm not sure how or why we've reduced questions of privilege down to badly chaired meetings, but regardless: if someone continually brings up the issue regarding women's thoughts or opinions being routinely dismissed and undervalued, doesn't the insistence that this can be reduced to a matter of poor chairing 'etiquette' seem rather silly (and dismissive in and of itself)? Male privilege existed long before 'privilege theory' ever emerged.

[synthesis]

I also don't think your analogy works properly because different sex couples showing affection in public doesn't directly stop same sex couples from doing the same but aggressively assertive men do directly impact the ability of women to express themselves.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but do aggressively assertive men impact the ability of other aggressively assertive men to express themselves? Maybe the analogy does work, in the sense of the argument that the answer to aggressively assertive men is for women to become more aggressively assertive, although there are certainly a lot of nasty words that exist just to be directed at women who "dare" match the aggressiveness of male rhetoric and behavior.

[Devrim]

My point was, if it's mostly men in a meeting who have to be told to be quiet and let women talk, then that would clearly indicate an underlying problem. That is, that men tend to dominate meetings and women don't feel confident enough to speak up and/or don't get heard or listened to. Don't you see any value at all in trying to understand why this is?

Yes, I do. I don't think that privilege theory has anything to offer revolutionaries in understanding this though. You brought up practical applications, and I made practical responses to them.


But... women do and have drawn attention to it repeatedly and yet nothing ever changes. You can go on about bad chairing all you like, but the reality of the situation is that our concerns are not taken seriously. Even if there is a good chair who gives everyone equal space to talk about sexism in the anarchist movement (for example), there is no guarantee that anything will get done whatsoever because people have the same discussions, time after time, and nothing changes.

The anarchist movement is a vague amorphous mass. I can understand why nothing changes. However, in your organisation you should be able to change things. After 'everyone has talked' has talked you need to make decisions, and see that the organisation implements these decisions. I am sure that you know this though.


I don't personally feel that university has made me any more assertive, but perhaps other people have different experiences. I have no self-confidence whatsoever, I feel anxious about speaking in big meetings and I pretty much let people walk all over me a lot of the time. Maybe you could say that I am unassertive despite going to university.

I am comfortable speaking in public and I left school at 15. I am equally sure that there are some women who are superbly confident when speaking in public, and some men who are more terrified than you. It is not about individuals but general trends. In this sense, you and I are not important.


The Sheffield AF branch only has a few people at the moment and I have known them for a while so that isn't a very good example. In larger meetings where I don't know everyone I don't know who has and hasn't been to university so I can't really comment based on that.

I think that assertiveness in meetings can be related to feeling confident in what you're saying - so someone with a PhD in social sciences is obviously going to feel very confident and sure of themselves, whereas someone with no formal education in politics is going to feel more wary of expressing their opinion.

If it is difficult to do it that is the way it is. I would be very surprised though if you were able to do it, if the amount of time that students and graduates spoke at a meeting compared to people without tertiary education would not be similar or even more skewed to that of men and women.


You can't tell from looking at someone whether or not they have been to university, so unless you're making assumptions about someone based on their appearance or manner of speaking you probably won't subconsciously decide their opinion is less valid. You can, on the other hand, see that someone is a woman, and people don't see something said by a woman as being as important as the same thing when said by a man.

As you know, I don't hold with privilege theory. I think that it is the antithesis of class analysis. I am not suggesting that people who have been to university be told to 'check their privilege'. I am just commenting that it seems strange how privilege theorists have a blind spot in this insistence, particularly as it is one of the things which was once generally considered to be privileged in the normal meaning of the word.

Aside from this though your argument wouldn't hold water as a defence of privilege theory. As you say "you can't tell from looking at someone whether or not they have been to university". I also can't tell from looking at people what their sexuality is, what their religion is, or what their ethnicity/nationality* is. Yet we still hear privilege being talked about in relation to these things.

Devrim

*In some case that is. For example with Turks, and Kurds in Turkey.

[Devrim]

I'm not sure how or why we've reduced questions of privilege down to badly chaired meetings, but regardless: if someone continually brings up the issue regarding women's thoughts or opinions being routinely dismissed and undervalued, doesn't the insistence that this can be reduced to a matter of poor chairing 'etiquette' seem rather silly (and dismissive in and of itself)?

Somebody brought people speaking at meetings up as an example. I offered a response. It is not reducing privilege theory to chairing, but responding to a particular example.


Male privilege existed long before 'privilege theory' ever emerged.

'Male privilege' doesn't actually exist. The idea is an abstract intellectual tool to understand real social relations that do exist. In my opinion it is not a particularly useful one, and other ideas can explain the same real social relations much better, and be an effective tool for revolutionaries to use in practice.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I know that I'm intruding on this conversation, and it's not like what I'm going to say is probably going to be valuable, so apologies in advance.

Don't you think this type of thinking (i.e. everything can be reduced simply to the failings of individual meetings who chaired badly) is incredibly reminiscent of the same arguments used by those who refuse to acknowledge the systemic workings of racism or sexism? That is, that one black guy who got shot yesterday obviously had it coming to him, that woman obviously had it coming to her due to x, y, z, that is, a complete reduction of the problem down to the individual level (PLEASE NOTE I'm not in any way trying to say that you're racist/sexist/etc, I'm just giving examples of other systemic issues).

Sorry again if this is way off mark.

I don't quite get what your point is here. As I stated I was responding to a concrete example raised by someone else, and I don't think that I am 'reducing' things, rather responding to what was brought up.

I don't quite understand what the similarity is between how revolutionaries organise in internal meetings, and people getting shot by the police.

Perhaps if you rephrased it, I might better be able to understand it.

Devrim

[Hermes]

I don't quite get what your point is here. As I stated I was responding to a concrete example raised by someone else, and I don't think that I am 'reducing' things, rather responding to what was brought up.

I don't quite understand what the similarity is between how revolutionaries organise in internal meetings, and people getting shot by the police.

Perhaps if you rephrased it, I might better be able to understand it.

Devrim

It's entirely possible that I misconstrued your position as universal when you were simply using it as an example, it's almost certain that I didn't phrase myself very well (I'm terrible at that), so let me try again, and see if it's clearer (it might not be).

Quail isn't the only anarchist, or even the only leftist, that has experienced an incredibly more vocal group of men than group of women, to the extent that I'm not sure I've ever actually heard the same participation from women that I do from men.

I'd be surprised if the meetings I've gone to and the meetings she's gone to just happen to be chaired by the same inept people, as well as those of the meetings where this same issue is constantly brought up. I also don't really think this can be attributed to anarchists as an organizational entity; I think you'd really need more proof to make a statement like that (unless that's not what you were trying to say). I guess that I'm trying to argue that the issue is systemic, regardless of whether you were solely replying to Quail's particular example.

Regardless of whether there were better chaired meetings and worse chaired meetings before privilege theory was conceived of, I would argue that there were also some more-aware individuals who 'checked privilege' before privilege theory was conceived of, as well.

This whole thing could just be chalked up to my misunderstanding of your exact disagreements with privilege theory, as well as what you think is able to supersede it.

[Devrim]

Quail isn't the only anarchist, or even the only leftist, that has experienced an incredibly more vocal group of men than group of women, to the extent that I'm not sure I've ever actually heard the same participation from women that I do from men.

I have of course also been to meetings full of men who talked over people and just liked the sound of their own voices. I have also seen women do it, but much more occasionally.

I have been in political organisations that had the same participation of women as men, and even higher. The last political organisation I was a member of had a majority of women in my local section, and national section (though not the international organisation as a whole), and I would say had more participation from women.


I'd be surprised if the meetings I've gone to and the meetings she's gone to just happen to be chaired by the same inept people, as well as those of the meetings where this same issue is constantly brought up. I also don't really think this can be attributed to anarchists as an organizational entity; I think you'd really need more proof to make a statement like that (unless that's not what you were trying to say).

I have been to a lot of political meetings in my time, and I would say that the vast majority of them have been atrociously chaired.


I guess that I'm trying to argue that the issue is systemic, regardless of whether you were solely replying to Quail's particular example.

Of course it is systematic, but then nobody’s arguing that it is not. What I am arguing is that telling people to 'check their privilege' doesn't help.


Regardless of whether there were better chaired meetings and worse chaired meetings before privilege theory was conceived of, I would argue that there were also some more-aware individuals who 'checked privilege' before privilege theory was conceived of, as well.

I don't think this at all.


This whole thing could just be chalked up to my misunderstanding of your exact disagreements with privilege theory, as well as what you think is able to supersede it.

There is a link here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2657155&postcount=16) which spells out some of my disagreements with it.

I think it is slightly bizarre to talk about 'superseding' privilege theory, as it sort of suggests that it is something that is generally accepted at the moment. It isn't. It is primarily an American thing, which has had some spillover in other English speaking countries. People on the left in the rest of the world have more than likely never even heard of it, let alone agree with it.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Apologies for responding late.


I see what you're saying, but I also think the way that (some) men assert themselves contributes towards women being unassertive. Imagine that you are used to being dismissed and silenced, and then you find yourself in a room with a bunch of loud men aggressively debating with each other. Would you feel confident giving your opinion, or would you keep quiet out of fear of being shouted down? I don't see why it's a lot to ask that men in particular be aware of how they're potentially coming across to the women in the group.

Alright, but why do (many) women fear being shouted down? Men are shouted at all the time, yet few men fear being shouted down - because this does not usually carry the risk of violence, which unfortunately is not the case with women. Violence against women who are open and aggressive about their views is what keeps women quiet. So it is important to make clear that no such violence will happen in the party or group - and to be serious about enforcing that, unlike some parties that publicly proclaim their "feminism".


I also don't think your analogy works properly because different sex couples showing affection in public doesn't directly stop same sex couples from doing the same but aggressively assertive men do directly impact the ability of women to express themselves.

By making women uncomfortable? Different-sex couples also make certain LGBT people uncomfortable. Apart from that, assertiveness is not a scarce resource. Speaking time is, but as Devrim said, this is a question of effective chairmanship.

I am not trying to be dismissive, by the way. I realise women face significant obstacles. But to me, the solution is to empower women - to make it clear that if anyone attacks them for being outspoken, they will be out of the party before you can say "control commission" and so on. I think privilege theory, despite the best intentions of some of the adherents, simply normalises passivity in women - it also carries the expectation that women will be passive and not speak up unless everyone is quiet. I would rather have women participating in vigorous debate (they are more than capable of that) - that is required if socialists organisations are actually to do anything - than for everyone to be quiet.


It's not exactly imposing barriers on male members by asking them to be respectful and listen to their female comrades. I'd go as far as saying it's common fucking courtesy to make sure other people feel comfortable participating in a discussion.

That is true, to an extent. Obviously it isn't conductive to discussion if a toxic atmosphere is formed. But I think we have two very different notions of what is respectful - as per some of the subsequent paragraphs.


I think stereotypes are harmful though. Not only can there be pressure to live up to a certain image, but people who act in a certain way might end up as victims of homophobic bullying (for example) regardless of their orientation. Stereotypes of gay people tie into patriarchal ideas of masculinity/femininity.

Stereotypes sometimes result in behaviour that is harmful. Not all the time - for example, there are a lot of stereotypes about the region I was born in, but I am not oppressed because I am from that region. Again, the chief question is whether there exists systematic violence by bourgeois society against a particular group.

In any case, there really are a lot of stereotypically effeminate gay men, at least here, and some of the macho hardman gays absolutely despise them. Is that a reaction of an oppressed group to conditions of oppression? It is. Is it justified? Hell no. That was all I wanted to say. The consciousness of specially oppressed groups sometimes takes bourgeois-ideological if not outright reactionary forms, and as communists, we should oppose these forms, even if that insults someone.


That is partly true. Just being a woman doesn't automatically make you a feminist, or even aware of structural sexism. However, actually experiencing stuff certainly does contribute towards your understanding. I examine patriarchy through the lens of anarchism, as do many men, but as someone on the receiving end of sexism my experience suggests that I notice it far more than anarchist men, and my experience tends to agree with the experiences of other anarchist women.

I think the problem is that many male socialists are not that concerned about the special oppression of women - they do not take the connection of this special oppression to the bourgeois dictatorship seriously enough. But privilege theory and other bourgeois feminist or "queer theory" trends exacerbate the problem by trying to prove that the special oppression of women, queer and trans people etc. etc. is not a part of the bourgeois dictatorship (but an almost ahistorical form of oppression grounded in either ideology, or biology for the outright reactionaries) and that it is somehow the particular concern of women, queer people etc., instead of being part of the general struggle of all oppressed people against class society and its instruments.


I never said that "anything an oppressed person says is true." My point was that if someone from an oppressed group explains why they find something oppressive you should listen to them and not dismiss them. If a conversation goes something like:

Woman: "Catcalling is oppressive because it makes me feel uncomfortable going out alone, and because it comes from the idea that men are entitled to women."
Man: "But catcalling isn't meant to make women feel uncomfortable. Some men just like giving women compliments."

then you are denying the experiences of the woman and effectively silencing her. That isn't okay.

How does that silence the woman in question? How does it deny her experience? As far as I can tell, it is an attempt to engage her in discussion - of course the argument is incredibly daft, but it most likely wasn't meant as some malicious attempt to silence the woman. Unless you think that disagreeing with a member of a specially oppressed groups is silencing them and denying their experience, which is problematic on so many levels.

For the record, I agree with you on the issue of catcalling. But the important thing is to examine the phenomenon, to see how it is connected to class society, to violence against specially oppressed groups etc. That involved discussion and argument, and that means that some things that members of specially oppressed groups think and feel are going to be critically examined. Perhaps someone will be offended - but surely the point is to develop a framework for challenging systematic violence, not to not insult anyone.


It doesn't mean dismissing them either. It is possible to have a respectful discussion with people in an oppressed group, but they get to define what is and isn't oppressive. If they don't, then their concerns just get dismissed.

So is oppression an objective fact of class society or some subjective impression? I think it is demonstrably the former, and should be examined as all objective facts of class society are. And that means that we can't simply accept every claim of oppression.

In fact this sort of "oppressed groups get to define what is oppression" sort of lazy thinking is outright politically dangerous, especially for oppressed groups. Radfems define the rights - no, the existence - of transgender people to be part of the oppression of women. And they, unlike their conservative allies, are women. So should we simply accept their definition of what oppression is? As if. And this is far from the only example. As I said previously, specially oppressed groups often have a deformed, bourgeois sort of consciousness (as do most proletarians), and if we, as communists, can't challenge this sort of consciousness, even if it insults someone, we won't accomplish anything.


It's easy for men to sit there and tell women what they should and shouldn't find unacceptable but they have an interest in maintaining the status quo because they don't want to have to examine and challenge themselves.

Most men have an interest in overthrowing class society. And the special oppression of women, queer and trans people, national and racial minorities etc., is part of the structure of class society. Hence socialism and the fight against special oppression are inseparable. Statements like "men don't want to fight sexism" might be true at the moment, but you're presenting them as some universal psychological fact, which just exacerbates the division between proletarian men and women.

[Quail]

Yes, I do. I don't think that privilege theory has anything to offer revolutionaries in understanding this though. You brought up practical applications, and I made practical responses to them.
Then what alternative would you propose? In a capitalist society women are necessarily going to be opressed, not as working class people but as working class women because of their role in reproduction. I don't dispute that women can't be liberated while we still live in a capitalist society, but how does that relate to sexism within the leftist movement? I think we need an additional framework in place to deal with sexism within the leftist movement and that's where I think privilege theory can be useful.



The anarchist movement is a vague amorphous mass. I can understand why nothing changes. However, in your organisation you should be able to change things. After 'everyone has talked' has talked you need to make decisions, and see that the organisation implements these decisions. I am sure that you know this though.
Clearly it's easier said than done. To be honest this whole thing is really insulting - I've spent a fair amount of time talking about these things with female comrades and you're basically telling me that all of these issues can be resolved with a good chair. Wow. If only someone had thought about that before, and there wouldn't be a long history of sexism within the leftist movement.



I am comfortable speaking in public and I left school at 15. I am equally sure that there are some women who are superbly confident when speaking in public, and some men who are more terrified than you. It is not about individuals but general trends. In this sense, you and I are not important.
Okay. But I suppose my point was that different university courses might prepare people better than others. For example, a lot of feminist events I go to are full of people who are doing postgraduate degrees in subjects directly related to feminism, and so they are very vocal. However I don't see people with science degrees dominating meetings.



If it is difficult to do it that is the way it is. I would be very surprised though if you were able to do it, if the amount of time that students and graduates spoke at a meeting compared to people without tertiary education would not be similar or even more skewed to that of men and women.


As you know, I don't hold with privilege theory. I think that it is the antithesis of class analysis. I am not suggesting that people who have been to university be told to 'check their privilege'. I am just commenting that it seems strange how privilege theorists have a blind spot in this insistence, particularly as it is one of the things which was once generally considered to be privileged in the normal meaning of the word.

Aside from this though your argument wouldn't hold water as a defence of privilege theory. As you say "you can't tell from looking at someone whether or not they have been to university". I also can't tell from looking at people what their sexuality is, what their religion is, or what their ethnicity/nationality* is. Yet we still hear privilege being talked about in relation to these things.

Devrim

*In some case that is. For example with Turks, and Kurds in Turkey.
To be honest, this seems like a bit of a distraction. Traditionally people who went to university were "privileged" in the sense that they had the means to do so, coming from a family where they did not have to leave school to go to work and earn money as soon as possible. So it's really more of a class issue than university graduates being privileged purely because they went to university.

The point is, in comparison women face particular oppression because they are women, and as of yet you haven't given me any realistic or convincing way of making sure the systems of oppression in wider society aren't replicated within movements which supposedly want to eliminate oppression.

[Rational Radical]

I appreciate Quail's contribution this discussion which acknowledges patriarchy as a special oppression that should be opposed by all class militants and her analysis of male dominance in leftish movements,and as a young black male I feel I have to speak on my experience while pointing out some of the wrongs in Devrims post(which could be semantical if you explain in it but I think that would be too kind of your position honestly). So I remember posting on a different thread about how me and three other black friends of mine were stopped by pigs because supposedly we fit the description of car thieves even though we were walking,me laughing and getting shoved up against and in a cop car. I know for certain this wouldn't have happened to four white boys walking through their neighborhood to get ice cream,and I'm pretty sure that blacks and latinos are the majority who are stopped and frisked and face police brutality. This means a minority group faces different oppressions from white workers,which means that although it being a working class issue(I mean it is after all) that it's not reducible to strikes and workers stoppages and can only effectively be tackled by acknowledging institutional white supremacy,dealing with its history and modern manifestations such as what I just mentioned. In my dream form of an organization I imagine a proactive group of militants that not only participates in workers struggle but understand the historical origins of different oppressions,its role in reproducing capitalist social relations and struggling against those oppressions as well instead of just sweeping everything under the banner of worker's solidarity. You may think focusing on police terrorism,segregation ,discrimination, uneven economic developments is a distraction but then again you aren't the one hunted down in the street,segregated/discriminated against,or in a community where your unemployment rate is doubled or nearly trippled in every instance,even in recessions/depressions,which is where privilege plays a part

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I can't really speak for Devrim (though if I had to make an educated guess, given that they're a militant from an area of extreme national oppression, I think they're familiar with the special oppression of certain groups), but struggling against special oppression of women, queer and trans people, national minorities, colour castes etc., does not require privilege theory - in fact privilege theory seems to seriously cripple attempts to fight against such oppression. The Bolsheviks had nothing resembling privilege theory, yet they fought the oppression of women, ethnic groups other than Great Russians etc. And they accomplished more in a short period than decades of panel discussions and "consciousness raising".

[Rational Radical]

I can't really speak for Devrim (though if I had to make an educated guess, given that they're a militant from an area of extreme national oppression, I think they're familiar with the special oppression of certain groups), but struggling against special oppression of women, queer and trans people, national minorities, colour castes etc., does not require privilege theory - in fact privilege theory seems to seriously cripple attempts to fight against such oppression. The Bolsheviks had nothing resembling privilege theory, yet they fought the oppression of women, ethnic groups other than Great Russians etc. And they accomplished more in a short period than decades of panel discussions and "consciousness raising".

I applaud the actions of the Bolsheviks and nobody's just advocating "consciousness raising" as you put it but effective action,an understanding of theory and history. What Quail(I assume) and I are saying is that casting off struggles against oppression as unimportant or addressed in a purely economic sense of "proletariat vs bourgeoisie" is reductionist and stems from a position in society in which you are privileged enough to not have to worry about special oppressions instead of incorporating all into a workers movement.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I applaud the actions of the Bolsheviks and nobody's just advocating "consciousness raising" as you put it but effective action,an understanding of theory and history. What Quail(I assume) and I are saying is that casting off struggles against oppression as unimportant or addressed in a purely economic sense of "proletariat vs bourgeoisie" is reductionist and stems from a position in society in which you are privileged enough to not have to worry about special oppressions instead of incorporating all into a workers movement.

There is quite a difference between dismissing the struggle against special oppression and articulating a materialist, class theory of special oppression. In fact many workerists who dismiss this sort of struggle insist that it is not at all connected to the class struggle, and that special oppression is not a phenomenon that arises from the class structure of society.

I know that feminists, for example, who think that the oppression of women is independent of class even though it sometimes "intersects" class issues as they put it, mean well, but objectively their theories mean nothing more than a sort of popular-front unity between proletarian and plebeian women and their bourgeois "sisters" who will sell them out at the first opportunity. That is why the class nature of special oppression is important and why the only struggle against oppression can be the socialist struggle.

[Rational Radical]

There is quite a difference between dismissing the struggle against special oppression and articulating a materialist, class theory of special oppression. In fact many workerists who dismiss this sort of struggle insist that it is not at all connected to the class struggle, and that special oppression is not a phenomenon that arises from the class structure of society.

I know that feminists, for example, who think that the oppression of women is independent of class even though it sometimes "intersects" class issues as they put it, mean well, but objectively their theories mean nothing more than a sort of popular-front unity between proletarian and plebeian women and their bourgeois "sisters" who will sell them out at the first opportunity. That is why the class nature of special oppression is important and why the only struggle against oppression can be the socialist struggle.
Being that Quail is an anarchist I bet she wouldn't agree with teaming up with bourgeois women would be helpful but I'll let her address that , my point was the workers movement needs to focus on all issues working class people face,which include economic,political and social,in order to build a strong revolutionary force.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Being that Quail is an anarchist I bet she wouldn't agree with teaming up with bourgeois women would be helpful but I'll let her address that , my point was the workers movement needs to focus on all issues working class people face,which include economic,political and social,in order to build a strong revolutionary force.

Alright, but no one disputes that. What Devrim and I dispute is that the particular branch of academic quasi-Marxism that has come to be known as privilege theory is a good framework in which we should address these issues. Being, respectively, a left-com and orthotrot, I doubt we would suggest the same solution - but it's something that needs to be discussed. Simply insinuating that people who oppose privilege theory are trying to silence oppressed groups or are bigots themselves, is not conductive to the discussion.

Incidentally, I doubt Quail sees much value in popular fronts - but certain anarchists do. Just saying.

[Devrim]

Clearly it's easier said than done. To be honest this whole thing is really insulting - I've spent a fair amount of time talking about these things with female comrades and you're basically telling me that all of these issues can be resolved with a good chair. Wow. If only someone had thought about that before, and there wouldn't be a long history of sexism within the leftist movement.


You may think focusing on police terrorism,segregation ,discrimination, uneven economic developments is a distraction but then again you aren't the one hunted down in the street,segregated/discriminated against,or in a community where your unemployment rate is doubled or nearly trippled in every instance,even in recessions/depressions,which is where privilege plays a part

I'm bowing out of this discussion. This is what I think privilege theory often comes down to. I make a comment to Quail about practical organisation in meetings, and she takes it out of context, mocks it, and then finds me insulting to her.

RR on the other hand is right. The unemployment statistic for the group I was born into in the place where I was born are not doubled or tripled, but only 50% higher than those of the majority community (according to the most recent stats). I obviously have no right at all to comment on any of this.

Devrim

[Le Libérer]

Yea bro, preach.

And as for OP, men has always been the pursuer in relationships, nothing new.
Are you fucking serious?