More seriously this time:

[shirenomad]

There were some flyers up this past week on campus for a "Women's Law" event. My first instinct, on seeing those words as the headline, was that I would be unwelcome if I attended. It's for women. I am not a woman.

The event, upon closer investigation of the flyer, was about sexual assault law. Which is just as important for men. Some men (hopefully no one on campus) assault. Some men are even assaulted. Men are sometimes the one prosecuting or defending the assaulters, or sitting in judgment over them on the bench. And it's unlikely that men will ever drop below 50% of the legislators that could improve the law on the subject. In short, it's something men have an influence on and need to hear about. Why would you want to label such an important and universal topic with an exclusive label? Why would you dismiss, even subconsciously, 50% of the population from learning more on the subject? They could have led with "Law of Sexual Assault." Or "How Our Law Fails to Prevent Sexual Assault" if they wanted to be challenging. They didn't. Why?

It's for reasons like these that I want to strike this category of terms from the English language: "Feminist." "Gay Rights." "Black Pride." All of these name a specific group, and the instinctive reaction is that the members of that group are the only ones who are welcome to contribute their voice to the cause. We have groups for all of them on campus; am I going to sign up for any of them? No. Am I going to attend any of their events? If they lead their advertisements with the group name instead of the topic, very unlikely. I'll grant that the groups also serve the social purpose of letting people with similar social upbringings meet and network -- especially true for the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish orgs who can debate the more personal issue of how their faith will influence their career. But when it comes to subjects and causes that everyone should be thinking about, why be exclusive?

I'm for Equality. I'm for Equal Justice. I'm for Human Rights, Sentient Pride. Give me a group for that. Don't isolate yourself from me. Don't talk like your particular brand of equality can somehow be divided off from the others, or that only you can appreciate it. What's important is that everyone treat everyone with respect.

Comments

[shirenomad]

Wait, what? You didn't agree with me before? You didn't think Dr. Horrible rocked? *sniff*

[kfpoore.livejournal.com]

If there was a way for me to favorite this, I would... or, quote all of it in its entirety on the bottom of all my forum signatures, emails, facebook status, and bumper sticker, I would.

I completely agree.

[shirenomad]

Thank you.

(*points to the Bookmark It link*)

[tozetre.livejournal.com]

I'm so making a shirt with "Sentient Pride World Wide" on it.

[shirenomad]

Didn't want to leave out the aliens. Remember, freedom is the right of all sentient beings.

[zerodotjander.livejournal.com]

While in theory I agree with you, I don't think it's very practical. It is very difficult for people in a majority to understand how people in a minority feel about discrimination, especially racism. There was actually an episode of South Park that dealt with this issue really well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Apologies_to_Jesse_Jackson.

Discrimination encompasses much more than the overt such as the usage of slurs or open hatred. Much more important and insidious is the male Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism of America as a whole.

While the message of total equality for all and a color blind fight against racism sounds good, what it really does is homogenize the issue. The anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-racism vs blacks, and anti-racism against other races are all separate issues with their own history and specific issues. As long as the basic culture of this country remains as racist as it is, you can't homogenize these issues, because the individual grievances of each group are very real and cannot be dismissed.

[shirenomad]

I can appreciate the "you can't understand our pain" argument. However, when you use it to divide the issues outright, what it starts meaning is "you can't HELP." Or even "we don't WANT your help."

[zerodotjander.livejournal.com]

Certainly, but the issue at hand is fighting against a specific type of discrimination, not discrimination as a whole, because the issues are too disparate at this time to merge like that.

As with most things in life, there is no easy solution.

[shirenomad]

Is there any specific form of discrimination that cannot be countered on the basic principle that everyone, everywhere, has the same rights and should be treated the same as any other?

If there is, please explain the exceptions. If there isn't, please explain how dividing our efforts to approach each discrimination separately is more effective than a concentrated effort to teach the above principle.

[chime.livejournal.com]

Teaching the principle of equality is excellent and if it works it will solve the problems with each type, but this approach alone is insufficient. It's not enough to just urge people to think of everyone equally. People need to be educated on what true equality means in each situation. The current state of being is that different types of minorities face different challenges. If everyone born after the year N magically believes what is actually good and right (which is an extremely tall order for any value of N in the near future), there are still a bunch of people alive now who will face some sort of badness as a result of people who don't already believe in equality (or on some occasions, from those who do, but who unknowingly act in a way that doesn't further equality.) These issues are different for different groups, and although there is a great deal of interconnection (which is why you'll often see, for example, anti-racism discussion in a feminist forum), there are some issues inherently related to one particular aspect of minority. For example, if you're pregnant and have to deal with any of the myriad issues springing off of pregnancy, it's because you're female, not because you're black or because you're a lesbian or what have you. (I'd be pretty impressed if someone can come up with a story about someone who is pregnant because they are a lesbian...)

[zerodotjander.livejournal.com]

This, precisely.

[chime.livejournal.com]

While I agree it's lamentable that such language seemingly excludes you and I, and I think you're correct the flyer should have had something different, I'm not sure the words for pride in certain minority groups are inherently wrong.

Taking Gay Pride as an example--when society tells gay people that they're less than (and it does; even fairly benign things accepted by liberal folk including myself as funny, such as Futurama, can have the occasional throwaway joke that implies homosexuality or somesuch is shameful), it's important for gay people, especially younger impressionable ones and such, to have some venue where they feel proud to be what they are. Not "in spite of" their gayness, but in fact because of it!

So there're Gay Pride issues and Gay Rights issues and they often overlap but not always. I don't see anything wrong with calling, say, a Gay Pride Parade a Gay Pride Parade. This type of thingy is [i]for Gay people[/i] and we straights don't have any inherent right to be represented in the name of it. Gay Rights issues are (or should be) a little less one-sided perhaps more aptly termed "sexuality/orientation equal rights", but that's also kind of a mouthful so I can sort of forgive the shorthand.

Now, if gays actively exclude straights from contributing to either kind, I will agree, they are in all likelihood being assholes.

[shirenomad]

Exception noted. I'll withdraw the "Pride" category, since they're meant to be exclusive: the message that it's okay to be gay or black (or for that matter a white male) should be targeted toward that group.

Rights, I believe, can still be covered in blanket terms with, if you'll pardon my geekery for using it as my baseline, G'Kar's Declaration of Principles.

[pretzelcoatl.livejournal.com]

...But the reason that they use the terms like the ones you mentioned isn't to make one group seem better than the other. It's to make a group which calls to attention the fact that those groups did face discrimination, and are still facing discrimination. It's not "exclusive."

I know it seems hard to understand, but you really don't understand until you start listening to the things that the groups of people you mentioned go through. And while it's nothing as severe as it was in the past -- women can vote, restrooms aren't segregated, people are more open to others coming out of the closet -- the prejudice and "Othering" is still common. People still assume the the "ordinary experience" is something that everyone goes through, and it isn't. The reason those terms are used are to promote understanding, not division.

And yes, of course, there are radical members of each of those groups, but that doesn't mean every feminist/black pride/gay pride person agrees with them. The problem is not in the person, but in society. I don't feel ashamed of being white, being male, or being straight, but I am ashamed if I get preferential treatment for being any of those. And yes, I have, and yes, it bothers me.

(As for the Women's Law thing, did you look into it at all? Just because you think you wouldn't be welcome, that doesn't mean you won't. Sexual assault is something that does happen to men, but it's more prevalent against women, and having more men aware of it can help prevent it, both from being perpetrators and being victims.)

[theotherbaldwin.livejournal.com]

Well, god damn.

Just my luck for Pretz L'Coatal to say it better than I could. Pretend I said this, too.

[shirenomad]

"Just because you think you wouldn't be welcome, that doesn't mean you won't."

I realize that. That wasn't my point. My point was that my first instinct was "it's not for me," and if I hadn't looked closer, that instinct would have remained. And someone who's just a little chauvinist still is going to avoid it, where he might have shown up for something that wasn't as apparently exclusive and learned something.

So again, why lead with a segregating label, when you could be leading with "Equality" and opening encouraging everyone? Spend specific meetings on oppression against a particular race/gender/creed/orientation if you like, but the overall goal of any such group should be to reach those who are borderline and draw them in.

It took us 60 years to overturn segregation, but it was important to do so, because it exposed the sides to each other and helped people realize "hey, you're not so different." Why turn our backs on that?

[pretzelcoatl.livejournal.com]

It took us 60 years to overturn segregation, but it was important to do so, because it exposed the sides to each other and helped people realize "hey, you're not so different." Why turn our backs on that?

But do we have to diminish the differences we do have? A woman has her own views about how it means to be a woman, so I'm not going to tell her how she should live. (See also: Experiences of female family/friends being told "women can't do math," "women shouldn't play video games," "you're going to have kids aren't you?," "don't eat too much or you'll get fat," etc.)

I haven't run into many cases where someone a different skin color, gender, or sexual orientation as me views their difference as making them better. They just want to express that they are that way and they should be proud of it, and part of the way of doing that for some people is to meet with other people like them and talk about what they're dealing with. It's a way to just take a break from people asking you awkward questions (like "Oh, where do you come from?" "Virginia." "No, where are you from?").

If we were all starting on the same page, there probably wouldn't be any need to have groups to talk about pride since, well, everyone would feel okay just being themselves! But unfortunately, that's not the case, and even more unfortunately for someone like me, it's subtle and sometimes I realize a question might be more offensive than I think. I shouldn't have to expect them to just deal with it; I should just apologize and try to understand. (If you want a good example of this in blatant terms? Just listen to X-Box Live at some point. Yeesh.)

tl;dr. Really, it just comes down to respect, and finding a way to respect yourself as how you were born, without feeling like someone is intruding in on you.

[shirenomad]

"women can't do math," "women shouldn't play video games," "you're going to have kids aren't you?," "don't eat too much or you'll get fat."

You do realize you just named supposed differences between women and men, right? So yes, very much I would like to diminish the supposed differences we have.

More generally, I admit this may be a personal flaw, but I have the easiest time respecting someone when I think of them not as another race, not as female, not as gay, but as a human being.

[pretzelcoatl.livejournal.com]

So yes, very much I would like to diminish the supposed differences we have.

But that's my point. These people keep on hearing those comments, and they get sick of them. Even when they tell someone "Hey, that's offensive," they get told in return "Oh, that's just how so and so is." or "You need to stop being offended so easily."

...but I have the easiest time respecting someone when I think of them not as another race, not as female, not as gay, but as a human being.

Then think of them as both?

[shirenomad]

Even when they tell someone "Hey, that's offensive," they get told in return "Oh, that's just how so and so is."

It is indeed offensive, but I'm not seeing how promoting the idea that women are generally different will decrease the number of comments. To the contrary, each of these comments start with the belief that "women are different, act differently... here are some ways how. That's how it is."

I think we're going over each other's heads here, but I'm not sure at what stage. Maybe we have different things we think of when we say "different"?

[pretzelcoatl.livejournal.com]

No, I think we're on the same page, but the thing is this: Just because a person is different in some way (be it gender, race, sexuality, physical/mental capability, etc.), they should not be treated as if their difference makes them a more worthy human being than someone who is "normal." Groups like the ones we've been discussing meet together to basically say "I am a woman, and I have experienced people treating me in a disrespectful way because I am a woman."

It's a way to feel some type of solidarity after feeling like an outsider for most of your life, and a way to empower yourself to not let the people who use your differences as a way to make you feel inferior to them.

[theotherbaldwin.livejournal.com]

It's also a little dicey that a straight, male, white is saying stuff like "I want to strike this category of terms from the English language: "Feminist." "Gay Rights." "Black Pride."

If you're not in those groups, but you're trying to dictate how they expressing things, it comes off as privileged at best, and Othering at worst.

[shirenomad]

I realize it can sound bad. But as my social science professor once noted, "Think about the white male equivalent of these groups and terms. Are those really who we want to emulate?"

[theotherbaldwin.livejournal.com]

Well, the white male equivalent would be coming from a position of privilege plus power, whereas the minority groups aren't, so there's that big difference.

[shirenomad]

(Also, the two most positive reactions I've received to this post -- no-qualifications total agreement -- were made by a woman and a gay guy. So I'm endorsed by those outside my privilege, if that helps.)

[shadeykins.livejournal.com]

I like to lurk feminist blogs, and this came up, once, I remember... I'm going to try and find the relevant writings.

[shadeykins.livejournal.com]

Hmmm.

Basics, but a bit firmly worded:
http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html

Allies in feminism (I just skimmed this):
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/06/men_feminism_ne

The one I was thinking of, I think. Even among feminists, everyone is not coming from the same space. Sometimes its better to step back and just listen, even if you think you know the answer and are just trying to help.
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2008-04-22_710#comments
Followup:
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2008-04-26_712

Although I think the most important one is probably about the invisible backpack:
http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html

I know this is a lot of reading material to dump on you. It is a wide and spidery response to what is a well intentioned question. I am trying to condense my thoughts on it... When people are in a minority, they deal with things every day, that you don't even know are there. Society exerts pressures upon them. It's not about individuals hurting other individuals, its a system that we're all stuck in, and the system is hurting people. They need places they can go that are outside of the system. Does that make sense?

[shirenomad]

Admittedly without reading the links yet:

They need places they can go that are outside of the system. Does that make sense?

I have no objections to exclusive groups like that. I thought that was clear in my statement that "I'll grant that the groups also serve the social purpose of letting people with similar social upbringings meet..." (I shouldn't have used "black pride" in my list; I think I confused the issue there.) But I find it counterproductive to apply their label to issues they want (NEED!) everyone onboard for. Improved sexual assault law is one of those categories. So is equal treatment for all in general.

[shadeykins.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I tried to answer in a general way, and I think the same answer is still relevant. By "outside the system" I dont necessarily mean groups that exclude other groups. Not "hanging out and having girl time". Men are still welcome in feminist spaces. The spaces just operate under slightly different etiquette rules.

Speculation Re: the specific example: Sexual assault mainly happens to women. It is something that ALL women have to be aware of, pretty much all of the time. That makes it a women's issue. By labelling it a women's issue, you will catch the attention of people who are most affected by it, and perhaps help them. Maybe they will be more likely to attend, feel braver, or more interested (one always feels safer in groups that are more like oneself).

Various minority groups of various types do not have that type of like-me group safety, as a default (less stuff in their invisible backpack). In this one situation, this one group, you felt a bit off-put, a bit on the outside. You wondered if you would be welcomed. That's a cruddy feeling. But this is one time. So like, is there a chance that for other people, that is how they feel in many every day situations? Many times? If so, is it fair for you to ask them to tear down their walls for your sake, in this one instance too, so you can feel comfortable? Or should you, as someone who is trying to understand, and trying to be supportive, let them do what they feel they need to and work within their framework?

(This is something I have thought about -myself-, as someone who is white, straight, and decently well off financially, so please dont take it as me trying to antagonize you)

[shadeykins.livejournal.com]

(And by "thought about" I probably mean "had these same questions put to me in some way.")

[chime.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you're saying, but I wish there were more of a distinction between 'safe spaces' and 'venues for rights discussion.'

Edit: Hmm, to clarify, I suppose what I mean is, discussing rights in the safe spaces is perfectly fine, but it seems like the majority of places out there that are for rights discussion kinda get this 'must be safe space' thing thrown on. Which is valid a lot of the time, but it ends up being that if someone wants to discuss some point that's not necessarily in line with what's appropriate in a 'safe space,' there's no room for it.

Not just in the internet, but I think a lot of "women's studies"/"gender studies" departments at various universities tend to be this way too. I don't have a whole lot of supporting evidence to that, though, I will grant.

To put it another way, women (and any minority, or even majority!) definitely deserve spaces where they can exist/talk about stuff without fearing repercussions from the other, but I feel that such places as gender studies departments--which are primarily supposed to exist to further discussion and study, and not to provide a safe space--should not preclude or even discourage participation from anyone.

[shadeykins.livejournal.com]

I dont think they should preclude or discourage participation from anyone either. I'd like to hope that a lot of the time, they don't. Not unless it specifically says "no boys allowed".

But its my understanding that if you want to be an ally to some sort of group, that its better to approach things with patience and humility, because they know better than you/I do about what its like to be them. Kinda like how its best to lurk a forum for awhile, and read all of the FAQs, before making your first post. Get a feel for the currents.

Maybe the worry is that, if its not also designated a safe-space, the control/direction of the group will be shifted away from the hands of the people belonging to that group, over time, just by sheer mass/inertia from the dominant group? I don't know.