shirenomad (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
shirenomad) wrote2009-09-20 01:39 pm
shirenomad) wrote2009-09-20 01:39 pm
Entry tags:
More seriously this time:
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.
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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)
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.