This summer, blogger Brian Beutler was shot. Brian is well-known amongst the DC-based blogging community. I'm in New York, and didn't know him, but I read about what happened at Megan's, Matt's and a couple other blogs. I wrote this in response, basically trying to understand white fear of black crime. As it turns out, Brian was a bad fit for the post, but it still led to the following bloggingheads, which was very enlightening for me.
As always, if you're here to simply flog some shit you already think, have thought for five years, and will probably think five years from now, do yourself a favor and have a shot of Jack before you comment. Let's not rehash the 90s. Again.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I went to click on the link to read what you wrote about the incident, but it just took me to the blogging heads website. Maybe I'm confused. Do you have a post about the initial incident?
Hey Stacy. TN's post is here.
Fixt.
Stacy
There is a link to his article on the bloggingheads site at the upper right corner
As for the issue itself I think about it in these terms. Most black folks themselves are scared of "niggas" the same way we would be scared of skin heads. But to me we are more selective in who we fear based on more than just their skin color. If a black guy is walking up on me looking thugged out with his hands in his pockets and looking shady I am going to be on high alert. If a white guy walks up on me with a shaved head tatted up with any kind of nazi or klan symbolism on his person looking shady I am going to be on high alert. I think what bothers most black folks is that the "rolling up the window" syndrome that many white folks used to have and some still do have applied not only to a black guy who looked the part of a mugger or car jacker but also the black guy who looks like he just went on break from his job at the bank. I know for me I have been dressed in a a dress/casual ensemble with a nice shirt slacks and dress shoes and STILL had a white woman slide over to the side of the elevator and start holding her purse like I was going to take off running with it. For me I think its foolish not to be aware of your surroundings and be prepared when it appears someone might be a threat, but the problem comes in when you look at ALL minorities no matter what their appearance or demeanor as a threat.
I'm white and spent years living in a rough neighborhood (well, the place is gentrifying, but it was not that way when I first moved in more than 10 years ago) in DC and have a lot of personal experience with this subject. I've been robbed so many damn times (including one occasion where the guy tried to stab me and another one where I took a crowbar to the head), it's hard to keep track of.
I have some very strong feeling about this (no worries, it's not a racist rant) and really want discuss this, but I also want to make sure what I say is well thought-out before doing so, because this is an EXTREMELY complicated subject and requires a lot of nuance. For this reason, I will wait until I get home from work tonight.
I just hope the conversation stays civil and comments don't get closed down before then.
Here's the XKCD comic "Duty Calls" that Brian references.
TNC, if you don't already read XKCD, I think you'd love it. Hilarious nerd stuff abounds.
It's weird. I can see what Ta-Nehisi's getting at, because I suspect I have the same sensation in cities that he does; as a person of color, yes, I worry for my safety at times... but I also know that, because I am a person of color, I'm not going to get harassed or attacked, or held up the way a white friend would be. That said, I'm sort of surprised it's taken anyone, TNC included to realize that there's a real fear here, and a real threat, if you are white. When I lived in Baltimore, my car was broken into three times. People I knew were mugged and robbed. In New York as well. I'm relieved, and grateful, that I've avoided a seriously messed up event like Brian Beutler had... but I'm well aware of the possibilities. I would warn, and I have cautioned, white friends - especially white women friends - not to take unnecessary risks in urban settings at night. To some extent, with the economic changes in inner cities (especially Manhattan), the potential for danger is reduced. But still. When I moved to New York in 1992, there were places - in the East Village or the far west side - that I just didn't go. Gradually, though, even late at night, I came to realize that often, I was "one of something" even if, strictly speaking, I identified more with a life of white privilege. That's not how I look, and the judgements, often, start with looks. I understand the fears of the white and privileged... but at the same time, I think that's why you have to be in favor of more than police crackdowns; there's an economic and social inustice at work that has to be addressed to really ratchet down the fear of crime. So, again, it's weird... I see TNC's point... I would have thought just that he'd already known it.
Damn son! 6 foot four? Taller than i thought.
Wow, great stuff.
I'm gonna be blunt. Being white in some areas makes you an appealing target, point blank. That's just the way it is. I imagine that as long as the racial and economic divides in America remain, this will be true.
Not only is there a perception that white folks are physically weaker (seriously, any black kid who gets his ass kicked by a white kid will never live it down) making them seemingly easier prey but there's also the underlying resentment that exists from America's past, and some see it as a way of evening the score. Some also equate white people with having money or things of value.
I don't condone this violence obviously, but if you willingly move into an area where you will certainly be perceived as an outsider, then you need to understand this. Brian seems to have a decent grasp but sometimes all it takes is being out at 2 AM and strolling down streets you may not normally take at that time of night to get caught up in something. It's scary, but it's also reality and you should be prepared for those possibilities.
As an aside TNC, about the fear of just getting to and from school. There was a murder at Lemmel Middle School 2 weeks ago. I would imagine those kids feel the same fear you did 20 years ago. I know when I was in school I was afraid of many things, but being stabbed to death was not one of them.
Never heard this story. I myself had surgery in July, so that time period is a total blur. Anyway, glad to see Brian is doing so well. The conversation fascinated me enough to listen all the way through.
I keep thinking about the varying persepectives of fear of violence, but how we can all relate to the fear itself. In my formative years (6-12 or so yrs old), I didn't have a fear of 'street' violence per se, but a broader political violence (not that I saw it as "political" when I was that age): bombings and kidnappings. I lived in Makati, Manila. For the first few years, things were calm, but in 1980, things started to unravel and there were bombings and bomb threats throughout the city, and the country. A friend of my father's disappeared on a fishing trip and was never found. We had bomb threats at our school on a seemingly daily basis. The supermarket where my mom frequented was blown up. The funny thing is, even though I was afraid, I got used to it. We all did. So when you talked about this, Ta-Nehisi, about getting used to the way things are you know, I understood what you were talking about.
But I mention my experience in the Phillipines, because I think it altered my perspective of fear of street violence---or lack thereof---when we returned to the U.S. I lived just outside Philly, and my friends and I would often go into the city, and during the summers I would visit my dad for lunch near his office. I was always given a laundry list of dos and donts, attempts to make me understand what it means to be street smart. I heeded the advice, but I was never really scared. Even when I was at an age to be on the streets at 2am on the verge of "bad neighborhoods". I'm not saying I was never afraid enough to be cautious; I was. But I didn't share the same perspective of fear as many of my friends. Many of the places I was willing to adventure, my friends were not. A few of them would make comments about things being "near black neighborhoods" and I just didn't process things that way. I didn't grow up with such a stark black vs. white thing. It kind of disturbed me to be honest. I don't know how to explain it, but the school I attended in the Phillippines, there were so many different nationalities, everyone was a minority, so I had a difficult time grasping with such a binary phenomenon. Anyway, I digress. My point is, I think there are so many experiences that go into our perspective of fear of violence, but we all share the fear, and this is a fascinating, and important, thing for us to realize, and remember. I'm thankful I've had the chance to revisit it here today.
I was born in Brooklyn(Flatbush, holla) and grew up in Miami never got jacked. Black nerd that I was I still knew how to look hard(for small increments of time). Never did the demonstrably stupid things like hanging out in dodgy areas after bar closing times, mess around with my ipod while being distracted on my laptop, count my money on the street. Since I've moved Portland, Or I've done all of the above and more and still haven't been jacked. Portland is an amazingly safe city, I think it had 20 or so murders last year. My Portland friends think I'm paranoid about crime, think that shit can't happen to them b/c they wear skinny jeans and ride fixies. If they moved Miami or to Brooklyn(hell, I hear even Crown Heights has some non jewish white folks moving in) they'd be yolked in a minute.
It's especially hard to make social generalizations based on situations that involve teenagers. An analogy -- war correspondents skillfully manage conflicts between armies and other established players so that they can get the story and get back to the hotel for dinner. But when it's a conflict that involves small, quasi-independent militias, it's a completely different story, totally unpredictable and dangerous. I'm not refuting Ta-Neshi's point about some people being more savvy than others about the streets, I'm just not convinced that this situation proves anything.
"As an aside TNC, about the fear of just getting to and from school. There was a murder at Lemmel Middle School 2 weeks ago. I would imagine those kids feel the same fear you did 20 years ago. I know when I was in school I was afraid of many things, but being stabbed to death was not one of them."
Are you serious? I'm sorry, I'm kind of out it in terms of B-More news. That is horrifying.
My take has generally been that the bloggingheads and vlogging stuff is generally not a good use of my time -- if a blogger has something to say to me, I'd rather read it.
I may still feel that way but even if so, this is a very big exception to that rule. Well worth my time. Well done.
(Thinking about this a little more: For this particular subject matter, this may actually be a better medium than written blogging. There's actually a fair amount of interest value in seeking how this conversation plays out in real time -- how candid are these guys going to be with each other? Hearing tone of voice and seeing body language is required to figure out whether these guys are actually having a full-blown conversation or whether they are constantly stepping back from the edge of that.)
Oh, I learned how to look really fucking hard and mean. I also put on about 25lbs at the gym and got myself fairly ripped and have been mugging free for about 5 years now. It's amazing how a mean face and a little muscle can scare people off, or at least persuade them that there's an easier target elsewhere. Deep down, most of these guys are incredible pussies. That said, even a pussy can shoot a gun, so you still gotta be very weary and use common sense.
All that time at the gym had the added advantage of spicing up my dating life too, so the previous muggings did end up having a perverse benefit.
Brian seems very matter-of-fact about the whole thing, and not at all bothered that some people react to it through the prism of their political opinion on issues - gun control, health care, crime rate, race relation etc.
I remember being slightly horrified reading comments on Matthew Yglesias' post on the shooting that degenerated into arguments on gun control. Like, seriously, this is the argument people want to have at this moment? But I guess being a political blogger/reporter, Brian himself didn't find it weird or disconcerting.
BTW, TNC, the lighting on his camera was a lot better than yours. He looks so much cuter, IMHO.
T to the N to the C
I don't know whether you should feel bad or not for missing it especially since I have no connection at all to Baltimore. The Sun is one of the dailies I check out when I have downtime at work.
HWSPL
No doubt, I know being 6'3, 290 with swagger in the walk and possessing a fierce icegrill will make some folks think twice but as always common sense needs to prevail.
I'm a white college student, attending small liberal arts school with a whole bunch of white folk in Tennessee. But I was born and raised in the city of St. Louis. I went to St. Louis Public Schools. Both the native white and black folk in STL knew how to walk the streets. There were rules for public transportation. I knew what to say, how to look, what to wear. I knew not to do stupid shit. And I'm confident in my actions. If I was lost downtown--an infrequent occurrence--I would keep walking like I knew where I was going. No one's going to jump you if you act like you belong.
This is not to say that I wasn't scared. Last May, I returned home from college on the Greyhound at 2am. I started walking from the bus station in North City to the public bus stop about three blocks away. A guy offered a shortcut down an alley. You don't do stupid shit. I was scared but I just kept on my way.
All the white folk at the University of the South (founded by Confederates and all) seem scared shitless of black folk, of "others". Even on this campus, white people cross the street, pull out their phones to "look busy" so as not to interact with black people out of what appears to be fear. Once something like this is learned, it is transferred to all facets of life.
The fear isn't irrational. St. Louis is scary by many standards. But the way to handle it is to not look scared. That just marks you. It's hard to explain this to those who don't act this way. But traveling in groups with your cellphone doesn't work near as often as looking like you're with it, that you can handle yourself.
Several yrs ago, I was living in DC and was apt hunting. I pounded the pavements with a list of places to look at and I was very preoccupied thinking about what little I could afford. I walked down the streets in my own world, oblivious to everyone around me until I heard someone say, "You still got it".
I looked back and saw it was a black guy who said it and he kept on walking. I had no idea what he was talking about and at first I thought he paid might've been paying me a compliment by saying that I still had it going on. Then it dawned on me that he was talking about my purse because, as we passed each other on the street, I picked that moment to hold my purse so I could take out my list of apartments.
There are several reasons why it was ridiculous for him to think that I reached for my purse out of fear or prejudice but he'll never know that. I'm sure this guy faced situations in the past where women grabbed their purses because they unfairly judged him but this was not one of them. Unfortunately for him, in this totally innocent encounter, he was the one who walked away feeling victimized.
I'm a white guy who's lived all over. From the hills to the projects. Nice family neighborhoods to dilapidated drug zones. I've kind of learned how to carry myself. You hold your head up, step with confidence, and act like you know where you're going, where you're at, and why you're there... I know, it sounds easy. I know that it's not.
At any rate I've never been mugged, luckily. I've gotten in as many fights with white folks as with blacks. Once in Glen Burnie (B-More, holler) a drunk and disorderly white man accused me of sleeping with his daughter and tried his best to dust me up until the cops came... I got into fights several times with white kids in high school and college who were children of privilege and part of the social scene - ie, not thugs. I've only been jumped once by people I didn't already know or have beef with, and I was walking with someone who was not from the neighborhood (maybe that "whitened" us a bit). 15 or so teenagers laid into us over nothing. No fun, but it didn't sour me on black neighborhoods or black people.
I spend a lot of time in rough neighborhoods as a necessity, buying stock for my shop. There has been at most one or two times I felt like I couldn't get out of my car. Every other time, you're just another hump on his grind. Then again, I don't much look the part (I dress pretty low key when I'm working).
My wife and I live in a fairly un-gentrified stretch of Harlem, and we're fine. Kids in the lobby getting high offer me Henny. Nobody's broken into my car; then again, I drive a hooptie. Maybe folks that don't know what it's like to be 31 years old driving a hooptie wearing scuffed up construction boots and living in a building where kids chief up in the lobby deserve to feel scared when they're in the hood. That's vindictive though.
One thing I will say is that gentrification has made it worse. I met a cat who's lived in Bushwick since 1996, and he said he's never felt more targeted than when Williamsburg spilled over with hipsters moving into the neighborhood... I can identify with that. When you're just a white guy walking down the street in a non-white part of town, predatory folks might see you but they might think you're just someone in the neighborhood. Bad enough, a cop. Worse yet, on your way to cop. Whereas now, they know exactly what your business is - you work downtown, you live in that renovated building, you have an ipod nano in your bag, maybe a laptop, and probably $60-100 in your wallet. Now, you're a mark. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment.
Great conversation, I actually listened to the entire thing.
I (white guy) lived in DC near 15th & R in the early 80s (long before gentrification was anywhere near that neighborhood) and was mugged a block from my house - hit with a crowbar, no gun involved - by two black guys.
It's funny, the same thing Brian's been getting happened to me, people asking whether it made me reject being a liberal, whether it made me reexamine my politics - especially after it had gone to trial (the cops found the guys) and the jury let them off. (In fact the cops I dealt with made a joke about exactly that, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.) But that kind of political change never even occurred to me, and it's hard to fathom.
I can only think that, as you guys mentioned, it's white people who had predispositions to those conservative views before, and/or who had not lived in areas that weren't totally white, or something.
Anyway, thanks for a great b.h. session!
"I didn't loose a cent or a piece of a equipment, just an organ."
That line is pretty awesome.
What TNC said about learning to live with street crime made me flash on a long-form NPR piece on the Jim Crow South I heard about 6 years ago. A fellow was recollecting how as a young boy his mom taught how to not get harassed, arrested, lynch; what to pay attention to, how to know where not to be and when not to be there.
Funny what we can learn to put up with, especially if we don't have any notion that things will ever be any different.
Your size and look have a lot to do with not getting sized up for mugging - it's not all of it, but it is there.
Up til around 5 years ago, I was always a skinny white guy - like He Who Shalt Post Later - and 5 years ago, I started working out, and have been consistent now for awhile.
While I'm not "ripped", per se - but, I've gotten bigger, this is true. And my muscles show.
And I've noticed, it has had an effect, in people attempting/not attempting to mess with me on the street. That has lessened.
In fact, about six months ago, on Market, I was walking with the typical "skinny geeky white male" buddy of mine, and we had some separation, while I was checking out a store - he was accosted by a black kid who was insisting "you bumped me - apologize!", pretty stridently, with a friend of his moving up behind.
I immediately walked up, stood next to my buddy - and then the friend stopped moving up, and the black kid's attitude shifted, less aggressive, but still wanting an apology. My friend gave a "if I bumped you, I'm sorry", and then they went away. (Insisted that the black kid was nowhere near him, afterwards)
So I applaud you for "imagining yourself in someone else's shoes". Because the way someone looks is evaluated by those looking to commit street crime. Makes sense - go after "easy" looking targets.
It's also true though - that in both Houston and San Francisco, that the three instances of street crime that I've personally witnessed, were by young black men. As was the incident above. Like Brian's story, or like so many more.
Now - I've had more drunk white guys, get pissed, challenge me to fight - so there's that...
Size, swagger, "following the rules" etc.have some to do with avoiding getting robbed but in the end if they know (or even suspect) you've got it and they want it there are plenty of young hoppers out there who are more than willing to try a seven foot 300 lb dude with an ice grill on a well lit street if it means getting what it is they want.
In the end it's all a numbers game, and while doing all the right things might make your chances better, i guess somewhere along the line i developed the marginally nihilistic point of view that ish happens and the best you can do is keep a clear head and try to survive it.
It's interesting - I grew up in an almost entirely white town, so my default view of "people to watch my purse around on the street" is of a specific look that white people have. I always keep my purse held pretty safely (after an incident when I was in 5th grade when my mom showed me how easy it was for someone to take it), and take other safety precautions, so I wouldn't do any of those purse-clutching type things no matter who's around, but if I was going to - it'd probably be around other white people.
On the other hand, I've worried about things similar to Rosali's story above - and I've consciously NOT done things like roll up my windows or whatever, even if I've wanted to for other reasons (like, I just turned my AC on), because people of other races have gotten enough grief and I would hate to accidentally hurt someone. I try to smile on the street at people because I think it's nice to make human contact in the big city and whatnot, but sometimes I think I might smile more at people of different races than mine - because I want to bridge that gap, and I have no idea how else I personally can make much of a difference. But smiling at people, I can do.
(Which, I also realize how egotistical that entire last paragraph is, to think that everyone is paying attention to how I react to them. But people pay attention to people around them, it's kind of what we do. So.)
Unrelated to the above, but I wonder how much different things are, on this topic, for men and women. I've been going to the gym but I can't imagine that putting on some muscle will make me any less worried about getting hassled - being 5'2" has a lot more to do with that than muscle mass ever would. I also wonder if women of any race are trained, both explicitly and subconsciously, to be more careful on the streets than men - or possibly a different kind of careful. I have no idea, since I've only experienced being a woman and I've never asked any men about their experiences, but I am curious.
I think there's a great deal of difference in this situation between men and women, and it is brought home to me whenever I have a conversation with men about catcalling. Even the nicest guy in the world thinks it's more or less harmless, though he might not engage in it because he knows it's seen as bothersome. Most women I know see catcalling as a threat -- not that every catcaller is a rapist, of course, but that it is a reminder of one's vulnerability. If that guy decided that he didn't want to just holler at me but he wanted to put his hands on me, it wouldn't matter how hard a face I put on, or how much I was walking like I knew where I was going.
Just my presence on the street means that men feel like they have a right to say things to me or to ask me to "smile" -- I guess, perhaps, there might be some analogies to how a white person might feel in a hostile black area. However, white people can go someplace where they are not in the minority. Women cannot be anything else but women.
To what degree does having had your ass kicked a few times contribute to an increased level of comfort or ease walking around in non-white and run down neighborhoods? Is the fear an irrational one, of vague potential events that are menacing, or is it of real specific physical events? Is a person shook of having their jaw or nose broken, being rid of several hundred dollars, or of losing something greater than all that?
I can say that as a young kid, I was a lot more worried about catching some unknown supreme beat down. I've caught a few bad ones and won a few fair ones in my time, and I now care a little less. Enough to be cautious, but I rarely feel menaced. I've never lived outside of a major metropolitan area though - I can't imagine what it would be like to come from a place that doesn't have an "other side of the tracks", and try to settle in Harlem or Bed-Stuy or Bushwick.
If you asked my wife and I for the worst blocks we ever lived on, we would each give different answers. We stayed on Shotwell for a while in SF and that is the ho stroll. There are a lot of fiends and predatory ass motherfuckers on that street, and her walks home at night were gut wrenching. By comparison, all I ever worry about is running my pockets. Whole different thing.
Weboy -- As a white person who has had some fear sometimes, I'm willing to forgive TNC for not picking up on that fear's existence till now. After all, despite having gone to a majority-minority middle school and witnessed any number of fights, I didn't really understand the pervasive fear of black (or in my case Puerto Rican) middle-school kids of being beaten up until TNC wrote about it in his book.
Contested humanity. What a great phrase for something I've noticed and, I'm afraid, inflicted. I've watched 13-year-old black boys discover how, by virtue of their color, they're feared by white people. It's wounding. (Oops, just realized that phrase came up in the Tavis Smiley show appearance. Available http://tinyurl.com/6x85lf .)
Since it's confession time, I've lived in DC for four years (Mt. Pleasant and eastern part of Capitol Hill) and have witnessed several violent crimes or their aftermath, but never been a victim thereof. Despite my going to school with a lot of thugs or wannabes, I think I learned how to walk on dark city streets just from reading about it, and it's worked, even in very sketchy areas very late at night and with me being a pretty unintimidating white bespectacled dude. However, my wife has had many problems with catcalls and even threats from men just walking the streets, at all times of day and in all types of dress. Nothing physically violent has happened to either of us, and even if it did it wouldn't change our politics.
Which leads me to the most interesting part of this discussion. I think it's right to point to some kind of predisposition to conservatism in people who get mugged and then turn into conservatives. But among people I've known who fall into that category (a few, though the correlation wasn't exact), I'm amazed at how much the language of victimhood infects their discussions of the events. I think a lot of what's called law and order conservatism has at its root plain fear (white dudes in white areas of Mississippi) and un-sublated anger (victims of all colors). As Brian said, he's lucky that he didn't get the experience of fearing for his life, and was just simply shot. For myself, I've worked through a good portion of my latent, largely media-fed fear of black people (thanks, The Wire!), but if I weren't comfortable telling myself about that, I'd be more likely to get unresolvedly angry if I were mugged (god forbid). But for some, being a victim is a hard thing to get past.
I watched the diavlog with some interest, but found it overflowed with unexamined male privilege on both sides.
I'm a white girl who grew up in a mixed part of Los Angeles. One night when I was about nine years old a black man broke into our house and damn near strangled me to death before my parents chased him off. On the street I've been accosted numerous times by men and boys of different races, and though I was never actually raped, the object has always been my body, not my belongings. Always in broad daylight, because I never go out at night on foot or by public transportation. By car only, and only if I know or can reasonably expect that the parking at my destination is configured safely. As a result of my early experiences, I have a deathly street presence; on my first trip to NYC (before it got so nice), I had locals mistaking me for a local within hours. I am not conventionally hot, and I do not dress hot. None of this has protected me.
The idea of getting robbed on the street seems like a trivial concern to me, one I've never worried about. The real fear is rape. The fear is men, not black men, and certainly not "blacks" generally. I've never felt threatened by another woman, and you have to be emanating some seriously offensive/clueless attitude to get black girls in even the toughest neighborhoods to so much as glare at you.
I am as afraid of a nicely-dressed white student on a university campus as I am of a working-class black guy. In either case, I will unapologetically flee them if they don't show respect. For example, I made a decision early on never to get on an elevator alone with a strange man, no matter how awkward the situation.
Two recent experiences, of the same somewhat odd type, illustrate some of what I am talking about. First: I am traversing the lobby of my local public library. The security guard (white, middle aged) comes up to me out of nowhere and gets in my space very quickly and disconcertingly; the adrenaline starts kicking in before I have a chance to notice his uniform. Turns out he wants to know whether "those guys out there" were "bothering" me. The guys in question were a group of perfectly mellow black teenagers who were obviously using the building's overhang to stay out of the rain while waiting for the bus. I mean - it was 3:30, and they had their bookbags. This happened a year ago and I still can't get over the perfect symmetry of how he wanted to recruit me as the damsel-in-distress for his fantasized racial power struggle, while showing no respect for my boundaries as a woman.
Second: also a middle-aged security guard, this time black. I'm standing in an aisle of a peaceful, uncrowded grocery store, my purse in the cart about 3 feet away while I peruse the items on the shelf. The guy appears at my side in much the same way as the library guy, and puts me through a lecture on how my purse can get stolen if I don't have it on my shoulder at all times. And the whole time I'm thinking, why is this guy fabricating a reason to interact with me, and in an "authoritative" manner at that? I should trust his intentions because he's in uniform? Pshaw.
The concerns you or Brian have, as men, at 2 AM in a rough neighborhood? I have those concerns at 2 PM in an average neighborhood. Obviously my experiences have formed my outlook and perhaps made me more cautious than most, but I think that women (and bookish young white men, for that matter) who think they can walk around in the dark like the world is their oyster are kind of dumb, and it's difficult for me not to see the willingness to take the risk as part of the sense of entitlement that clings to a certain subgroup of whites, to which the DC blogging clique appear to belong.
I don't at all think that a woman who gets raped is asking for it; to the contrary, I think that women in our society are conditioned to simultaneously, and somewhat paradoxically, both ignore and accept the danger from men. Consider the somewhat tentative way other women have brought up this side of the issue, so far: "hmm, do you think *maybe* this is *kinda* different for men/women?" And how many white women have been trained to ignore instinct and common sense to the point that in my library scenario, they probably would have started fearing the harmless young black boys because the overweening white male told them to?
I just want to thank Elizabeth for her comment.
I'm 18, white and live in Spanish Harlem. When I was 12, i was "mugged"on the Upper West Side of all places. I put quotations around 'mugged' because the kids that surrounded me that night decided i was far too pitiful a mark to victimize, and decided to 'compromise' and only take one dollar from me. This experience certainly gave me some perspective, and I include what I remember of the dialogue:
“How much money you got, white boy?” asked the tall, muscular boy who had parked himself right in front of me.
“I’m sorry,” I said politely. “I don’t have any money.”
“Don’t fuck with me man…Gimme ya money,” he demanded, and my adrenaline surged. I wanted to ask them whether they knew they were perpetuating stereotypes. “You’re really robbing just yourself, in the end,” I wanted to say.
“I have six dollars. Take it.”
As I reached into my pocket to get the crumpled five and one dollar bills, the largest would-be mugger, who had stationed himself to my left, looked at me a hint of reservation. His massive frame was cloaked in a grey hooded sweatshirt, and he seemed almost as scary as the first boy. “Where you goin’ exactly?” he asked in a deep voice that was surprisingly warm.
“To buy bread for my mom,” I replied, somewhat sheepishly. “Why lie?” I thought to myself. This could only help my case.
“That’s some sweet-ass shit,” I heard one of the boys behind me remark.
“Thanks,” I said, somewhat uncertainly. I didn't know what the fuck was going on.
“Wait up. … Exactly how old are you?” asked the smallest kid to my right.
“Twelve,” I replied automatically.
A boy I hadn’t yet heard piped up in a surprisingly high voice. “Twelve?! That’s good enough for me. Hand it over!” He was leaning on the lamppost trying to look tough, but I could see the nervousness on his face. He clearly wanted to leave. The biggest boy too, whom I had come to see as an ally in the debate, still looked troubled. He clearly had qualms about stealing from a boy who looked as young and cute as I did in a puffy yellow jacket. The boys told me to wait while they conferred. At this point, I no longer feared for my personal safety. Even as the boy with the scar pointed at me angrily, I knew he was losing the argument. I no longer felt much antagonism or bitterness toward the group.
The biggest one approached me and laid his arm upon my shoulder. “We decided were just gonna’ compromise and cop one dollar. That aight with you big man?”
I handed over the dollar, and crossed the street to buy the bread…
Looking back, I suppose this experience taught me that things are not always so simple. The boys held themselves to the highest standards of responsibility they felt their peers would allow—just as I believe I do. I see now that both the boys and I realized almost simultaneously that we were not the one-dimensional caricatures we had thought the other to be. At first, I was simply a mark; a privileged white kid in a silly looking yellow coat who wouldn’t be hurt in the least parting with a few dollars. That changed when they heard I was on an errand for my mother. They recognized emotions they had all felt and understood that taking all my money was wrong. Similarly, the moment the boys rethought their plans, I realized they were not just “bad kids”.
Eliabeth,
The dialogue sprung out of Brian's specific incident, and to a lesser extent, my own. He isn't a woman, and neither am I. This was one particular conversation about race and violence. That doesn't make it the only, the most important or even the last. The only privilege there was in talking from our own particular perspective. But that's really all we have. A discussion about Gettysburg will fail as a comprehensive discussion of the Civil War. And a discussion about the Civil War will fail if you're expecting a comprehensive discussion of the 19th century. We offer you only a chapter. Not a book.
Elizabeth, I also thank you for your post. It feels very real to me.
I think you're awesome, T-NC. But I sensed the tiniest bit of defensiveness in your reply to Elizabeth. If I'm wrong, please forgive me. I thank you for creating this space -- I know that you put a great deal of value in trying to see things from another's point of view.
I don't think Elizabeth failed to grasp that this was not a *comprehensive* discussion of violence, nor did she say at any point something like "you should be talking about women's experiences instead of your own." She's just someone who took something different from your conversation, and you posted it here for comments.
So, rather than take time trying to explain to Elizabeth why she shouldn't expect all things in all pieces, (certainly we all know that) maybe another response might have been "thank you, I didn't think of that, and I do see that it's another point of view that is of value and worth exploring." There is such a thing as male privilege, just like there's such a thing as white privilege.
I'd love to hear your take on this at some future time, because I do think you have a great eye and a great voice.
"I also wonder if women of any race are trained, both explicitly and subconsciously, to be more careful on the streets than men - or possibly a different kind of careful."
Um, yes? Every rape case includes a discussion of whether the victim should have been where she was when she was, or wearing what she was. Women are told not to go out at night, or not alone, or not to certain places--for their own safety, you know. Of course men are also instructed as to what are the safer and less safe parts of town, but I have never seen a male peer unequivocally not allowed by peers to walk home by himself the way I and my female peers are all the time.
The context for this is that I go to UChicago, which is a particularly divided environment because the student body is primarily white, probably followed by East Asian, South Asian, and then black and Hispanic, while the Hyde Park population is mostly black and Hispanic. If you see a white girl my age walking around, you know damn well that she's a student and so she's probably got some valuable stuff. Interestingly, while I hear about incidents of gendered violence, the only people I actually personally know who have been mugged are both male, and the grad student who died last year was male. Maybe they were less cautious because they thought their gender was protective (a lot is made of female safety around here)--or maybe it's just bad luck and coincidence.
oy, I have such a crush on you..thanks for the visual
Ta-Nehisi, I feel like your response is a response only to the first line of my comment, so that I now wonder whether the post would have better off without it. I should also clarify that my response to the vlog was formed by the comments discussion that took place before I showed up here, so it's not necessarily a judgment on you and Brian personally.
"The only privilege there was in talking from our own particular perspective. But that's really all we have."
I wasn't talking about some ethereal academic privilege that inhabits the realm of discourse. I'm talking about the privilege of walking down the street at 2 AM *at all*. And by this I do not mean to trivialize Brian's experience of getting shot. But to think one even *could* walk down the street at 2 AM is alien to me. The only time you are going to see one or two women walking down the street at 2 AM without male companions is if they are exploited or otherwise unfortunate, ranging from "homeless drug addict" to "had to leave the party without my ride and pray for a cab because I felt threatened by something that was going on there." You are not going to find two girls walking down the street alone in the wee hours, chatting on their phones to see if their friends want to join them. Frantically dialing to see which friend can pick them up the quickest is more like it, and texting or whispering so as not to announce their presence and circumstances to anyone who may be in the area.
Now, throw in some male companions, or an active street scene with plenty of open bars etc, slightly different ballgame. But generally, to approach the question of walking around at night and which of your personal attributes ***OTHER THAN SEX*** make that a relatively good or bad idea (again, not disrespecting the fact that for Brian this did turn out badly) - your build, your race, your clothes, your attitude - you are already inhabiting massive privilege. Because you ignore the one attribute - sex - that allows you to get to that discussion in the first place. I'm not saying you have to talk about experience other than your own. But given that you are white or black in a racial discussion, you are already exploring an experience not your own. What I'm talking about is getting so deep in the weeds on all this other racial and cultural stuff and not even briefly allude to the really, really basic fact that you are guys, next to which a lot of that other stuff is really trivial.
"I think you're awesome, T-NC. But I sensed the tiniest bit of defensiveness in your reply to Elizabeth."
Well, if T-NC is a tiny bit defensive perhaps it is because this statement:
"I watched the diavlog with some interest, but found it overflowed with unexamined male privilege on both sides."
is fairly ambiguous in tone; it could have been intended to mean nothing more than "I'd like to give you a female perspective on this," but from a male perspective it comes an awful lot like being a disapproving criticism.
We just had a post a while back about how calling blacks "the most homophobic group" in America. The gist of it was, even though the black community may have a serious problem with homophobia, and that the issue needs to be talked about, the use of such aggressive and insulting language was killing the dialogue.
What advocates of gender and race equality need to know is that they have to be very careful about the use of terms like "white privilege" and "male privilege." Its not that these don't exist, or that it wouldn't be beneficial to talk about them (it often would), but that too often these terms are connected with arguments that, for example, "all whites are racist" because of their upbringing in, and benefiting from, a racist system/culture, or "blacks can't be racist" according to redefinitions of the term racism that preclude minorities from consideration. (substitute "male" and "misogyny" as necessary). As a white male, when I read the words "white/male privilege" I wince, because I immediately expect them to be followed up by an accusation. It puts people on the defensive, and once the shields go up it can be difficult to have any sort of reasonable discussion.
The point, once again, is not that these things don't exist. White males are clearly "privileged" in that they don't have to worry about things like getting raped or suffering job discrimination or the like all that often. But really, all the terms "white" and "male privilege" are is a re-conception of the idea of "minority/female disadvantage." The only real difference is that framing these issues as privilege allows people try and guilt-trip the "privileged". And while the "white guilt" thing may work it a portion of liberals, I assure you that it does not play particularly well with the majority.
This isn't a knock against Elizabeth - I'm sure she was just looking to contribute - and I'm not saying that you shouldn't use the terms, or that you shouldn't discuss the issue. However, if you are genuinely interested in having a conversation and getting people to listen and examine the problem, then you need to know how these terms are viewed and be careful how you use them. Because, ill-deployed, they are a sure-fire way to shut the conversation down.
Ah, Elizabeth beat me to the punch...
This:
"I feel like your response is a response only to the first line of my comment, so that I now wonder whether the post would have better off without it."
is entirely to the point. 'Cause its not just about "speaking truth" but also about getting other people to listen.
I'm a middle-aged white mid-western woman who spent the first third of my life in the South (I was born the year Brown v Board was decided) and the second two thirds bouncing between the West and the Mid-west. The main thing about the conversation/colloquy between Te-Nehisi Coates and Brian Beutler is that it is happening at all. In my experience, race discussions in America have always occurred within the race. Whites wouldn't discuss their points of view with blacks, and blacks certainly wouldn't discuss their issues with whites, even whites they felt might be sympathetic. There just wasn't enough trust to even start talking.
I'm amazed and very excited to see that the next generation just doesn't function with the paralyzing level of mistrust that my age and older people feel.
a humble suggestion
if you are a black man take some time off and leave this country. go where black and white do not exist. cambodia laos or myanmar for example
you own it to yourself to experience what it is like to be simply a man. and an american
Triumvere, I do appreciate what you are saying but let me explain where the language of "privilege" comes from. It comes from a feeling of being excluded; specifically, of being excluded in such a way that the people on the "in" aren't thinking about the fact that you are excluded, or why, because they don't have to. So you bring it to their attention, perhaps a bit forcefully.
It's not your or Ta-Nehisi's or any other individual man's fault that I can't walk down the street under all the circumstances men can. "Privilege" is not an accusation, because privilege is not your fault. You did not create it, and I presume you would not choose it, just as I would not choose my white privilege. Nonetheless, I think there's an ethical imperative to examine one's own advantages, and not to ask the people who lack that advantage to take it in stride (e.g. by suggesting, as T-NC seemed to, that their exclusion is simply a separate issue, to be taken up some other time). Having been on both sides of "privilege" as a white and as a woman, I assure you that the actual reality of exclusion hurts a lot more than the sting of "accusation."
The streets not being safe for women - and hence women not enjoying the same freedom of movement that men do - is so ingrained in our consciousness that we (including many women) don't question it. That's how you get guys dissecting the nitty-gritty of how to act on the street and how the specifics of your persona play into it, and not once think of the fact that unless you're male, the rest of it is pretty much worthless.
Yeah, I hear Myanmar's a real fun time.
Elizabeth,
I, too, appreciate what you are saying, but its not really a question of whether or not the issue needs to be examined (we both agree it does) or whether or not the particular terminology used has validity.
The issue is whether or not you want people to listen to you and think about what you said. To say:
"So you bring it to their attention, perhaps a bit forcefully."
is all well and good, but confrontation has no intrinsic value; the benefits derived from it are entirely situational. In other words, if you need to preface your remarks with two paragraphs worth of justification (no matter how valid) about why the language you used is appropriate, then perhaps that language isn't the most effective you could be employing.
"let me explain where the language of "privilege" comes from..."
I get this, but I do honestly think you'd make more headway if you framed it as female/minority disadvantage. Take, for example, a white male who considers himself to not be a racist or a misogynist. From his perspective, the "privilege" that he has is a right that everyone *should* have (the baseline, as it were), and that others are *deprived* of it is an injustice. I'm simply not seeing what benefit is derived from taking that lack on the part of others and re-branding it as "privilege" he is receiving at other's expense (unless it's the obvious psychological benefit granted to the victimized in shifting the focus of their own victimization). All it accomplishes is putting him on the defensive. On the same note, I'm not seeing the benefit that was derived from starting off your otherwise valuable contribution to the discussion with a line about "overflowing unexamined male privilege"; it may have resonated with female posters, but it doesn't seem to have promoted much in the way of introspection from male ones.
And this:
"Having been on both sides of "privilege" as a white and as a woman, I assure you that the actual reality of exclusion hurts a lot more than the sting of "accusation." "
gets you precisely nowhere. No one hear honestly believes that the two experiences are equivalent. Of course the excluded suffers more, but you don't get people on the defensive to put their shields down by saying: "I've suffered worse, so suck it up."
Look, you don't have to convince me, and I'm pretty sure that you don't have to convince Ta-Nehisi. We're sympathetic. But there is a big difference between talking *with* people and talking *at* them. (I have no doubt you understand this, but the temptation to justify one's expression rather than tailoring it is a strong one.) If the conversation lacks a female perspective, maybe it’s because it lacks female voices speaking from that perspective. Your contribution is extremely important in that respect, but I can't help but feel you could have a bigger impact if you took more time to consider how the language you use is interpreted by your audience.
In the earlier post TNC wrote: “But how would I feel if I knew my skin color alone made me an easy mark for the most degenerate elements of a community? Heh, probably the exact same way I'd feel driving through the small towns of Texas. That's not entirely fair--random street crime is still more common than hate crime.”
Maybe TNC can explain to us why whites in Texas targeting blacks is a hate crime, while blacks in a city targeting whites based on “my skin color alone” isn’t? If the black criminal is targeting whites based on their skin color, then it’s anything but “random”. It’s racist on top of being horrifying. Look this whole thing just sounds like excuse making for criminals (specifically, black criminals). We shouldn’t have to just accept violence and cope with it, putting on an “ice-grill” or whatever retarded thing is being suggested here.
I dunno. Conceptually, I think its pretty easy to see the difference between a black guy targeting you for robbery based on the conception that "white = money + easy target", and a bunch of guys it Texas targeting a black man FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN HE IS BLACK. I don't think that anyone here is postulating that a mirror image black mob on white guy attack would be somehow "not racist".
So, lets dig a little deeper. Is it possible that rascism in itself is part of the arithmetic behind victim selection in the mugging example? Sure, but its pretty hard to seperate that out, unless you are willing to assume that all inter-racial crimes are essentailly "hate crimes."
Let me take a moment here and say that I think making "hate crimes" a seperate category is total BS. How does shouting a racial slur while beating someone's face in change the nature of the crime? Is bludgeoning someone for no apparent reason less of a moral outrage?
Now, there is the important consideration that obviously racially motivated crimes serve as a kind of threat against the targeted community at large - the same way spraypainting a swastika on a Jewish headstone or buring a cross in someone's lawn is not merely vandalism, but a terroristic threat. I'm all for concidering racism an aggrivating circumstance in terms of sentencing, but I don't think we should be making special categories which encorage the authorities to engage in what is essentially "thought policing."
If Brian and TNC had gone on at length about how much harder it must be for a woman etc etc, I think I would actually find them patronizing. The dialogue was based on a specific incident happening to Brian Beutler, and to some extent TNC's experience, and for the two of them to inflate or extrapolate their personal experiences to discuss what it must be like for women, whose experience are completely different from them, would be insulting, in my opinion.
I appreciate Elizabeth and other posters for pointing out how different and more serious the issue is for women, but I don't think it's fair to somehow bash TNC and Brian for not bringing that point up. We are here, we can bring it up ourselves.
Never been mugged.
Although female, never worried much about getting raped. Always lived in a highly multiethnic region and city.
Don't act scared of black men or and aren't afraid of them. Tend to dislike the public behavior of teens in general.
Thought I wasn't racist. Until...
Remember the New York "wilding" incident, the Central park jogger who was nearly killed?
I believed all the crap I read in the newspaper. I believed that the group of AA boys were out running around in the night and jumped her for fun. I remember seeing a TV clip of one of the mothers angrily yelling on the courthouse steps and I thought that she was in denial.
Well I can make excuses for myself: some of the boys confessed. If the boys had been white I would have believed the news articles too. As a matter of fact if the victim had been black and the accused attackers white, I would have believed the article. I'm probably a bit credulous about the press.
Still it bothers me that I was so easily seduced. I especially feel like I owe an apology to the grieving, angry mother.
So how does this relate? Well, I think that many contradictory truths can exist at the same time. There is clearly a cultural bias that labels black men and boys as criminals. It is also true that there are black men and boys and girls too that glorify the thug life and play up the image even if not actually involved in crime. There are white kids that play at being gangsters, too. I am not surprised that white people in dangereous nonwhite neighborhoods are more of a target than the locals because of their white skin. It would not surprise me to discover that nonHispanics of any sort are targets in dangerous Hispanic neighborhoods. In my multiethnic community racially motivated attacks by blacks against Asians aren't uncommon, nor are overt expressions of racism by Asians toward blacks. Yet Afro-Asian young people exist in the school system (and seem moslty to identify as black, rather than Asian). I do think that women in general live with a higher level of justifiable fear then men in general. And so on.
It's complicated.
But talking helps. Thank you for setting up this interesting discussion.
@ Sarah:
Who is "bashing?" Not trying to speak for Elizabeth, but all I see that has been said is that T-NC's and Brian's conversation, while useful from many perspectives, was missing another. It seems somewhat to me like conversations about race relations that stick closely to black-white interactions, ignoring or overlooking the fact that there are other races.
You say that we as women are here and can bring this subject up ourselves, which is true. But the lengthiest engagement I see anyone having with Elizabeth on what she said is to scold her gently for not choosing her words in one sentence as carefully as he thinks she should have. And also scolding me gently on calling out T-NC on what I felt was defensiveness. There's been nothing on the merit of what she said after that one "offending" comment, or what I had said earlier in the same vein, but much less eloquently than Elizabeth has.
I've been on this blog since it started on the Atlantic and I've seen people write things much more forcefully and with a lot more assholery than Elizabeth has. Even though some posters may have turned around and told that poster "hey, you're an asshole!" they have at least engaged with on the merit of their comments. That doesn't seem to be happening here.
@ Triumvere: If this blog, or this particular post, is supposed to be about seeing different sides and learning more about what is going on in another's life, then maybe you could try to get past what you consider to be ill-chosen language (I don't see it that way, but whatever -- different people, different views) and get to the heart of the matter. Not just stop because you feel like you've been singled out for blame. I'm black, I know all about how people feel like they have a right to stop listening if they've been offended. I disagree with that. I feel like this blog is a place where we can grapple with our discomfort and try to get to the meat of the issue.
Women have to live their lives with far more of a sense of physical danger than men have to. I think it's worth talking about. Maybe this is not the thread to get into that. But can we stipulate that we are all speaking to each other more or less with goodwill? Even if you believe someone is saying something inartfully, sometimes there can be something tucked away in those "inartful" words worth responding to.
@ Derek Sutton:
I also have trouble with the concept of "hate crimes." I think that such an aggravating factor should generally be reserved for crimes where otherwise the punishment would be fairly minor. For instance, burning a cross on a person's yard might be a simple vandalism situation, but we all know that there's more behind that. But murder is murder, and I don't care what's going through someone's mind if they kill me; I want the legal system to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
It also seems that hate crime charges are more often used against white people than against black people, and I know that racism is not something that just one race is guilty of.
I think getting mugged "just because you're white" is a simplification of the thought process -- I don't think that a huge bulky muscular white guy would attract the same kind of negative attention as a white guy who seems a bit more of a "mark." So in that case white is just a part of the calculus.
But there definitely have been cases where white people have been targeted for abuse specifically because of their whiteness (this case in Long Beach comes to mind). And it *is* racist and horrifying.
http://www.laweekly.com/2007-01-04/news/long-beach-hate-crime/
@ Christina
Point taken. "Bashing" is a poor word choice. I duly apologize to you and Elizabeth.
The thing is, I'm not very fond of discussion that turns into argument over "why didn't you mention how this affect this group or that group". Most of the time, I find them counter-productive. You also mentioned how the Beutler-Coates convo only focused on black-white interactions. Well, it's a white guy talking to a black guy about their personal experiences. I would actually have more problem with the conversation if they were trying to extrapolate that to the experiences of others.
As to the "lengthiest engagement to Elizabeth's post", that is primarily the same person, no? The back-and-forth arguing? And I would guess that the poster is male. I agree with Elizabeth's point that it's a different and more serious issue for women. I just don't think it's productive to frame the issue as men not having a full appreciation of this fact because of privilege and whatnot. Of course they don't understand. They've never walked in our shoes. It would be worse for me if Beutler and Coates had pretended like they understand.
My black/white analogy was confusing, I'm sorry about that. I wasn't really thinking of this particular conversation (which is very much "black/white," and understandably so.) I was thinking more of other conversations that purport to be about "race relations" and the only races that come up are black and white. I wasn't trying to do a backhanded slam against TN-C and Brian and what they're talking about here.
I don't see how you can frame this conversation about street violence without talking about male privilege. Men get attacked more than women because they don't generally think of the streets as unsafe at 2 a.m. Women tend to think that "naturally." It's just one of those things that exists, and yes, men often don't have a full appreciation, but that doesn't mean you have to stop there. If you do, that means that conversations about women facing street violence/harrassment can only be conducted among women, when it's the men who *definitely* need to be a part of changing things.
I'm black, and I remember some of my white friends talking about how offended they were back in the day when those dopey "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" t-shirts were popular. No one likes to be told they "don't understand," and I do get that. I took that to heart, and I decided from that point that I would assume that people of goodwill would LIKE to understand. But sometimes you have to put it in front of someone's face: "hey, you didn't even think about *this* perspective."
Elizabeth said tons of stuff after she used the word "privilege." Earlier, I made something of the same point and never even used the term "male privilege." And yet, the primary focus seems to be that the terms used were bad, or that we're being distracting and this conversation is just a "chapter" in the book, not the whole book. We get that.
But if we can't add a women's perspective to a conversation that is all about different perspectives on street violence, then when and where would it be more productive?
Just to clarify - I'm not saying that unless someone has a personal experience about something, then they shouldn't talk about an issue, i.e men shouldn't talk about how something affect women or vice versa. My beef is with people who think that because something in particular happened to them, they somehow earned the understanding and the right to talk about that issue and how it affects everybody in the world, ever! We already have too many reporters/journalists/insert your own description in the media who are intend on conflating a single event into an sweeping indictment of whoever the villain-of-the-week is. To me, it's actually a good thing that Beutler and TNC kept the discussion pretty much based on their own experiences, without trying to make extrapolation on how it affects woman, or Hispanics or Asians etc.
How does shouting a racial slur while beating someone's face in change the nature of the crime?
Really? You don't see a difference between, say, burning some garbage on your neighbors lawn, and burning a cross?
The first may just be vandalism. The second sends a terrifying signal not just to the owner of the lawn, but the community as a whole.
But here's the catch - only if they're minorities. Since white people don't make the same association about burning crosses - and that association is "the guys in the white sheets are coming here to hang us" - it's not nearly as terrifying to them.
We punish crimes commensurate with their, you know, crimyness. How much they harm their victims. Hate crimes make perfect sense, because burning a cross is a much worse crime than just arson. It's an assault on an entire community, and should be punished commensurate with that.
Christina,
With all due respect, you seem to be missing the point. The purpose wasn't to "scold" anyone, gently or otherwise, but rather to suggest that the language used was an impediment to reaching the desired goal of communication. This isn't to single out you or Elizabeth, but rather to address something which seems to come up over and over again in discussions, especially about racism, on other boards. The "privilege" language can be incredibly counter-productive to what is a very important discussion.
Let’s be very clear: *I* am not offended here (I have been in the past in other discussions in other contexts, but let’s let that be for now). *I* did not feel "singled out". *I* do not need convincing of anything. I thought Elizabeth's voice was valuable to the discussion, and I read what she had to say. All I am trying to tell you is that, from the perspective of a white male that has participated in these conversations before, you'd get your message across better if you changed the tone of the delivery a little.
I clearly am not the only one who thinks this. You write "Who is 'bashing?'" when I have been trying to tell you that the way the original comment is set up can come off as hostile. It isn't particularly relevant that *you* don't see it as such if the goal is communication. Did Ta-Nehisi's response come off as a little defensive? Sure it did, but no more than the original comment was aggressive. What you should take from that is not, "these guys need a lecture about getting past language hang-ups" but rather "maybe we should reconsider how we frame the message."
This is honestly not intended as an insult, I really think a lot of people who spend their time thinking about and debating racial and feminist issues don't realize the differences in the way their established terminology is perceived by people who don't.
Or, to return to the previous discussion about black homophobia and gay outreach, while the fact that the "y'all are a bunch of bigots" approach to engaging the Yes on 8 community is self-defeating seems obvious to me, the idea that equating the civil rights movement or interracial marriage to gay rights could be considered a slap in the face would never have occurred to me. That the fight for "gay marriage" and "interracial marriage" are equivalent seems self evident to me, to the point where it would seem like a really good argument to make to black people in general. I didn't know, until reading this blog, actually, how poorly that argument would go over with a large percentage of black folk; so bad, in fact that it would shut down the conversation with a significant portion of them. Now I know better, and I can tailor the language I use to make my point more appropriately. This is not to say the argument isn't valid or that it can't be effective, but you need to know when and where to employ it.
As to the content of Elizabeth's article...
... well, I'm not really sure what you think I can add to it. This entire thread is mainly people sharing relevant personal anecdotes and I have neither been mugged nor felt in danger of being raped. Elizabeth's comment was an anecdote from a female perspective concerning an aspect of the issue that had not previously seen much discussion. If the goal was to get me to think about that, well, then I'm happy to say it worked. I recognize the situation is different for females and that the threat of rape forces them to make considerations that men don't normally have to think about. What more do you want me to say?
Frankly, the only other thought that occurred to me was that her situation seemed a bit extreme; I have no doubt her fears resonated to some degree with a large number of female readers, but I'd be surprised if most of them would refuse categorically to get into an elevator with any strange man whatsoever, without regard to his appearance. I decided to leave that one out as A) I am not a woman, B) it didn't seem to contribute anything to the discussion, and C) I was afraid it would come off as insensitive.
I'd be quite interested in to hearing more female perspectives on this, but I am curious as to how much farther than acknowledging that the threat of rape puts females in a unique situation you expect the conversation to go. If you have something further to add, then by all means do so. I assure you I am listening.
"We already have too many reporters/journalists/insert your own description in the media who are intend on conflating a single event into an sweeping indictment of whoever the villain-of-the-week is."
I agree with you on that one!
@Chet
I think it's noteworthy that you bring up vandalism in your example -- that's one example where I can see the usefulness of hate crime statutes, so that something that might otherwise be a crime of simple vandalism could be given the weight it really deserves.
But when it comes to something like assault...eh, I'm not so sure. I don't know if it really matters why someone is beating my face in -- if they're doing it because I'm black, because I'm a chick, or because they just felt like punching someone.
I admit that I go back and forth on this one. Regardless, though, I certainly don't think that only minorities can be victims of hate crimes. They definitely can be perpetrators. I live in DC and I know that white people have been victims of crimes that I can only think of as hate crimes.
Chet,
"Really? You don't see a difference between, say, burning some garbage on your neighbors lawn, and burning a cross?"
Did you even bother to read the rest of my post? Try it again, and then get back to me.
@ Christina
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here. I actually agree with most of the points you and Elizabeth were making. I agree, it's completely frustrating that some people (including yours truly, sorry Elizabeth!) focus more on that "male privilege" phrase, rather than engaging the substance of the argument. But here's the thing - through the experience of many, many arguments with many, many men (good, bad, wonderful, mysogynistic, you name it) in my life, I have come to the conclusion that the easiest way to get the guys to not hear us is to invoke that phrase. It's not dissimilar to the way my eyes glaze over whenever I hear phrases like "sanctity of marriage" or "culture of life". I immediately make a certain assumption about the speaker, and that affects how I judged the argument.
I am being talked about in the third person. Sigh... I'm not trying to ignore what you have to say or trivialize it with a semantics discussion, honestly. I'm just trying to address something which has troubled me for a long time now.
Oh well, I'll got to go to bed so I'll leave this 'til tomorrow, but before I go, I would like Sarah for stating my point much more eloquently than I was able to.
Good night.
Heh, sorry about that, Triumvere. But hey, I included myself in the "some people" third person :)
I grew up in a very rough area of Brooklyn (we thought Flatbush was the suburbs) that was mixed racially but homogeneous economically, what used to be called working class even when unemployed. Everyone had a gang or a group they hung with, there was fighting in the gangs and they fought with each other, but if you messed with kids or married women or old people or someone's girl friend you would get the definitive crap kicked out of you.
As a kid it was a very safe place (1950s). You played on the street, in traffic and grew up. We have lost this in the chaos of modern life.
Recently in Boston, I saw an example of what is missing in gentrifying neighborhoods, the asymmetry in forming protective groups. I was crossing the street and a drunk went by muttering, he approached a young woman outside a hotel, said something, she freaked and ran into the hotel, from which emerged three beefy security guys who chased down and grabbed the guy about a block away. Middle class people in gentrified areas lack mutual backup.
Here's the main thing I am thinking: On this board, we've had people say things that I have thought were outright racist. We've had people say things that I think are outright wrong on many levels. Yet people still manage to find a way to engage with these people on the merits of their argument.
An example: a couple of days ago, T-NC made the choice to pull out a comment that someone made about being against gay marriage, and spin a whole blog post out of that. I looked at that comment and was just aghast. I have never thought of gay people in the same way as pedophiles and people who sleep around. Nevertheless, he felt that there was a kernel of something there that was enough to talk about. I understood what he was trying to do, and posted about it.
That blog post didn't quite work, from Ta-Nehisi's own admission. But then he wrote an entire other post about how, even when you disagree with someone, sometimes it's worth digging in to try and see why people think the way they think. (The "Why Bother" post.) And the response by and large to that post was applause and acclaim. (And I felt quite good about it, because I like T-NC and I like the conversation on this board in general.)
In this case, Elizabeth brought up something about her life. If you didn't feel like you had anything to add other than thinking "wow, that's quite a story" then that's fine -- goodness knows I don't feel like I have something to add to every comment. But you DID feel like you had something to add. And what you added was, "I don't like the way you talked about male privilege." Whether you meant to come across as scolding or not, it did to me...and maybe Elizabeth didn't mean to come across as sounding hectoring in her post to you....so errors in tone are not a one-way street here.
I tried very hard not to talk about you in the third person in my posts, triumvere; I named you. I did that with some reluctance because I'm not mad or fussy at you, T-NC, this board, or anyone. I just find it interesting that of all the things that could have come out about Elizabeth's comments -- my god, she said someone broke into her room when she was 9 and tried to kill her! I want to know more about that! -- the main issue was from T-NC was "...but that's not really want we're talking about, this is a chapter not a book" and from you was "...I feel like you're closing off conversation when you use the term male privilege." As opposed to saying "You know, I didn't think of that" or "I think you're wrong and here's why" or "I think you're right but..." or anything.
T-NC spent most of last week trying to see the humanity in someone I see as a rank homophobe. I understand and respect his efforts. Can we as posters also not try to see past someone who just happened to use a phrase that might be objectionable, if you think that otherwise the comment has merit?
I also found Elizabeth's initial comments a little off-putting, but important.
As a white male, I find framing street situations I'm in AS IF I WERE FEMALE a useful tactic.
A black man, Victor Lewis, prominent in Lee Mun Wah's "The Color Of Fear" ( http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/racial_reality/ - highly recommended), taught me an important lesson about privilege, my privilege. Paraphrased: "Being (in the majority) means never having to think about being (in the majority). I have to think about being (a minority) ever damn day." Gender this truth, and it's just as true. Unfortunately
For me, here's an interesting twist: the urban, street scenarios TNC and Brian were discussing mean EXAMINING white skin privilege, and whether the marker for it might make one a "mark".
====================================
I wish I had a source for the sort of criminological/sociological study Brian suggested must exist, how gentrification affects the profile of street crime victims. That sounds interesting. Anybody?
Christina, thank you for your comments and for taking up my cause, because I don't think I can do it anymore, myself. The foregrounding of the implicit obligation to keep whites/males comfortable is really something, and the schoolmarmish "we can't engage you if you talk to us like that" by people who actually are deeply engaged - engaged, that is, in refuting your right to say what you said, which is already said and can't be undone - is baffling.
I also want to throw in that what's particularly frustrating to me here is that I said A LOT about race in my original comment, so the idea that I'm not on track with where the conversation was originally going is kind of odd. I would think that the fact that I encountered an extremely traumatic form of black-on-white violence at an impressionable age would be of interest, especially when I follow it up with "The fear is of men, not black men, and certainly not blacks generally." I would think that the fact that I don't distinguish as to racial/cultural appearance when deciding whether to get on an elevator with someone would be food for thought in a discussion of how racial and cultural appearances impact personal safety. I would think (without presuming to think for black people or thinking I'm doing them any favors) that Ta-Nehisi and others would find my tale of the scary white security guard and the harmless black teenagers to be of interest. But instead of an interesting case of intersectionality, my speaking of race from a female perspective has been overshadowed by scolding me, as you properly said, for not addressing males/whites *just so*.
OTOH I think it is important to remember that Triumvere is one person and his insistence that my lack of proper deference is *the* issue here is just one person's perspective. In particularly, I wouldn't presume to think he speaks for T-NC.
Elizabeth, thank YOU. I'm glad you said somethng because I was afraid I you were thinking I was putting words in your mouth. :-)
And, not to go on and on, but triumvere, I do take your point about the argument regarding gay marriage and interracial marriage. I understand about the importance of framing arguments. To me, I didnt hear anything in that "male privilege" comment other than "you guys didn't even think about the fact that you're having this conversation because you're men." Which is basically true, right? What is the off-putting part? Do you think we believe you WANT women to be attacked?
That doesn't mean BB deserved to get shot, God knows, or that his situation is not worth talking about. It is what it is. Women *generally* aren't going to be attacked the way BB was, because we wouldn't have been in that sitch. I don't have quite the same fears as Elizabeth, but I sure have gotten close enough that the truth of her statements just rang out to me.
Perhaps I wouldn't have been so sensitive to this if we hadn't just finished a week where we were all being asked to stretch our minds to try and understand (while not condoning, I know!) the views of a homophobe. I think it would be a shame if we could only have conversations if no one's feelings get hurt. Because some people on this board have said things that have hurt my feelings plenty of times, but I don't think it's right of me just to stop listening because of that. None of us are kids on a playground, and sometimes "real talk" -- the title of this post! -- is going to be uncomfortable for the speaker and the listener.
Elizabeth,
I do hope you are getting help. I mean this with complete sincerity. Refusing to get alone on an elevator with a stranger goes way past any type of normal precautions. And for you to talk about TNC's male privilege is beyond ridiculous. They are two men. Of course this conversation is working with the fact that they are talking about men.
"and not once think of the fact that unless you're male, the rest of it is pretty much worthless."
Get a grip. Who said they didn't think about it? Its obviously assumed that the rules are different for mean and women. Why would they presume to speak for women?
I think it would be a shame if we could only have conversations if no one's feelings get hurt. Because some people on this board have said things that have hurt my feelings plenty of times, but I don't think it's right of me just to stop listening because of that. None of us are kids on a playground, and sometimes "real talk" -- the title of this post! -- is going to be uncomfortable for the speaker and the listener.
This. It's rather horrifying to have someone whose experiences were clearly terrible chided for using language that might upset the Delicate Men. If I or Elizabeth were writing an article for the New York Times, this stress about using the world 'privilege' would seem a bit more appropriate. I'd like to think the people reading the blog are here because they want to learn and listen from each other. This isn't kindergarten, and people have said far, far more offending and challenging things on this blog (like the homophobic comment from earlier this week) than merely pointing to privilege.
@Linda:
"Get a grip. Who said they didn't think about it?"
We can only judge by what they said. I don't think that anyone was expecting them to go into a long dissertation on how things would be different if they were women. That would be weird. On the other hand, I don't think it is so outrageous or "get a grip" worthy just to note that hey, during their whole conversation about feeling fear, there was no mention of this whole other half of the human population. Why is everyone assuming this conversation about privilege is leveling some deep insult at T-NC and BB, rather than just noting that fact? Why would T-NC presume to try to get into the head of someone against gay marriage? Why would a white person presume to try to understand the POV of a black person? It's because it's what we do as humans. We strive to understand one another.
I'm going around in circles now; I can't be more clear than I already have been. I am also doing what I clearly dislike -- focusing on semantics rather than the heart of the matter.
So I wanted to get back to something that Elizabeth was saying about intersectionality. I generally have a heightened sensitivity about solo men of any race when I am on the street. But for some reason, and this may get me killed or hurt one day, I don't feel quite as fearful about groups of black men in the same way I might be fearful about groups of men of other races. Like, if I'm walking by a group of young brothers hanging out on the corner, I may grit my teeth for potentially of uncomfortable catcalling, but I don't think to myself that someone may put their hands on me. I don't like it, but I'm not bracing myself to start running.
I don't know if it's the same for white women. Heck, I don't even know if it's the same for other black women. Black women have been attacked plenty of times by black men. But for some reason, I just feel a little bit safer with black men if the men are in a group. This is probably not smart of me.
@LInda (again, sorry!)
Also, Linda, something you said intrigues me -- that it "obviously assumed that the rules are different for men and women." I'd love for you to talk a little bit about that, because from my perspective, that "obvious assumption" is somethng that needs to be challenged -- just as it shouldn't be "obviously assumed" that white people are in danger from black people in some neighborhoods, or that black people are in danger from white people in some areas, etc. Why should we assume these things? Why should we be okay, to some extent, that the streets are safer for men than for women -- so okay with it that we don't even need to bring it up in a conversation about street violence?
I'm not okay with it. I know that it is a part of life currently, but I think that should change. I think the only way that it can change is if people talk about it, confront it, grapple with it, and actively work to make it disappear. Not just take it as an obvious assumption that this is the way life is and that's that.
I live in DC and a woman got shot to death by a stranger because he made a silly flirtatious comment to her, she rejected him, he went home and got a gun, came back, and shot her dead. That's an HIGHLY EXTREME example of street violence, I recognize that. However, the root of what makes some men think that they can behave certain ways to some women, and how *some* men of goodwill are so used to this that they don't even think about it, is worth exploring.
http://dcist.com/2008/09/23/woman_killed_in_bizarre_hamburger_s.php
White fear is an interesting an important topic, and lots of good thoughts and posts here. But, it seems like the whole conversation is out of balance if we don't acknowledge that Blacks are overall more likely to be victims of crimes than whites. I may not have read all the comments but I haven't seen this mentioned.
We fear strangers, but have more to fear from people we know. A Black person living in a poor & rough neighborhood may not feel singled out, but he's more likely to be in danger than a white person passing through.
I generally have a heightened sensitivity about solo men of any race when I am on the street. But for some reason, and this may get me killed or hurt one day, I don't feel quite as fearful about groups of black men in the same way I might be fearful about groups of men of other races.
Christina, this is interesting to me, because I sometimes feel that minority men may be safer, even though I am white. For a very different reason though. With white men there is often a sense that as a white woman, I am in their purview. Theirs to dominate, to put it bluntly. Certainly, theirs to initiate interaction with and expect me to reciprocate.
A lot of violence that white women get from white men isn't sneaking up on you with a physical attack. A lot of it is more like a con game, trading on the fact that as a woman you have been socialized to be friendly and accommodating. Counting on you not to get away while you can, because as long as he's being "friendly" (even if the friendliness is obviously creepy), you are rude/unreasonable/paranoid [won't get on an elevator with random lone men? you nutso!] if you distance yourself. I learned a lot about this when I read Gavin DeBecker's The Gift of Fear, which is largely an explanation of why women shouldn't fall for this stuff. He explains that by the time you get to "hmm, this is weird, how do I get away without being rude?" you are already in trouble. A guy who really didn't want anything with you wouldn't put you in that situation.
For example, my refusing to get onto elevators alone with men, for which I should supposedly seek help (notwithstanding that it does not impact my happiness or functioning, which is the standard for when one should seek help). I have never yet had a guy express dissatisfaction with this, and if I did that would be a huge danger sign. The guy who's offended that I'm not riding with him, or wants to spend his time "reassuring" me about himself? That certainly is a dangerous guy.
(Incidentally, even for women, a tough presentation does have some utility, because it tells pushy guys that this one won't play the game.)
So back to the race issue... say I'm at a bus stop and there's a guy there. In most cases he's not going to talk to me. If he's white, and pushing conversation, my radar goes up, unless he's obviously mentally challenged or something. (Oh, and picking up on T-NC's stories of finding different routes to school to avoid the thugs... I spent much of my teen years switching out bus routes to avoid creepy guys who work this on a chronic basis, expecting me to talk to them because we ride the same bus.) If the guy is black, he's even less likely to talk to me. Some of that may be unfortunate racial deference, but I think some of it may be that black guys don't play this game, at least not with white women. I wonder if they do it with black women. Is it sheer ignorant stereotype for me to think that it wouldn't work with black women? That in black society there isn't the same pressure to stay "polite" and act like nothing's up even when you feel unsafe?
I was disappointed too, by the fact that the issue of gender didn't even get a brief acknowledgment, and by TNC's defensiveness. I've come to expect better around here.
Sad that the response to Elizabeth was all "you're not being deferential enough, WOMAN, you're not using language that's pleasing to me, let me lecture you about your use of language." It *is* about privilege, and privilege is the appropriate explanation for Brian and TNC's failure to acknowledge the gender issue as well as Triumvere's attitude. If that word isn't to everyone's taste, too bad.
Christina, Elizabeth, et al.
After a deal of consideration, I think that I may be guilty of doing the very thing I was trying to warn against - that is, not sufficiently considering the audience when crafting the message.
If I'm looking at this right, the major concern for people using the "privilege" line is a fear of marginalization. They are used to having their problems, along with their perspectives and stories, dismissed and ignored. This is compounded by the fact that the most galling aspect of "privilege" is that the privileged don`t have to even think about problems and issues which the not-privileged have to confront daily. It’s fairly easy to jump from that perspective to the assumption that anyone challenging that language is in actuality trying to shut down the conversation, silence your voice, and divert the topic off uncomfortable subjects so they don't have to think about them.
So, what then are you looking for? A discussion, obviously, but first and foremost an acknowledgement. I think that's pretty clearly supported by Christina's recent post. But, it’s not something that I had initially put much emphasis on. That was a mistake, I see, as it made you think I was attempting thwart the discussion. I did try to communicate that I felt Elizabeth's voice was valuable to the discussion, but I think that got lost.
I'm not really sure what I can do to assure you that I am listening, other than to say "I'm listening", though I doubt that that will get me very far as it is quite clear from Elizabeth's post that she feels like she (and her story) is under assault by people (that is, me) who are trying to silence her. So much so that she feels she can't continue to participate in the conversation. (Which is ironically exactly what I was trying to warn against in the first place; clearly a massive failure on my part.)
I think it is necessary to note, here, that there is an important factor complicating the issue: namely that you are looking for a response to the original point (the female perspective from Elizabeth's first post) that may be difficult for others to give. Beyond an acknowledgement, a lot of us may feel that we simply don't have much to add. You are wondering why no one is "discussing the issue" and you have concluded it’s because they aren't interested in engaging you. But, I would hazard to say that the most likely reason is that most people read the post, thought "Oh, what a terrible story." and "Oh, I hadn't really thought about the female aspect of this." and decided that neither of those two thoughts contributed enough to the conversation to warrant posting. (Certainly, concerning the content of the post that was my personal line of thinking. The potential value of the acknowledgement to you wasn't understood.)
I fear that by focusing on the semantics issue (admittedly somewhat off-topic and something that *I* personally was interested in discussing, and have been for some time…) that I have misrepresented myself. Worse, that I have misrepresented Ta-Nahisi (I did not mean to imply his post was a dismissal in response to the privilege comment; if you go back and read it again, I think you will find that it is mainly a reiteration of what I said above, that he is telling you he can only give you the story he has.) I want to apologize for that.
I won't harp on the "privilege" issue any further; if I can't convince you it is an obstacle to communication, then I will leave it at that. Just please don't assume that I am not interested in what you have to say.
P.S.
I have been thinking hard on what I could contribute to the discussion you *want* to have (that is, the difference between the male and female experience). As I said before, I don't have a lot of personal experience to share on the topic, but after some consideration, I think I can offer you a new perspective. I'll post that a bit later...
... that is, in the highly unlikely event that anyone is still interested in what I have to say.
I am highly shocked that anyone is even taking Elizabeth seriously. Her posts have been borderline insane. If a woman refused to get on an elevator with me because I'm a man she doesn't know, I would laugh directly in her face. Probably point, too. And that somehow makes me dangerous? Everyone here seems to accept Elizabeth's bigotry as okay because she got choked as a child.
Get over it. Not every guy that talks to you is trying to bang you. Sorry to be blunt.
"Get over it. Not every guy that talks to you is trying to bang you. Sorry to be blunt."
Sorry. The minute someone uses a sentence like this, I have an exact idea what that person must be like, and will proceed to not hear whatever point he's trying to make. I'm pretty sure I can safely ignore you and whatever it is you are trying to say. None of this "trying to understand other people's point of view" crap. I don't freakin' care what your POV is. You can call me bigoted too, I don't care.
Triumvere, no hard feelings. And yes, I want to hear what you have to say.
And please tell me you can tell the difference between "rape" and "banging", right?
Sorry, I really, really wish the thread wouldn't descend into male v/s female thing, which is why I was hard on Elizabeth for using the term "male privilege". But Steve, you really take the cake. Are you just trying to make guys look bad?
Now, this is interesting -- I'm waiting to see who else calls Steve out for what I consider to be language at least as volatile and certainly as off-putting as using the term "male privilege." I'm sure the chastisement line is forming as I type.
@lt:
"...it seems like the whole conversation is out of balance if we don't acknowledge that Blacks are overall more likely to be victims of crimes than whites. I may not have read all the comments but I haven't seen this mentioned."
Is this really true? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. I've not heard this before, and maybe I'm just being dumb - perhaps it is obvious, because if black people are more likely than others to live in marginal neighborhoods where crime happens, they are perhaps more likely to be victims.
@Elizabeth:
Unfortunately, I do think that there is similar pressure towards black women, from black men. If I were to think of all the guys in my life who have told me out of the blue to "smile," I don't know if any of them have been white. I don't know if it's quite the same with white women and white men, but there's also this sense of racial solidarity that I feel that is being played with me -- that if I don't acknowledge this stranger, then I am being just another uppity black woman who looks down her nose at an honest brother.
I've had men shout out their car windows to me in increasing irritation until I finally say something to acknowledge them, and I think to myself, what right have they to get irritated with me? I'm standing on the sidewalk, waiting for a bus, minding my own business, and they're shouting at me from a delivery truck, or honking at me or whatever. Still, I am always the one who ends up feeling embarrassed and a little bit ashamed. I always end up thinking that damn, I should have just said something.
I've had this conversation on other boards, and a man told me that no one really has the right to expect to not to have any interaction with others when they go out. That I should expect some "hey, lady" stuff just by virtue of the fact that I go out in public. I found that a HIGHLY annoying assertion and yet, I tried to understand what he was saying. No, I don't think that I should expect never to be spoken to, and heck, I like a polite greeting as much as anyone. "Hello, pretty lady" isn't such a bad thing to hear.
And yet...you know, I can't tell the "nice guys" from the guys who'll say "bitch, you can't talk?" Things can turn in an instant. Whenever these types of conversations come up, all the "nice guys" seem to get mad that they're not recognized on sight, like that's our fault as women that we can't see into their hearts. Like they have a "I'm a nice guy/I'm not a rapist" stamp on their foreheads.
That willful ignorance is not so nice, to me.
I know I'm starting to sound like the dreaded thought-police (bad phrase! you're making people defensive! bla bla bla). I grew up in a pretty conservative family where abortion and "traditional family" are big issues. And one lesson I learned pretty early is that there are some phrases and sentences that are just too "hot", that the minute you use them in marshalling your argument, some people can't get over the implications of that phrase or sentence. So everyone end up talking over each other, nobody is seeing anyone else's POV, nothing gets resolved, the argument continues till infinity squared.
The other reason of course is I'm a weak, wishy-washy, liberal who just wants everyone to get along. Please? No deal?
Wow. I foolishly stopped reading comments here. I had forgotten I'd even replied. Hope this isn't too late. If I sounded defensive it was because I was trying to address the charge of male privilege in the dialogue. I appreciate the perspective that Elizabeth--and now Christina--brought to this conversation.
I just wanted to suggest that very terms of the me and Brian's convo--his incident and my response to it--set the ground rules for what we'd talk about. There are a lot other dimensions we didn't cover--gender probably being the biggest, but not the only. I just didn't--and don't--see how that was evidence of "male privilege."
Bloggingheads is a pretty open forum. It's not like there couldn't be a discussion there about gender and violence. And by the way, this board is also pretty open. If you really want a discussion around gender and violence here, you only have to ask. And we'll have one. A very lively one at that, it seems.
Hope this isn't coming too late.
I feel like we've all kind of moved on, Sarah. But, even as a Libra and a pretty conciliatory personality, I don't subscribe to the idea that we'll all get along as long as we all avoid pushing each others' buttons. All that means is that the powerful will get heard and the marginalized will be silenced. But that's a discussion for another time and place, perhaps. Right now, I was just thinking of the implications of street violence and how my own personal interactions are guided by my race and sex, and by the race and sex of the people with whom I interact.
"And please tell me you can tell the difference between "rape" and "banging", right?"
Oh, I can just fine. Elizabeth is one who clearly thinks that every man is a threat. I resent it. I am friendly all the time with men and women that I'm not trying to rape or bang. The woman clearly has mental problems and I am really, really surprised that other people don't see that. If my language is too blunt for some of your sensibilities, tough shit. The woman needs to be called out on her bullshit.
Well, I take back my reservation about the term "male privilege", at least in the case of Steve. Sorry, dude, it's not about sensibilities, it's about deliberately acting like a jerk.
You know what would be really interesting for T-N to explore? (Listen to me, now I"m giving "assignments!") Earlier this year, a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote a five-part series about her rapist, in an attempt to better understand him.
http://www.cleveland.com/beyondrape/index.ssf
It was a fascinating exploration of race and sex. For example, the reporter very frankly said that one of the reasons she tamped down some of her misgivings about the rapist at first is because as a white woman, she didn't want to be thought of as a racist who acted fearful around black men. She pondered whether she would have done anything differently had she been confronted with a white man that day.
Anyway, she then went back and found out tons of records about the rapist, interviewed his family, talked to the prosecutors and the judge...it was pretty deep, and sensitively done, I thought. And it hit all the touchy areas that BB and T-NC talked about, and more.
Christina,
"Now, this is interesting -- I'm waiting to see who else calls Steve out for what I consider to be language at least as volatile and certainly as off-putting as using the term "male privilege." I'm sure the chastisement line is forming as I type."
Interestingly enough, I would never have bothered to call out Steve's language if it hadn't been for the conversation we were already having. Of course Steve's language is considerably more hostile than Elizabeth's throwaway line about male privilege, and far less conducive to conversation. I would have just naturally assumed that to be obvious and skipped over it (the same way I skipped over the posts calling me an "oversensitive kindergartener" and putting the words: "you're not being deferential enough, WOMAN" in my mouth. Thanks guys.) However, given the set of assumptions you are operating under, that silence would have been automatically assumed to be tacit approval (or, at least, a double standard). Funny how things that "go without saying" actually don't. But then, that is the entire point of the argument, isn't it? (I am stuck here by the semblance to the older poster’s comment noting the role "lack of trust" plays in killing dialogue.)
That's not to say (and please don't be offended by this) that Steve doesn't have anything to talk about. While it’s easy to understand where Elizabeth is coming from given her life experiences, categorically refusing to get into an elevator alone with any strange man whatsoever is decidedly not 'normal'. Justifiable, perhaps, but not normal. (And it’s also not hard to see how that man might feel insulted.) I think the differing reactions that female posters have had to that story highlights the fact that not every woman is necessarily coming from exactly the same place on this, even if they can all sympathize with the issue. But clearly, if Steve wants to have a conversation about it with you, he's going about it the wrong way.
The absolute last thing I will say on the "privilege" issue is this: I don't find the term offensive in and of itself. The problem is that, in my experience, it is often central to arguments saying that all white men are essentially racist/misogynist by virtue of their benefiting from privilege. These are overt arguments I'm talking about, not just mere implications. Now, obviously no one here was taking that stance, so I wasn't personally offended. But just hearing the word is enough to put many men on the defensive.
Elizabeth,
I don't have a lot to offer by way of personal experience, but perhaps I can give you an international perspective from observation and experiences a few of my female friends have had. I'm not sure they will be of much value, but I'll let you judge. I write that up next.
Heh. The problem with writing long posts is a bunch of stuff gets said in the interum and you end up "a day late and a dollar short" as it were. Missed the "tough shit" line. No, I'm not thinking Steve is interested in conversing at this point. Nope.
Nope. Sure not. Its clear all you guys want to do is talk. That's cool. Typically. But when you are going to talk to a woman like Elizabeth without first pointing out that she's a bigot, and a nutcase, well, that doesn't really work. Good luck with your discussion. Even though the only thing you guys have been discussing is how Triumvere shouldn't act offended. He was the only person to even slightly call out Elizabeth's bullshit. And somehow he's the jerk?
categorically refusing to get into an elevator alone with any strange man whatsoever is decidedly not 'normal'. Justifiable, perhaps, but not normal. (And it’s also not hard to see how that man might feel insulted.)
Honestly, I've never seen that they have been insulted. I have ridden alone in elevators alone with men many times, where we weren't the only ones there to begin with, but then others got off and so it obviously isn't a situation of the guy's making. It honestly doesn't come up that often. But I won't get into an elevator with a guy who is the only one there. I always say "thanks, I'll wait" or pretend not to be interested in that particular elevator. One time in a big, ominous parking structure I asked a guy not to get on with me. I just said "can you wait? thanks!" and he shrugged. No big deal. I mean there were big signs all over the place about how escorts are available, it's not like female fear of assault is something he can't understand. And why should he take it personally? Because he's white and respectable, therefore I should presume he's not a threat? I don't know anything about him except race and apparent class. That I should trust him based on that seems to imply that if the reason not to trust some other guy (and surely you acknowledge that I shouldn't just trust every guy) would be that other guy's race/class. And that's a lot of what I was getting at originally: guys don't get automatic extra trust from me just because they're white.
A couple of times I've also been in situations where a guy I was waiting for an elevator with me volunteered to wait when he saw that I was going to wait. I don't expect that, but I would find it very concerning if a guy showed that he really cared. I think most men who have goodwill toward women, particularly older ones or those who've been around the block a few times, understand what it is we have to fear from men less benevolent than themselves. In fact, based on conversations with various male friends I think that some of them may understand it better than many women do.
Is it "normal"? I don't know what normal means in this case. Sure it's not average. Most women are less wary of men than me, and frankly the majority of those women decide which men to be wary of on the basis of race/class. For example, a huge number of white women are extremely afraid of minority men, and stupidly trusting of white ones. But if you mean "normal" in an evaluative sense... pshaw. Given the amount of male-on-female crime that goes on, I don't think women need to hedge their bets on personal safety just to prove that they're sufficiently easygoing. Everybody has their own unique set of personal boundaries, and pathologizing that seems kind of weak. I choose to live in an urban locale, by virtue of which I am arguably less afraid than a lot of white women and men. That doesn't entitle me to claim that all white suburbanites are paranoid freaks.
Christina, that Cleveland Plain-Dealer article is interesting. Thanks for linking to it. I have only read the first section so far, but it has already demolished part of what I was getting at in my previous post to you: the stereotype I have that says "a bad black guy is more likely to just come out and overpower you, and a bad white guy is more likely to be a tricky creep." Obviously the reporter's experience blows that right out of the water. But that still leaves me with the fact that I've caught a "creep" vibe from more white guys. I think that I probably don't know black people well enough to read when a black guy's being creepy. I mean, I've been in a number of situations where I've thought "is this guy creepy, or a nice guy who wants to flirt but doesn't know what white girls want to hear?"
Rufus commented that he finds it informative to frame street situations "as if I were female." One thought I immediately had about the reporter's situation was, would a man have found it plausible if another man invited him back into the theater like that? I do think it is a useful reality check in some public situations: would he be talking to me like this if I was a guy? Why/why not? I don't know enough about the situation the reporter found herself in, but it seems to have something of the classic script where the man has something to show off and the woman goes along to see it, like that old joke about "coming up to see my engravings." If you're in that situation, it might not even cross your mind that this is not something that happens between men the same way.
No, Steve, you're definitely helping me see that Triumvere is not the jerk.
Elizabeth, maybe your point about "reading" creeps is why I have a probably unwarranted trust in black guys? I feel as if I can "read" them better, maybe? Hmm.
Looping this back to the very beginning, I do wonder, if I had been somehow on the street at 2 a.m. like Brian, would I have been harmed? Would I have felt like I was about to be harmed? Maybe men don't feel like they need a gun to overpower a woman, so that would never have been an issue. But maybe I would have been left alone because I'm a black female? I'm so very unthreatening.
You can really make your head spin trying to parse all these variables. Mostly, at this point, I don't say anything to anybody regarding what they need to feel safe. Your need to feel safe isn't about anyone else's feelings, and it seems like the vast majority of men you interact with understand that. I used to get more high-horsey about white women and the clutching of purses and all that, and I don't like automatic assumptions. But, I have a much more nuanced view of this than I once did, because I decided to put my high-horseyness aside for a moment and listen to what my white girlfriends were telling me.
It's a difficult situation.
Elizabeth needs to be locked up. That last post was bat shit crazy. Yeah, of course those men don't act like they have a problem. Once they realize how crazy you are, they're probably ecstatic to be spared an elevator ride with you.
Stop trying to engage this woman. She is nuts.
Your view of the world is completely fucked. Get help. Now.
Steve, seriously, shut up now. You aren't helping anyone here, and the insults are definately not welcome.
One of the things I prize about this blog are the civilized and thoughtful nature of most of the commenters. Let's keep it civil.
Elizabeth,
I meant 'normal' in the sense of average. (Or did I? There is something about it that seems unhealthy about it, even if it makes you physically safer.) I think you'll agree that you are on the extreme end of things in terms of behavior.
Part of the issue is the vague nature of the original description; I was picturing you bolting out of elevators abruptly the moment a male tried to get in. I have a lot more sympathy for the "lonely parking garage" scenario than, say a busy office building (I imagine the fellow you asked to wait felt the same).
I don't think that you should be surprised, however, that some men might feel insulted. It's a fairly natural reaction, really. It's an emotional thing, not a rational one. The guy is not going to sit down and do some sort of complicated social calculus as to what the risks involved for women getting into elevators with strange men are and why you might behave that way. He's going to have a gut reaction of "WTF, I didn't do anything! I'm not some rapist!" The fact that you don't have a way to determine that doesn't really enter into the equation. The sense of injustice is a powerful emotional force, even for those who may not have suffered much of it.
This is roughly analogous to the white guy putting up his windows (or the white woman grabbing her purse) when a black man walks by. They may have legitimate concerns in doing so (or complicated personal histories) but that's not going to take the sting out of it for the black guy.
A critical point here is the *manner* in which your "elevator avoidance" is performed. If it’s a very polite sort of "Oh, if you don't mind I think I'll wait for the next one." then I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of men weren't insulted by it at all. (They might be surprised, but they can probably put 2 and 2 together and in that situation without feeling slighted.) But if it’s some sort of reflexive flinch you are going to get a reflexive response. To use a personal example: I’m a fairly non-threatening guy, but on very rare occasions I’ve had girls flinch when I have inadvertently “violated their personal space” as you put it earlier, and follow up with a look that says “creep!” The gut response is “what the hell, I’m not even hitting on you!” Note there isn’t any time for rational parsing of the situation, just emotional response. This is reinforced by that everyone has a different conception of “personal boundaries” and that the vast majority of girls don’t respond this way, making event when one does all the more jarring. In contrast, I wouldn’t feel insulted at all (and haven't, in fact) if a woman walking ahead of me on an empty road at night looked back and then decided to cross the street. It’s pretty easy to follow that sort of logic.
There is something about it that seems unhealthy about it, even if it makes you physically safer.
I think it might be worth examining why it seems "unhealthy" for a woman to maximize her physical safety. Especially now that you know I'm not talking about freakishly bolting from men. And you know, a lot of women are taking precautions you're never going to notice. The ones you notice are the probably the ones who are being kind of dumb in the first place. Like clutching her purse. Um, maybe you should have been holding on to your purse (or had your car door locked) in the first place. Generally, making your self-protection into some big melodramatic gesture is a fool move. The person was being dumb by not being secure in the first place, and then doubly dumb by seeing a black person and suddenly all "oh noes, better grab my stuff!"
So, here we go… (I want to get this out before the thread falls off the main page, and I’ve got a lot of stuff lined up tonight, so I don’t think I’ll have the chance later.)
I am a white male in my twenties. Growing up I didn’t spend much if any time in “working class” or “high crime” areas, or ethnically mixed ones for that matter. My fairly rural community was nearly entirely white and I rarely ventured into the city. When I was going to college, I spent four years living in Philadelphia, two of which had a single apartment in West Philly, right on the edge where it meets University City. Talk about gentrification. I’ve never been mugged, accosted, or experienced anything in the way of racism, so it won’t surprise you if I tell you I don’t spend much time worrying about those things. I did a bit of walking in the city (I like walking), often coming back from Old City, through Central City and University with a friend or two fairly late at night. I also have, on occasion, walked back to my West Philly apartment at 2 AM alone and never felt that I was in danger. The thought did occur to me that this might not be the safest thing to do, however, I must reiterate that I never felt threatened. (There were plenty reasons to be cautious; a colleague I worked with on campus, an older white gentlemen, had been threatened with a knife, beaten and robbed near one of the bridges near work, and there were plenty of horror stories left over from the 80’s when the area was a lot less safe.) I did, however, heed advice to appear alert and focused, and followed the conventional wisdom, avoiding North Philly and West Philly proper. (Another few blocks west and who knows…)
So, now I live in Japan, where security is even less of an issue for me. Japan is considerably safer in terms of crime statistics, and it shows in the lifestyle. I routinely carry up to $200 in cash on me, where as I would have been nervous to carry over $25 in the US. Walking around at night is never an issue (unless you count worrying about how cars are going to run you over on the narrow, poorly lit little side streets.) I sleep on the train, with my bag in my lap (along with everyone else – took a while for me to get comfortable with that one, actually.) It’s not that I am not conscious of the potential dangers, but rather the acceptance of the idea that the chances of anyone jumping a large male foreigner in Japan are fairly low.
(An aside - I hesitate to bring the “privilege” thing up again, but it might interest you to know it is in full effect here; I originally had a connection to the expat community here, but after moving around a bit, virtually all my friends and coworkers are Japanese. Despite the fact that everyone looks different to me, the time I spend thinking about that or how it might affect my interactions with people is virtually nil.)
I am, however, quite conscious of how my female friends (specifically expat girls I used to hang out with) have had a different experience than I have. Japan is still struggling with the whole equality thing, and there are some unpleasant hold-overs. Chikan (the practice of groping women – and on rare occasions, men – in trains) is widespread enough to warrant “ladies only” cars in most trains at rush hour. (Especially bad in Chiba, apparently, though I should caution I’ve never seen it happen and don’t have any statistics to gauge the frequency. I don’t want to give the impression everyone’s being felt up constantly in trains, but I figure if you have a special word for it than you aren’t doing so well.) Less obvious, I have had a number of friends tell me that they have been subject to cat calls or approaches by men who seem to assume because they are foreign they are prostitutes. (There are a lot of Russian and Eastern European bar hostesses and working girls about, which seems to be the basis for this.) And, (I hesitate to add this as it’s not my story, but I don’t think she’d mind my posting it) a guy in a van tried to grab a friend of mine off the street and pull her into the vehicle while she was jogging (alone) on a fairly major road during the day. Luckily she shoved him and got away, but not surprisingly she was fairly shook up about it. Once again, I don’t want to give the wrong impression, Japan is fairly safe as far as places go, but I suppose it just shows that women are confronted by these problems everywhere.
There is a second point in which you may be interested which connects back to the original discussion fairly well. We have had a spate of recent random stabbings in Japan. The perpetrators are invariably socially stunted men in their 20’s up through middle age who are unable to deal with the pressures in their lives and have decided to take out their “frustrations” on random people on the street. (The quotes they give after they are caught are mind-boggling: usually, “I felt stress at work so I decided to stab someone.” Literally. I’m serious. We just had a guy stab an ex-health minister and his wife to death because he was angry about his dog dying several years back.) Fortunately, the damage tends to be minor as the cowards usually knick someone and then run away, but still… the trend has been increasing of late. The targets of this barbarism are usually young women, primarily school girls. However, there is no indication that the crimes are sexually motivated in anyway (you can never tell, I guess, but the second most likely targets are old people leading one to believe that:) The primary motivation behind the selection of victims appears to be that the girls are not expected to put up any sort of fight. In this way gender is a proxy for “easy mark” the same way race appeared to be in the video discussion. (I don’t doubt there are some hierarchy issues involved here, but we can get in to that in a later post.) Few of the attackers would dare to face adult men, even in a situation in which they had a knife in their hands and the target didn’t (let alone a foreign male…).
Like I said before, I’m not sure that his really adds much to the discussion, but it’s kind of interesting to see how things play out in a foreign setting. I would personally be interested in hearing more from people not living in the US on the subject.
Elizabeth,
I have absolutely no issue with a women who wants to maximize her saftey. What seems unhealthy is the image you painted of yourself was one of a women gripped by abject, pathelogical terror or men. (If you think this reading of your origninal post is off base, please note the number of male and female posters urging you to "seek help". I'm pretty sure that that sort of reading is what set Steve off, and made him think you weren't worth reasoning with.) There is a huge range of interpretations that can be taken from your comments.
"Especially now that you know I'm not talking about freakishly bolting from men." This is an especially important point. I honestly wasn't sure that you weren't. Now that I know, it allows me to re-evaluate your posts in a new light. You seemed a person literaly paralyzed by fear. Now, I'm inclined to think differently, though I still don't really know the extent that fear is effecting you. Its a terribly damaging thing to live in constant fear, even if that fear is justified.
A highly personal question, I realize, but I am wondering to what degree you have taken control of this fear and to what extent it is crippling you.
I apologize, but I really don't have more polite way of saying it.
blklikeme WROTE:
a humble suggestion
if you are a black man take some time off and leave this country. go where black and white do not exist. cambodia laos or myanmar for example
you own it to yourself to experience what it is like to be simply a man. and an american
--------------------------------------
I concur with his main point, and add that all African-Americans need to get out of this country for a break on all the black & white shit that goes on. It is so freeing to feel and be treated like a human being. I wouldn't go to Myanmar right now though. I am an African-American woman who has travelled quite a bit internationally. I'm a big fan of Southeast Asia, especially Laos, Singapore, Malaysia & Thailand, and Hanoi, Vietnam. I'm also a big fan of Mozambique.
Elizabeth,
That last post of mine was rushed and rather inarticulate. This is a bit cleaner:
When I read your story the frist time, the image I formed of you was of a women terrified by the thought of getting into an elevator with a man. The image I am now getting is one of a woman who has, after deliberation, that she simply isn't going to take any unnecessary chances.
There is a big difference conceptually, between the two, even if neither woman atually gets into the elevator.
"What seems unhealthy is the image you painted of yourself was one of a women gripped by abject, pathelogical terror or men. (If you think this reading of your origninal post is off base, please note the number of male and female posters urging you to "seek help".
Please don't use that as some kind of proof. There were two folks who said that "get help" nonsense, which is such a dismissive phrase -- like they care whether Elizabeth "gets help." That's just a backhanded way of saying "you're crazy." And do you think that the two people who said that were really honest brokers in this conversation?
Go back and see how many people said "thanks for saying what you did." Or who actually (yikes!) defended the use of the p-word. I was one, but not the only one. At no time did I think that Elizabeth was coming across as somewho who was gripped by pathological fear of men. I'm black, and I didn't think she sounded bigoted, either. Read her original post. Just read it and put your bruised "but I'm a good guy!" feelings to one side. If you were interacting with Elizabeth, I doubt you would even notice the protections she takes -- as she notes, most women don't go into a whole song and dance about what they do. I don't announce that I don't walk the streets at crazy hours -- I JUST DON'T DO IT.
And I find it fascinating how merely saying something like "I don't get into elevators with men that I don't know" and that she avoids men who don't show what she feels is proper respect could not only bring out snide suggestions that her mental health was at risk, but could actually prompt someone to be deeply ANGRY about it. What does it matter to anyone else if she doesn't take public transit? I do what she doesn't do. But she already acknowledged she's more cautious than most, and I'm not upset or hurt about what a stranger does (though, Elizabeth, I feel like I know ya!) when she has labored to explain her thought processeses so well.
This thread is old, it's long, people will and have moved on. (And so will I!) But I just find it interesting in an ugly, depressing way, how people were able to squeeze a whole lot out of her words than what was really there.
I'm rather late to this thread, but THANK YOU Elizabeth, Christina, and Triumvere for your thoughtful conversation.
Triumvere sums it up well: "In this way gender is a proxy for “easy mark” the same way race appeared to be in the video discussion."
Here in India, most men not only benefit from male privilege, they assert it knowingly and with little challenge. Sounds like in America, there are a lot of men who *think* they don't benefit from it and perhaps get a bit too defensive when it's pointed out to them their institutional advantage. Familiar, ne?
I didn't notice one man point out that he doesn't benefit from male privilege. Care to point out where that was?
I think it might be worth examining why it seems "unhealthy" for a woman to maximize her physical safety.
Obviously a certain kind of man objects to whatever a woman might be doing that would make it harder for her to be raped.
The threat of rape, after all, is a significant tool used to oppress women. And we can't have women going around thinking they can do something about rape, now can we?
Hrrmmm. Last post got eaten by the internet apparently.
Christina,
I don't think you are being particularly objective here. I never said that people telling Elizabeth to "get help" was proof she needed to, but rather, proof that her story could be interpreted (due to the vague descriptions of her interaction with men) in a vastly different way than *you* did. Of course *you* didn't see it that way because *you* identified strongly with it. But to people who didn't, it was possible for it to come off a very different way. Is that so hard to understand? No one is being snide here. No one is angry (well, except Steve...) And, despite Chet's odious assertion, no one is trying to get Elizabeth raped.
I thought the clarifications that Elizabeth gave were extremely beneficial. They allowed me to re-evaluate her posts and see them differently. I'd be interested in hearing more. But I can't have a conversation with someone who is not willing to believe anything other than that people who disagree are really nothing but enemies out to silence or 'oppress' them.
I find myself agreeing with Triumvere. I read Elizabeth's initial post and my reaction was confused: she described a legitimately horrible episode from her life, and made a good point regarding the fact that very few women would or could walk home at 2am the way Brian was. But then she attempted to underscore it with two anecdotes that seemed to just be about strangers talking to her, and shared a strange personal tic about elevators.
Elizabeth, you are clearly a thoughtful person, and I do appreciate your contributions to this discussion. But you do sound a little phobic; it does seem like maybe you are living in fear to an unhealthy degree.
I'm a man. I'll admit my ability to relate to what you're saying is limited. The best story I can use is this: when I was a little kid, I was at a friend's house, and I decided to pet his dog. All of a sudden the thing wheeled on me and chomped its teeth into my face, through my lips, and shook me. I don't remember what happened next too well; snapshots of the back of my mom's car, with blood appearing on the windows from I don't even know where.
I was fine, ultimately, and didn't even look much worse for it. It sure did make me scared of dogs for a while, though. The one that turned on me seemed to just be resting; he'd been a good ol' dog, there was no reason to think he'd go nuts. The lesson, I told myself, is that you really can't tell what an animal is thinking. Any one of them could turn on you at any time, and it's on you to make sure they don't get the chance.
This feels like wisdom when you're thinking it, but it's not. Because yeah, in a certain sense any dog could be dangerous at any moment. That's true. But on the other hand: the cues you get really are reliable most of the time. That lab that's getting walked by that family in the park really is less dangerous than that pit bull with the clipped ears whose owner is yelling at him all the time. You can find counterintuitive anecdotes to defy that sort of conventional wisdom, but those stories aren't going to keep you safe, they're just going to turn your life upside down in service of some imagined idea of safety.
Or the part of your life spent around dogs, anyway. If I'd had the same thing about half the human population, it seems like it would've been an even bigger problem. Elizabeth, I hope you're able to stay as smart as you are but get less afraid.
Surya,
Thanks for responding to the Japan stuff. I'm not sure I get your point, however. (That last comment was directed at me, ne?) At no point have I denied the existence of 'privilege', I only argued that I disliked the way the issue was being framed. There seems to be this idea that anyone arguing against the term is doing so because they feel guilty and/or want to avoid the discomfort of self-examination. The problem I have is not with the concept of 'privilege', but rather with the associated arguments. (words have connotations, though their interpretation varies between individuals.) To me, 'racism' (or misogyny) is primarily a conscious act of discrimination, and secondly an unconscious bigotry. Passive benefiting from 'privilege' doesn't qualify. I didn't ask for it, and I can't turn it off. All I can do is to treat everyone as equals, and teach my kids to do the same.
That, and confront racism or misogyny where I see it. I think that is probably the point people have the issue with. They think because I am criticizing the term that I am trying to avoid the underlying issue. Really, I'm just criticizing the frame. If your position is that misogyny exists, is bad, adversely effects the lives of women in ways men don't usually have to think about, and should be acknowledged, then I'm with you 100%.
Triumvere, I had no particular (male) commenter on this thread in mind when I said that some american men are not completely clued in to the advantages they enjoy. my point, based on time living in both US and India, was to make a very general contrast between the two places; here, men fight cannily and with much societal support to keep the advantage they understand all to well. i still do think that nice guys get a bit too upset when their assumptions are called into question. Seems a bit like hair-splitting to argue about use of the term "privilege," based on the well-meant intentions of the person in question. I believe that passive benefiting does qualify as privilege, even if the beneficiary doesn't realize it or would somehow reject it if he knew about it. Obviously we'll just have to disagree on this point.
But anyway, though the thread went an entirely different direction than TNC expected (I bet), it has certainly been productive, and I appreciated most of all the contributions made by you, Elizabeth, and Cristina.
Thanks Surya.
I get you now. Certainly there are a lot of men out there who aren't comfortable discussing the issue, and plenty of guys who just haven't put any thought into it (thats the privilege, is it not?). I will freely admit that I was too busy arguing to Christina that I wasn't one of them to properly acknowledge that. (Nobody wants t ba called a racist, even indirectly; that, of course is the heart of the matter.) Let me correct that here.
"I believe that passive benefiting does qualify as privilege, even if the beneficiary doesn't realize it or would somehow reject it if he knew about it."
I actually agree with you on this point (assuming we are using the same definition of the word). Rich kids don't ask to be born rich, though I doubt anyone would argue that they aren't privileged. Men undoubtably benefit form privilage. My question is, once you recognize that, where do you go from there? What's the next step?
Funny. I am starting to think that I might not be so opposed to the term in future. My own biases are largely due to my experiance, in which the usage was entirely hostile. Having had a conversation about it with people who were (mostly) not hostile makes a difference, and may help me to be more comfortable with it.
I still think its a poor choice if you are intending to reach the majority of males in discussion, however.
I have a different take on this topic of mens' vs womens' attitudes about street violence. I think the difference between men and women is that many men have a false sense of security in believing that if they just look tough, walk confidently, go to the gym more often, know how to hold their own in a fight, or use their 'spidey-sense', that they'll never be a victim of crime. This causes them to take foolish risks that I think most women would avoid...like walking home from a bar at 2am. This is why on the overseas travel websites I frequent, while it's normally women who are most worried about being victims of violent crime, it's usually the men who actually end up being victims of it. I think women perhaps have a more realistic view of potential danger. Because let's face it, no matter how much of a tough or smart guy you think you are, when a crackhead is holding a gun to your head, you're going to piss your pants and give up your wallet, just like any sane person would do. No amount of muscle is going to prevent a bullet going through your skin. And any punk can get a gun...it's the great equalizer. Which brings me to my next point, which is, I don't see Elizabeth's elevator-sans-dude behavior any more irrational or abnornmal than the opposite extreme, in which a a guy goes out walking at 2am on the streets every night thinking he's particularly safe just because he's a guy, 'street smart', or Steven Seigel's twin brother. In fact, at least Elizabeth's so-called 'problem' behavior will likely never result in her being killed. Wish I could say the same for the over-confident guys who think it will never happen to them.
American leads the world in 'diversity' and 'privilege' studies. But can it make a decent car.
@ bitri
How are those two things even related? Or are you one of those people who blame all the nation woes on PC, feminism and multiculturalism?