On explaining privilege

[mousme]

I keep coming back to RaceFail09. I really wish I wasn't, but it's troubling me, for obvious reasons, and not-so-obvious reasons.

I am not going to try to unpack the invisible knapsack here. I'm just thinking out loud.

Okay, so I am what the Intarwebs would consider a PWC (Privileged White Chick). So far, so good. I am also a lesbian. That makes me both a woman and homosexual. Still with me? Good.

This means that I get the dubious privilege of explaining privilege to those around me who are either not women, or not homosexual, or neither of the above. I get questions on the topic of GLBT issues all the time, especially when I start a new job/meet someone new/enter a new situation. Essentially, I spend a lot of time coming out to people, and then explaining What It All Means. Whether I like it or not, people assume that I am somehow the Official Representative of the Local GLBT Community (which is totally not the case, and I usually try to explain this right off the bat, as part of my little GLBT 101 spiel).

Clicking on a lot of links in the Epic Debate Fail Of Doom, I am coming across a plethora of posts by self-described PoCs (People of Colour), who are righteously annoyed at having to explain themselves to the PWPs (Privileged White People) who ask them for information/clarification/cluebats/etc. Some have downright been foaming at the mouth.

Okay. So I get that this is annoying/frustrating/makes you want to tear your hair out by the roots/possibly commit vehicular manslaughter after particularly stupid-seeming questions. I get it, I do. If one more person asks me if I would choose to be straight if I were given the opportunity, I may not be held responsible for my actions.

That being said, I feel that it is important for me to do this anyway, regardless of what my feelings are on the subject. Yes, it's annoying when someone proclaims that their good friend/cousin/mailmain/busboy is gay and that's totally fine with them, and it's annoying that they seem to want a pat and a cookie for it. But you know what?

They're not going to educate themselves.

It's as simple as that, really. If we, the People Lacking $Privilege, don't say: "You are mistaken in your assumption, and here's why," they are never, ever going to get it. No way, no how. I'm not suggesting that we need to deliver a three-hour multimedia presentation on the ins and outs of privilege, and spoon-feed it to them. But give them something, for crying out loud!

PWPs, myself included, are far from immune from asking really stupid questions to which we honestly don't have the answer. From my perspective, when I ask a stupid question, it's okay to look at me as though I just grew antlers (although my feelings will be hurt, I have yet to die from that particular affliction), but then I would very much like to be told why my question was stupid. It was asked in good faith, and a good faith answer would be appreciated. Even if it's an answer along the lines of: "That question isn't relevant/is stupid, and I don't have the time/energy/capacity to explain it to you in full, but some research in $Place is a good place to start."

Yes, it's tiresome. No, we shouldn't have to do it. No, each individual should not have to suddenly be the representative of $Group to which they belong. It sucks. Absolutely. Nonetheless, it's the reality of the situation, and at the very least the PWPs ought to be encouraged to move past those first tentative steps they're taking, to take the initiative and go out and educate themselves. First steps aren't enough, but if they get whacked on the head with the You-Are-Privileged-And-Therefore-Wrong-Forever Stick, then they're going to pull back into their shell and never come out again, and now it's a lost cause. First steps don't deserve a cookie, but they don't deserve a beatdown, either.

Oh, and while I can fully understand that that last paragraph is essentially an argument about tone, please rest assured that I am not trying to say "If only people had been more civil/polite/less hateful/whatever attribute you please, then this terrible misunderstanding would never have happened," because of course that's patently not true. Maybe the debate would have taken on a different form, and that form would likely have been equally filled with fail on both sides. I'm just lamenting the fact that many people (the aforementioned PWPs) are going to come away from this angry, more confused than ever, and less willing to learn.

I keep swearing I'm done with this, but then I come back and poke at it some more, so I'm no longer going to promise anything. :P

:::ETA:::

I have apparently been linked into rydra_wong's Linkspam of Doom thing.

So, dear New People Following The Fail To My LJ, I feel compelled to lay down a ground rule, should you want to comment.

Don't be an asshat.

This means no flaming, no personal attacks, no mudslinging, no outing people. Post in good faith, and with an open mind. Wait ten minutes before typing your responses, if you must. If you're still mad, then wait ten more minutes.

My friends (LJ and RL) are a varied bunch, with a wide range of experiences and opinions. The one thing they have in common in this LJ is respect of my space. I would ask that you also show this respect in your posts. (So far so good, btw.)

If you don't follow this one rule, I will ban you summarily, no questions asked.

Comments

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

I think the point is that there are already resources out there for people who are genuinely interested, and they're just one Google away. So asking someone to explain some of these very basic things comes across as laziness and insincerity: it's like asking somebody to do your homework for you, or to repeat themselves because you didn't bother to listen the first ten times they said it (anyone remember the whole Amanda Marcotte thing last year?).

As someone said somewhere in this whole imbroglio (and don't ask me where, because I've been wading through far too much of it, and I'm only paraphrasing): if you can use Google to find out the height of Niagara Falls for a geography project, you can use it for this.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Unlike the height of Niagara Falls, though, this is a difficult topic, with wide-ranging implications. My university profs always told me that the internet is made of fail as a source or reliable information, unless you have an outside guide.

If I Google, say, "racism" and "privilege," I get a Wikipedia entry, www.womensspace.org, and a link to a book on Amazon whose author I've never heard of and which was published in 1976, as the first three results. If I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who is just at the very beginnings of learning, then how am I supposed to know what sources are reliable and which aren't?

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

By clicking, and thinking, and reading, and cross-referencing with other sources, and finding blogs written by PoC about racism things, and thinking some more.

That's what I do.  It's rare I Google something new and give up within the first few results.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

All to the good, although I am all in favour of actual human interaction. I know not everyone agrees with this, but I for one learn better through dialogue and having someone to challenge me. Some people learn really well through reading: I'm not one of them. Anyway, in short, your mileage may vary.

I hope this is still relevant after 60+ new posts

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the anger you're talking about is being expressed on the Internet in the first place, isn't it? Some (most likely well-meaning) clueless person stumbles across somebody's blog post on RaceFail09, expects strangers commenting on the same post to engage with them and answer their very basic questions, and is surprised to find this request/demand met with a less-than-positive response.

If someone is looking for answers from strangers on the Internet anyway, they may as well do the research on their own — all the more so as the replies to their very basic questions have very likely already been addressed further on in the thread, or linked to somewhere else. All they have to do is click back to rydra_wong's page and try a few more links there.

As for the Internet in general — sure, if you try to use Wikipedia as your only reference in the bibliography of your paper, your professor will rightly point and laugh. However, the Internet can be a powerful tool and a good starting point. Maybe a search for "racism" and "privilege" doesn't turn up anything useful, but "what is white privilege" (and, for that matter, "what is straight privilege") turns up more stuff (including that "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" essay so many people have linked to). And as the_xtina says, from there it's relatively simple to click, digest, read, and cross-reference various pages to get an idea of what it's all about.

Yes, there's a lot. But I don't something anyone can be another person's guide for, or choose what you should read — not only is that a burden on the guide, but to get an informed opinion you have to read through the material yourself and sort out the good stuff from the bad anyway. It's such a subjective topic, that you're the only one who can decide what articles and posting speak to you.

As to your original point about whether the expression of anger is less productive than patient engagement, I'm sure you've seen all the posts (from people who would know) to the effect that politeness doesn't seem to help. In fact, in some cases, the open expression of anger may actually help get the message across where politeness undermines it. Anger may also be useful as part of a combined good cop/bad cop strategy as implied in the last point in this discussion. So not only is anger in this situation totally understandable: it has the potential to be helpful.

And (again referring to your original post) yes, the You-Are-Privileged-And-Therefore-Forever-Wrong Stick discourages further efforts, and I don't have much patience for anyone who tries to use it. But an awful lot of people seem to think it's being shaken at them when it isn't, simply because the topic of privilege is being brought up in the first place. So what can you do?

[(Anonymous)]

All written in academic language. Is there anything where people talk like real people?

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

'Academic' language?

What, because I used the word "imbroglio"?

[mousme.livejournal.com]

I think the OP was referring to the source material, not to your comment.

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

Oops. My bad!

Anyway, I guess it depends on what you read...