I’ve read the Mcintosh reading in another sociology class, but am now looking at it through a different lens. When McIntosh speaks of white privilege she makes it seem like the actual privilege that white people receive is something that takes away from other’s advantages. While I think this is true in many instances, I think that this perspective that she expresses in the beginning of the article doesn’t necessarily fit in with the list of privilege’s that she provides. I don’t think that the list that she provided is mutually exclusive to any race, gender, ethnicity or class. I think that it’s more important to make sure that these privileges are extended to everyone rather than taking anything away. I don’t think that it’s necessarily “unfair” for white people to have these privileges, but it is “unfair” for others to not have them. I think that there are definitely a range of privileges, some where the issue is just spreading that privilege to everyone without a cost to the rest of the population, and there are some where limited resources make this task more difficult.
I thought that the Lorde reading did a really great job of pointing out how there is still a divide in feminism today, whether it is based on race, sexuality or social class, and how that divide is often hidden in places where we think progression is occurring, but I think that The Rag article expresses the idea that when trying to include everyone, what is the best way to do that? When it comes to feminism it seems that one model can’t fit everyone’s needs. I wonder if there is any form of feminism or set of beliefs that will satisfy everyone and that can apply to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read the McIntosh article as well for a class in high school actually so it was interesting to read it again and look at it through a different perspective. I agree that we are taught not to see "white privilege" as completely normal and morally neutral, and it was interesting to see how these three women were all calling for us to recognize that the problem of oppression is more complicated than it appears on the surface. That its not just oppression, but we are benefitting from it. I also agree that the trifecta of race, class and gender are very much intertwined, which is what interested me most in these readings. The Miles reading did a nice job stressing the importance of understanding feminist history in order for future and current feminism to succeed.
ReplyDeleteThe McIntosh reading boldly asserted that whites are oppressing blacks and men are oppressing women, even if its unconscious. This reminded me a little bit of the Johnson reading where he says that everyone plays a role in the system regardless of whether we play an active or passive role. However, I guess my problem with McIntosh came with the word "oppression." I know that article was written in the 1980'sbut it sounded as if it were written in the 1920's with the way she talked about oppression. Oppression is something that still is prevalent in the world today, but it is much less prevalent or to less of a degree in the United States than it is in authoritarian third world countries in Africa and they way oppression was thrown around in that article I thought took away from the real oppression that occurs in other places which made me frustrated.
Unlike Johnson, McIntosh's tone came across more as blame. Blacks have made huge strides and it was hard to agree with McIntosh's thought that blacks would move into a neighborhood and not be sure that their neighbors would be "pleasant" to them. Or even opening up the newspaper and "seeing my race widely represented." Today, often times, the cover of the New York Times has President Obama's face on it. I guess this article was more appropriate in the 80's but it just didn't carry much weight to me because it sometimes seems the reverse. If I walk into a music store or go to the Top Songs on Itunes Store, I can be relatively sure I will see more Black artists than White artists. To me, this means we have made great strides, but I do understand that there is a long way to go, especially in terms of gender. I hope that we take Miles suggestion and learn the feminist history so we do not have the trifecta of race, class, and gender divide the current wave of feminism.
I agree with Emily that some of Peggy McIntosh’s points are no longer applicable in this day and age, and maybe weren’t exactly true at during the time she was writing this article. A lot can change in twenty years. While I think it still remains a lot easier to find magazines with white people on the cover, white dolls in a toy store, and white greeting cards, I do not think it is impossible to find an African American Barbie, or an African American couple featured on a holiday card. There are some points that I agree with McIntosh, and some points that I find to be a little far-fetched. I’ll start with the points that I don’t believe to be true. Number 46, “I can chose blemish cover or bandages in ‘flesh’ color and have them more or less match my skin” (3). I have heard this same complaint brought up by another scholar in a Sociology class, and it always puzzles me that this offends people, because let’s be honest, who does have skin the same color as a band-aid? Certainly not me, and I am white. I understand that the point that McIntosh is trying to make when she adds “more or less” is that they blend in more with white skin than black skin, but the bottom line is that they don’t really match anyone’s skin. Maybe this was more of an issue when Band-Aids only came in one color. Now, they come in a multitude of colors and designs, ranging from neon to Hello Kitty. I think this band-aid as a form of racism idea should be put to rest. Two points that I really agreed with McIntosh about and thought were eye opening were points 18 and 21, “I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race” and “I am never asked to speak for all the people on my racial group” (2). I think it is very true that if someone white does something bad, it is seen as a reflection of his or herself, but if someone black does something bad, it is seen as a reflection of their racial group as a whole. I read an article about this phenomenon in Newsweek relating to the Tiger Woods drama. Tiger’s wife, Elin, allegedly got very angry and him and came after him with a baseball bat. People excused this behavior as a result of the circumstances. Yet, according to the author of the Newsweek article, if a black woman had done the same thing, she would have been stereotyped as another crazy, angry black woman. It is a very interesting article and I definitely recommend it. I think this phenomenon is frustrating, and I would like to know about why it occurs.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newsweek.com/id/226245
The connection I saw between these three pieces is the valuing of individual self-determination contributing to sexism and racism. Individualism is a defining characteristic of American culture. It would be incredibly flawed to suggest that in more community based cultures there is necessarily less discrimination, but I think there could be some sort of correlation between focus on the individual and such discrimination. McIntosh describes how she was taught “to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will (McIntosh 1). Instead of part of a community or system, we tend to attribute someone’s life situation to their work ethic, believing in the American myth that anyone can lift themselves up by their bootstraps; the “Horatio Alger” tale of rags-to-riches. Racism is attributed to cruel personality or a result of poor parenting, that the racist individual must simply be ignorant. This micro-approach fails because it follows that the problem can be solved by educating the individual about tolerance and equality, instead of recognizing the “invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth” (McinTosh 6). Women and minorities act on a micro level, sacrificing long term gains for short term getting ahead, for example women acting like men in raunch culture or “tomming” to play into stereotypes. Focus on the individual was what fragmented the women of The Rag. Their demise was due to being “so focused on our individual development and liberation that we failed to reach out to women with different experiences and to plan group activism” ( Findlen 177). They began with their specific issues of sexual vulnerability and societal beauty standards without first learning from their feminist predecessors, which “deterred [them] from seeking out and listening to other women’s experiences” (Findlen 180). Miles regrets not including women in the community of different ages and demographics. Lorde summarizes the issue best by writing “divide and conquer must become define and empower” (Lorde 2). Without acknowledging differences and transforming them to strengths, there can never be permanent change.
ReplyDeleteI think passion for feminism and race issues has to be driven to a certain extent by personal experience. Personal connection is what opens the door to explore how others have undergone similar experiences. The crucial step is using personal experience as a stepping stone and not a keystone, moving from the micro to the macro, starting by looking at the individual bar on the birdcage and then zooming out to view it in its entirety.
Fantastic thoughts, critiques, and ideas all around! You're all clearly engaging with these readings on both scholarly and personal levels, which I appreciate a great deal, and you've all raised some important concerns about both the claims that these authors make, and the strategies that they suggest. Elisabeth, your questioning of the use of the term "privilege" is good, and something that came up for others, too. One thing to think about: given that McIntosh isn't interested in taking these privileges away from everyone, but rather extending them to all, is there a rhetorical strategy in her decision to use the term "privilege" rather than "right" or something more neutral? The BandAid point, too, is a good one. However, I'd be careful about writing it off altogether. What McIntosh is stressing, I think, is the fact that white bodies are still taken as the "norm" within society and the medical/cosmetics profession. To extend it to something perhaps more timely, perhaps she could have written, "I can rest assured that doctors have a clear sense of what health risks and diseases are most likely to affect me" or something like that?
ReplyDelete