At 02:35 PM 1/26/2002 -0800, Bill wrote:
>Well, I won't be silenced because I'm a straight white male -- and i hope that
>Mary won't either because she is not.
I don't think that is a fair comparison. People in historical positions of
power are rarely silenced by dissident voices. They might be annoyed or
really pissed off, but rarely silenced. While the reverse is often the case.
>Rather, it is the presence of people
>like Mary that helps to make xmca a place which is not straight white male
>dominated,
So, one or two women speaking up means straight white males aren't dominant
here?
>and their non-participation can only enforce old ways.
So when the minority doesn't defend itself, even when they are in a no-win
situation, it is their own fault? Not someone else's fault for degrading
and insulting them to begin with?
The blame has shifted here, folks, oh so slightly. Now straight white men
are making snide remarks about how hard it is to be a straight white
men--and women are to blame for not participating on a listserv that they
may see as threatening or hostile?
Weren't we just talking about an insulting joke, methods of exclusion? And
now we are on to insiders consoling one another and blaming outsiders.
Scary how fast we got to this point.
Let's be clear: there is no problem with "straight white males" per se. It
is, after all, an essentialist category. There is a problem with BEHAVIORS
that often come with privilege--blindness to opposing viewpoints, refusal
to acknowledge harm that has been done (whether intentional or not),
assumptions that are essentialist concerning everyone else (the Other), and
antagonistic debates that shut down anyone who is not a full
participant/insider. And, of course, the ultimate sign of privilege: not
even knowing you have it.
Elizabeth
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:22:33 PST