>--- Elizabeth A Wardle <ewardle@iastate.edu> wrote:
>> So, one or two women speaking up means straight white males aren't
>dominant
>> here?
>>
bill responds...
>
>Kinda provocative statement there Elizabeth. Are you looking to pick a
>fight?
>Is that what you want? It's not what i want. Sorry.
and actually, more precisely, Elizabeth has written several significant
messages on this subject of
privilege and participation,
and bill, for some reason, has singled out this line as the one that is
provocative.
the sense that efforts at identifying the dominant participants, and the
highly gendered difference
regarding sexist humour, are attempts to "pick a fight" are anticipated
quite brilliantly by Elizabeth:
>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?
exactly.
i've avoided this particular sparring session because i have been in this
place oh-too many times,
and always to no avail.
it seems to me that there is little effort being generated towards the
more critical questions that almost always linger in these
conflicts but never quite make it to the surface.
again, Elizabeth describes it succinctly:
> I am trying to get at how people become
>participants in communities of practice and what happens when they want
>to
>participate but aren't willing to do so in officially sanctioned ways.
of course for us 'outsider' folk, the experience is invariably producing
the same result: there is no
opportunity to participate in a community of practice when
participation challenges the officially sanctioned modes of practice. it
is irritating, frankly, to see an article i wrote
on this very subject be offered for relevance and at the same time
summarily dismissed
as "experience" and not considered more usefully as theory....
furthermore, as theory that speaks
directly to the activity of defending sexism here, and how it is that the
"women" are asking for a perspective
that the "men" are indicating is unnecessary.
i think Elizabeth points to it all very well when she writes:
>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.
thanks Elizabeth, and Molly, and Jennifer, and Mary, for the encouraging
words.
to the rest of you,
SIGH. join the 21st century, please.
diane
************************************************************************************
"Things do not change: people change."
Henry David Thoreau
*************************************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
vancouver, bc
mailing address: 46 broadview avenue, pointe claire, qc, H9R 3Z2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST