As many of you are probably aware, I got a lot of shit for my post last week on what a day in my life looks like. Many people, both in comments and on other blogs, felt that I wrote smugly about my "easy" life without any class consciousness or respect for the fact that an economic downturn is affecting many people's lives. I was made into a caricature:
so bourgeois, so laden with economic privilege as to be tone deaf to the realities of most women's daily experiences; rich, easy, fabulous lives of professional people in coastal cities; to only have the kinds of problems wherein you have to choose between private schools and nannies, or fret over how best to represent yourself on Facebook
Obviously Lauren and I have never met or she wouldn't have felt compelled to put these particular projections on me (I'm from Colorado Springs, mostly write about women's daily experiences, don't have kids or much of a fascination with Facebook, am not rich, although pretty fabulous...hehe). It completely misrepresented me and hurt my feelings, but my feelings are far less important than the larger questions that were raised. When I can get outside of feeling defensive, I am excited that I have been challenged with difficult and critical questions.
For me, there are two levels on which this issue must be examined. The first is the systemic level of class, race etc.-based privilege. We still live in a world where my white skin, my middle class upbringing, my able, not-fat body, and so many other factors of birth, not merit, give me power. This is a reality and anyone who claims otherwise is denying cold, hard facts and needs to unpack their knapsack, as Peggy McIntosh wrote. Those with knapsacks so heavy they drag on the ground, as well as those who carry a lighter load, are all responsible for fighting this system.
But what does that look like on a daily basis? I think that's the question that a lot of people avoid asking because it is either too painful or seems too hard. Many folks with privilege let guilt paralyze them, but what I learned long ago was that guilt doesn't put food on anyone's table or put anyone's story out into the world or even make me a smarter or more compassionate person. Another thing that folks with privilege often do is stay quiet or start fronting. Rather than admit when they've benefited from a system they may dislike, they pretend they haven't--falsely claiming money worries or putting on "struggling" airs. This is also unproductive, in addition to being inauthentic. It keeps privilege locked up.
There is a lot of amazing work out there questioning both of these reactions; check out Enough, a new blog that questions how much wealth accumulation is really necessary, and the work of Resource Generation, which gives wealthy young adults a chance to process their own responsibility and power and do productive, world-changing work with it.
So what does one do with privilege once you have it? Especially in an economic downturn when so many are being laid off, going without health insurance, losing their retirement, struggling with even basic necessities?
Lauren asks:
Feminism has long been criticized for its inability to get off campus, and now that it really has, thanks in part to the work of bloggers and writers reviving feminist media, now what? We've widened our feminist economic circle, as it were, to include a whole host of actual jobs that actual feminists can fill to perform actual feminist work and get an actual paycheck. But most stable, paying work isn't that. Will the professionals remember us?
For me, "now what?" is answered by my courage to be honest about the fact that I love my job--which I consider largely to be taking stories that aren't making it into the news and getting them there, raising awareness about issues affecting women (HIV/AIDS, gentrification and education, eating disorders, immigrant family detention centers etc.). It is sharing any knowledge I have about the publishing industry, freelancing, finance, consulting for women's organizations with other women--particularly young and outside of the New York media/publishing scene.
I wasn't born into this world, so I have particular empathy for trying to make your way into it. I did it one relationship at a time, one rejection letter after another, and also was struck by some lighting along the way. I take it as my absolute duty to share the resources (intellectual, financial etc.) that I've gained through that process. Again, especially in an economic downturn, though I think one always has a responsibility to share resources and challenge systems of privilege no matter what state the national economy is in. And I try to have fun with it all too.
What each "professional feminist" does with her privilege is a necessary and unique challenge. I'm deeply grateful to all those that have come before me that paved the way for these "professional feminist" issues to even exist. I'm honored to be pushed--by Lauren, by commenters--to continue to analyze my own answers to these questions, to make sure my values and my daily life match up with integrity. But I won't pretend that I'm not happy or striving for balance or economically stable because it gives me street cred in feminist circles. For too long feminists (and those from many other social justice movements) have martyred themselves on the altar of asceticism, as if being unhealthy or broke or unhappy is the only way to guarantee you're truly down. Commenters actually insinuated that my work would be more honest if I was eating cold macaroni & cheese for breakfast. I'm all about mac & cheese (um, my birthday this year was completely built around it), but this kind of litmus test is false and it's unproductive.
Men have had the space to write and mentor and exercise and eat healthy food and whatever the fuck for so long. To pretend that I don't want that or don't have it would only be to perpetuate the notion that only they deserve it. All of us deserve to be healthy and happy, whatever form that comes in. Some of us get there sooner due to a combination of factors, including unearned privilege, and we're responsible for making sure others get there too--often with our resources. "A room of one's own" is important, but not more important than being in the world, learning, teaching, for me, observing, researching, writing. I want a life made of all of these things--just as male writers have had for centuries.
In the "professional feminist" life, stability is still rare and fleeting, so I'm going to enjoy mine while I have it and share it freely--with joy, not a sense of guilt or shame. I challenge other feminists with privilege (and there are so many damn kinds people) to do the same.
Meanwhile, I would love to think more with people about ways to create more cross-class (cross all demographics really) relationships between feminists...
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Privilege as both Political and Personal .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11929
I think it is vital, even urgent, that we tell each other the reality of our lives. This is true even if that reality includes a disclosure of privilege and especially when it does not.
I'm fascinated by how people live - what they do all day and how they manage. For me, Courtney's post was an attempt to start that conversation.
So what are y'all avoiding/procrastinating/educating yourself while you're here on Feministing? For me it is a break while I transition from one task to another.
this post touched on something I was going to try and ask about on the community site-when someone knows they are privileged what is the right way to handle that. do you pretend that you aren't and deny what got you where you are? do you try to use your privilege to help others, and if so, what does that look like? the comments imply that it isn't enough just to point out your privilege, but, is there always one right answer? I am not sure I think so.
You mean how many hail-Marys do you need to say in order to atone for accidents of birth? How much self-flagellation before the group will listen to you?
I would hope, none.
A few things:
1. As an anarchist, I tend to think that the sort of jealousy that masquerades a class-consciousness would be minimized if more people switched to an idea of class that centers around who has the real economic power over the lives of others, rather than backbiting based on tax brackets.
2. That said, the writers at feministing do tend to have a strong middle-class-white-American bias with a certain blindness to the privellege that entails. This is not a fault as such, but it is something to be aware of and overcome.
I see it in statements like this:
"I wasn't born into this world, so I have particular empathy for trying to make your way into it. I did it one relationship at a time, one rejection letter after another."
The implication here is pretty strongly, "My position is self-made." I don't mean to imply that your success was not earned, but how often do you really think of the ways in which factors like your color and upbringing gave you an advantage that was not available to other writers trying to make it? Can you name times when you've seen someone who deserved to be your equal be left behind? Can you think of times when you've been aware that you've impressed someone at a critical moment, not with your abilities, but with factors like your appearance, your manners, your accent, your cultural expressions, etc.?
The way in which you discuss "privellege" in this post is pretty absent of such concrete factors - you seem to be talking about privellege as if it's about the benefits that come with a position you have earned for yourself, rather than a criticism of certain benefits society has given you and denied others unfairly. This is what criticism of privellege should involve. You do give a shoutout to this in your third to last paragraph but...sharing resources? Good, I guess, but not as good as talking about it in hard and fast ways.
I disagree with some of what you're saying here, laurel. I don't think Courtney is saying that she's earned her privilege. I read her comment that she wasn't "born into this world" was referring to the freelance/blogging world, saying that because she's had to work to get to where she is that she has knowledge that can benefit other people. She acknowledges up front that she has privilege:
For me, there are two levels on which this issue must be examined. The first is the systemic level of class, race etc.-based privilege. We still live in a world where my white skin, my middle class upbringing, my able, not-fat body, and so many other factors of birth, not merit, give me power.
I don't think that because she didn't lay out a list that you'd like to see means she has an implication of being "self-made." She has experience she feels obligated (and likes) to share. I read it as something that she acknowledges as something she can give to those less privileged, who may have had a harder time getting to where she is.
but how often do you really think of the ways in which factors like your color and upbringing gave you an advantage that was not available to other writers trying to make it? Can you name times when you've seen someone who deserved to be your equal be left behind? Can you think of times when you've been aware that you've impressed someone at a critical moment, not with your abilities, but with factors like your appearance, your manners, your accent, your cultural expressions, etc.?
I guess I don't understand how you would have liked to see Courtney answer some of these questions. The way in which we think about factors like color and upbringing isn't something that can always be calculated. If I see a woman on the bus in what is clearly a waitress uniform with two young kids and wonder for a minute what her life is like, if she had the option to go to college or what her dreams beyond waiting tables are, am I thinking about privilege? If I feel grateful for a moment that I am not her, that I am in grad school for something I love, does that count as thinking about my upbringing? Or does it only count if I think critically about it, if I nail down all the ways in which I got something I didn't strictly "earn"?
And naming times when others have deserved to be equal were left behind...? Those aren't always situations or decisions that Courtney is privvy to. And more than that, there aren't usually instances where someone is clearly qualified and then is clearly left behind. Privilege works in smaller, building-upon-the-past ways. So that by the time we are old enough to understand privilege, to learn to write and think critically, the privilege of having parents who can support and foster those skills already sets us ahead of those who don't.
And how on earth would Courtney (or any of us) know if there was a moment we impress others with our "appearance, your manners, your accent, your cultural expressions" etc? Not only would people most likely never say to us "I'm giving you this chance because I really dig how nice your outfit is" but people aren't often AWARE to what degree they are or aren't responding to those kinds of factors.
I think Courtney is being as open and honest and rational about what her post meant, how people reacted and what she hopes to do with her privilege. You want her to be "talking about it in hard and fast ways", but I think that's what she is doing here. She is being as honest as she can and not saying "I earned my privilege: the end", she is starting the conversation and including in it the fact that she has advantages that she has both "earned" and "not earned" and those aren't always easy to parcel apart.
Laurel, while I strongly suspect that you and I might not agree on much politically/etc, I want to commend you for the way you put your questions about privilege.
If everyone who wrote about the subject wrote about as plainly and non-judgmentally as you did here, I would imagine that there would be very few people indeed unwilling to examine the concept.
You deserve full props for this -- responding to criticism in such an eloquent, calm, and CONSTRUCTIVE way. So many public figures, bloggers especially (including bloggers on this site, which I have utmost respect for) get defensive, and what could be constructive becomes clouded with emotion so that the building piece gets lost. I get the sense that you worked through the emotion first, until you could respond in a constructive way. I strive for this myself every day, and (like most) am so far from it. You rock.
I second those props. I certainly wish that I had summoned the introspection and thoughtfulness that C did here when I have been taken to task in the past. You are super, lady.
I'm also interested in hearing what others have to say in response to Courtney's question. I have a very privileged life; I attend a prestigious professional school and am on track to have a stable and financially lucrative career. For me, though, being where I am at school is a daily reminder of the background I grew up in, where I was expected to devote my entire life to being a mother and a wife.
I realize that those expectations from my family and my community don't erase the fact that I am automatically far more privileged than many people in this country. I'm not trying to equate the expectation of being a stay-at-home wife and mom with anyone else's situation. But for me it is a real barrier that I have knocked down and am continually trying to stand up for both in my family and especially in my religious culture. Sounds cliche, perhaps, the epitome of the white privileged women's movement in the seventies and eighties, but in my daily life it's a challenging reality.
So, for my part, I'm going to school every day, hacking it in a demanding pre-professional environment, and trying to build bridges between my career aspirations and the stereotypes that surround women in my community. All this from a girl who, even as a senior in high school, still said she wanted to be a piano teacher so she could be home with her kids...
I say we should all listen to each other's experiences, frustrations, and needs. I often feel like I can't talk openly about my frustration with my religious community because people will label me and make all kinds of damaging assumptions before they get a chance to hear me as a complex and thoughtful individual, as more than a sum of convenient labels. We're all more than skin (or economic background, or language, or education level) deep, and we all have voices to share.
I'm impressed that you're dealing with this so well. And laying it all out like you are.
Personally, this whole thing has me feeling very defensive, and I'm not sure if that defensiveness is defense of privilege - okay, it is definitely that, but also frustration. This isn't going to make me popular but I'm going to say it anyway. If you (and I mean specifically you but also everyone else who blogs, including myself) write about your own life, do you have to point out every single privilege in it? (Wouldn't that get long and absurd and boring?) Are you required to refrain from blogging about privileges that other people don't have at the moment? Are you only allowed to blog about how bad you have it or can you blog about how good you have it without people thinking you are shoving it in their faces? Aren't you allowed to write a post that says, "Here is my experience, now tell me yours" without having to qualify it a hundred times as solely your own experience and by no means common? I mean, I do feel like this has been an incredibly interesting and constructive series of posts, but I also feel like there is an element of hammering-down-the-nail-that-sticks-up. Isn't there some way that we can acknowledge and talk about our privileges and our basic lives without saying that some people are not allowed to talk about theirs?
I should say, too, because I just reread my post and cringed a bit, that the people who challenged you on it undoubtedly took a step outside of their comfort zones too. Without them, this series of posts would not have been as interesting or valid, and they should be given just as much credit for shaping it as Courtney. And I don't want to see them silenced, or their questions go unanswered, either.
I don't think they should be silenced, but I think it's okay for them to be mocked.
Let's face it, most of the people criticizing Courtney weren't starving children in war torn Afghanistan.
I think we should all reflect for a moment on the privleges we all share. We're all people who apparently have access to the Internet and know how to read and use a keyboard and mouse and all that. I mean just think of how non-computer literate people would be outraged by our glib, non-self-aware discussions here if they were actually able to ever access this web site.
Great points. Must progressive and feminist writers open each article with self-flagellation? A list of all of the ways they're privileged before their voices can be heard?
Bullsh-t. A column is always written through the lens of your personal experience, because that's what columns are supposed to do--they're not, oh, anthropology essays.
One voice can't speak to all experiences. If the issue is that Courtney's voice isn't the voice of everyone, the solution is to get more voices, not silence the ones that are out there.
Oh, and sometimes the voice of "privilege" has something valuable to say (think for a moment about every writer you've ever read. Isn't truth found in a range of writers from various backgrounds?). Either someone's writing speaks to something true or it doesn't.
There's no single battleground where sexism, racism, and other backwards thinking lies. We all deal with feminist concerns in our own lives, in our own contexts. To pretend your context is other than what it is is to deny that your own battle is worth fighting.
Privilege runs a wide scale. Feminists in professional vs. non-professional contexts are fighting different--but related--battles, just like urban vs. rural women face difference challenges for their own dignity and respect.
So props, Courtney, for not being afraid to admit where you are. You're no less of a feminist to be talking about it. In fact, if we only see underdogs as legitimate feminists, we're dooming ourselves by rooting our identity in victimhood.
"by rooting our identity in victimhood." Can you further explain what you mean by this? Or who the "underdogs" are?
(I'm fairly new to this dialogue, so I'm sure there are finer points of the discussion that I'm quite ignorant of- so please correct me if I'm off-mark.)
By "underdog" and "victim" I'm referring to non-privilege, economic and otherwise. It seems, to me, that if we're wanting a world where opportunity does not discriminate, we ought not assume that someone born within easy reach of opportunity is automatically on the wrong side of the problem.
It's so easy to feel "us vs. them," and draw that line not based on values or principles, but who has more opportunity and who has less: which doesn't leave room for things to improve (which, I thought, was the goal?) If you accuse someone of being oblivious to the problems because of how they act, that's one thing, but if you accuse it because of what they have, that's another.
Thoughts?
I think it's problematic to call those with less privilege "victims" or "underdogs." Often in conversations of privilege, those with less are often shut out of the conversation. Even now, we're discussing a privileged person's response to being called out on her privilege and trying to speak universally for all women when all women do not have the same experiences.
It's not "victimhood" to talk about how your skin color, or sexuality, or class, or disability might not give you the same opportunities as someone else. The more the privileged actually listen to those with less privilege that better. One hard aspect of privilege is giving it up to stand with those with less. For example, a white man calling out sexism when he hears it in a white, male-dominated workplace. Not the best example, but he gives up some of his safety and privilege by not agreeing with the greater hegemony.
I hope I'm not reading you incorrectly, perhaps it was just the word choices of "underdog" and "victimhood" that made me wonder what you were trying to articulate.
"If you accuse someone of being oblivious to the problems because of how they act, that's one thing, but if you accuse it because of what they have, that's another."
I thought one of the main points Courtney was making was that she wasn't trying to speak for all women.
You're right- that word choice is problematic, and I only used "victim" and "underdog" by means of exaggerated example, not because I see these things that way. Certainly no woman, in any situation, can speak for the whole. And just as it's important not to exclude voices who may have less privilege, I also think it's important not to negate those who may have more.
So by implying that privilege removes the ability to understand the issues, we're implying that feminist identity can only exist where privilege does not, which seems problematic because it doesn't allow room for things to get better.
Perhaps I should have been clearer the first time. Does this make more sense?
Yes, much clearer, thanks for clarifying.
I enjoy reading blogs from time to time, especially this one. They're entertaining, but the original posting to which this entry refers reinforces my feeling that blogging, the vast majority of it, is kind of silly. Really, it is. If you were to cut the power, there would be no power. So I would encourage many to alternatively focus on things that are meaningful.
Oh, and I thought it was really funny that a self-avowed anarchist would post a comment to a blog. I always get a kick out of seeing anarchists sort of waiting around in line just like everyone else.
"Oh, and I thought it was really funny that a self-avowed anarchist would post a comment to a blog. I always get a kick out of seeing anarchists sort of waiting around in line just like everyone else."
Huh?
Yes, some anarchists read blogs. Some go to work, clean their houses, feed their companion animals, spend time with their families and friends, and watch TV. Others don't. In short, of course anarchists live in the real world and not in a post-revolutionary parallel universe. What is so funny about that? Or rather, exactly what are you trying to say here?
I don't mean any disrespect, but I find anyone who asserts that they are an anarchist to be really funny. If they do so much that is in common with you and I, even to render them indistinguishable, then what's the point? Well, then I guess that is why they need to go and tell it on the mountain.
I also love when people in this country, college-educated tool-bags, call themselves Libertarian. Also another funny one. See how your philosophy pans out anywhere other than a developed country.
"I don't mean any disrespect, but I find anyone who asserts that they are an anarchist to be really funny. If they do so much that is in common with you and I, even to render them indistinguishable, then what's the point? Well, then I guess that is why they need to go and tell it on the mountain."
What? Anarchism is a political philosphy. It is a way of thinking foremost, and the praxis that results from anarchist theories is different for every single person.
Of course an anarchist's life will in some ways be different from that of a far-right nationalist because of their different views and the actions that result from this, but still, both of them can read blogs, and both of them have to breath and eat and shit.
It's just kind of like saying, "Feminists are funny. I mean, look, they have blogs! Har har! Shouldn't they be busy dismantling the patriarchy?"
Also, I *am* an anarchist. Just sayin' cause of your "if they do so much that is in common with you and I" line. I'm repeating myself; anarchists are normal human beings like you and I.
I'm an anarchist. I'm also quite funny. But I also don't understand what you're trying to say.
More generally: In general I think the word "privilege" is (some times) thrown around too much as some kind of magic word. A word that can mean anything and be used for all sorts of purposes. Especially when it's being used without any sort of analysis, ie when it's used in "liberal" single-issue politics borrowing words from more radical politics but without the analysis. Privilege is indeed important but what's the point when the word itself is used with basically no meaning? Like when it's used to "trump" in a discussion etc with no real explanation or honest purpose. That said, when doing an analysis of this society then you must of course use the word to describe those privileged by it. But just saying "you have privilege" is no analysis in itself, and saying "I'm sorry I have privilege" does not in itself change society. One-eyed focus on 1 person and 1 privilege does not change the society that structurally privileges the ruling classes.
I don't mean any disrespect, but I find anyone who asserts that they are an anarchist to be really funny.
Oh, yeah, that's a TOTALLY respectful statement. I definitely feel that you are not dismissing me and many others simply because we hold different political view than you, and don't live the way you think we should given your EXTREMELY limited knowledge of said political views. You clearly respect people for their differences.
(Ordinarily I'd refrain from pointing out that that first paragraph was all sarcasm, but you don't seem to understand that people with "radical" political views actually do live in the real world, so I'm not going to take any chances here.)
Personally, I find it funny that this came up in a discussion of privilege, as it smacks of unchecked privilege (among other things) to be so dismissive of other peoples' political views. Just saying.
"Oh, and I thought it was really funny that a self-avowed anarchist would post a comment to a blog. I always get a kick out of seeing anarchists sort of waiting around in line just like everyone else."
May I ask why? I don't see what blogging has to do with anarchism. Anarchism doesn't refer to having NO RULES AT ALL (socially), it applies to having no central governing power, correct? Why would an anarchist not wait in line? Anarchy does not equal "screw you, I'm going to fend for myself in the jungle, and you should do the same!" It still involves cooperation between humans.
This whole post is really not about anarchy, so I don't want to belabor the point. Really, it's not respectful of what other people are trying to say here relevant to the purpose of the post. But, to say one last thing about anarchy, there is no way anyone, and I mean anyone, could have this conversation without some kind of centralizing entity. That entity is what keeps this Internet-thing going. Critique of government does not mean no government. There are both/and scenarios. I'm sorry, anarchy is really, really stupid.
"Really, it's not respectful of what other people are trying to say here relevant to the purpose of the post."
I mean, I think it's a bit disrespectful to call what anarchists believe "stupid" and Libertarians "tool-bags." If there is anything that is not relevant to the purpose of this post, it is needless name-calling. Really, it adds nothing to this discussion, and I don't understand why you feel it necessary, I was merely asking a question.
I won't argue with you about anarchy any further though, as honestly I only have a basic understanding of it myself. I do know that it's a lot more complex than most people claim, though, and I plan on reading more about it at some point, even though I don't particularly agree with it.
I apologize for contributing to the derailment of this topic, but I can't not respond.
I also identify with anarchist praxis, and clearly skippy misunderstands what anarchism is. For me, it is (I'm being really basic here) the desire to replace hierarchical social relations with relations that are more equitable in their distribution of power.
Nothing stupid about this.
Um. You have no idea what the internet is about if you think it's run by some kind of centralized agency o.O. Read up on how it was developed sometime...!
It's certainly true that over time, there have been many attempts to consolidate parts of it into a centralized form, but the continued ability of people to wiggle around these constraints attests to the internet's original, distributed, reroutable, independent, asynchronous design...
OK, I return y'all to your regular topics...
I'm not sure you really have a point, there, Skippy.
What constitutes meaningful? I understand that you might think Courtney's previous post was "silly" but it obviously struck a cord with a lot of people either way and opened up an important dialogue about "more meaningful things". So why even go there?
Commenting on a blog about how you think blogging is silly seems counterproductive. Read what you want to read and engage in thoughtful discussion about what you read. Don't just dismiss someone's thoughts as silly or funny. It's not necessary and it's kind of petty.
I applaud the honesty of this post, and think that it is much more constructive and conducive to critical thinking than the original post w/ your daily schedule. All the same, there are echos in this post of the same tired excuses that feminists continue to give for not actively tackling issues of their own privilege-- that guilt doesn't do anyone any good, that you can't change what you are born with, that you can't speak honestly about any experience other than your own.
It isn't that any of these things are untrue, exactly. It is just that they are too often bandied about as reasons for exclusivity. Of course you have a right to be happy, and to speak honestly about the privilege in your own life. At the same time, a little guilt is healthy because it forces us to acknowledge that we are ALL active participants in forming and maintaining the structures that bestow privilege on people based on race, wealth, region, sexual orientation, physical prowess, and innumerable other features. Even those of us who actively work to dismantle these structures are constantly in struggle against our need to engage with them and sometimes benefit from them to get by in the world. Without guilt-- without acknowledging it and living with it-- it becomes too easy to forget the importance of our own actions (and inactions).
Additionally, while it is true that pretending to have had an experience when you haven't benefits no one, it is just as honest to speak openly about what you haven't experienced as what you have. Even in this post, where you are striving for honesty and openness, everything is a generality. It lumps everyone else's struggles together as one giant mountain of a problem that hasn't touched your life, and what could be more dismissive? It makes every woman without your privilege part of this monolith sitting on the outside of the circle.
All of that said, I did appreciate the post and found it very thought provoking, and another great step forward in this conversation.
Yes, this!
. It lumps everyone else's struggles together as one giant mountain of a problem that hasn't touched your life, and what could be more dismissive? It makes every woman without your privilege part of this monolith sitting on the outside of the circle.
How can she incorporate every woman without her privilege? This post is about her- specifically responding to another post about one written about her. It is physically impossible- even if she tried, she doesn't have the knowledge or experience or write meaningfully in an individualized way about every woman.
Frankly, I think Courtney's privilege has been seriously exaggerated here. Yes, she has free time, is doing alright financially, educated, white, young, and attractive, but she's not exactly influential or rich.
Do we think people like Bill Kristol, Bob Novak, Chris Matthews, Ann Coulter, Brian Williams, Dave Ross, Katie Couric, or other prominent newspaper columnists, media personalities, television and movie producers, CEOs, successful authors, wealthy philanthropists, politicians, and other people who are actually powerful in our society are sitting around worrying about their privilege and whether their writings are sensitive to the less fortunate? No f--king way. No one is demand that they answer for their privilege, and they never will as long as people who are vociferously against oppression and disadvantage such as the posters here remain on the margins.
Which brings me to the next point.
Obviously, we have a bit higher standards here, but if we start ripping on every feminist who shows a glimmer of success in her career or life, feminism will always be marginalized in the corners of our society just as it has been for the last 15 years or so. It's just eating our own-- a suicidal tendency of the left (going beyond feminism: look at the Spanish civil war, for example) that historically has never helped us.
Of course I understand that Courtney can't write about the experience of every individual woman in the world. I guess mostly what I'm trying to get across is that lumping everyone whose experience is different from one's own into a singular "other" category, we unintentionally reinforce the notion that inclusion is too difficult, that the differences are too great, that our problems aren't the same. And just because we can't talk about every individual experience doesn't mean we shouldn't try!
Secondly, I want to make clear that I am not "ripping on" Courtney. I meant what I said about this post being valuable and thought provoking, and I admire her courage in sharing this with us. I don't think that engaging in dialogue with one another- even if that dialogue is sometimes critical- in any way impedes the progress of feminism as a movement. This isn't about hurting one another, it is about acknowledging our strengths AND weaknesses, learning from them together, and building a stronger and more inclusive community.
splendidscribbler,
I think constructive dialogue is always good, but it's also important to recognize that inclusion is difficult, and our problems sometimes aren't the same. We should always strive to relate to one another constructively and respectfully, but it is not always so easy. So when it isn't done perfectly (as Courtney speaking in generalities in this post) we shouldn't assume that it's being dismissive, just that one post cannot possibly touch every facet of this topic.
Yes a little guilt is constructive, but I'm also confident that most of us have some level of guilt or we wouldn't be here. 99% of bloggers out there who posted a schedule like this about their personal life and get criticized over it would respond defensively and dismissively. They would never admit to hurt feelings over what was, at some level, an attack. And those are the bloggers who don't get criticized like that because their readers just don't care, or don't think that the blogger's insensitivity would be important. So it's Courtney who gets criticized because she at least tries to care about her blind spots. I just think we should recognize that in the larger view of things, this controversy is less than 1% of the battle and 99% of the battle is OUT THERE, in the real world.
Elkhart Indiana, has a 15% unemployment rate because of decisions that were made, privilege that was unchallenged, irresponsibility, that was created, OUT THERE, by people who were really rich and powerful, not because of imperfect feminists like Courtney.
Yes and yes.
I get the point that you're making, but I'm not sure "guilt" is the right word. It's too loaded with a sense of feeling bad about yourself and feels too passive to me. I think women especially are taught to feel guilt, that we don't deserve good things, when the real answer is that we ALL deserve the opportunity for good things.
Maybe the word "gratitude" instead? Enjoy the opportunities and resources you have but recognize that "there but for the grace of God go I."*
The idea is to extend the resources and opportunities of the "privileged" to the larger group. I view it as an active imperative.
*I don't mean this in the specific religious sense. I mean that one could have just as easily been born into a different environment and experienced different fortunes and misfortunes.
You know, as a college student graduating in May and interested in writing as a future career, I thought your original post was an interesting, informative and useful insight into what it's like to be a writer in this day and age. Thank you for posting it, and thank you for your collected and insightful response to the criticism.
I wouldn't take Courtney's original post as "what writers lives are like." I'm a writer, and my life looks nothing like hers. Yes, it's privileged, but apparently I work far more hours in a day than she does over 2 or 3 days. In my community of professional writers, none of us lazes around until 11 AM and then works for a few hours before watching TV and lounging more. I found the original post unfamiliar, though I share the profession.
As I made clear in the original post, this was just one day in my life. Some days are much longer. Some are much shorter. That's the beauty of freelance...you get tons of instability, but you have lots of freedom.
Yes, full props! Well done.
I think acknowledging one's own privilege is one of the greatest things we can do. After all, the root of sexism, racism, ableism, classism, etc. is the idea that there is something inherently superior about a particular group. By recognizing that some people are given advantages in society simply by circumstances of birth, we are forced to examine the ways socialization creates inequalities.
However, I don't think guilt is a very helpful response and the people who want to shame others for advantages they were born into (providing they do not deny them) are the same who engage in 'oppression olympics'. I agree that this attempt at shaming seems to only lead people to become defensive and attempt to deny their privilege. Even though some of us have more opportunities than others, we should be allowed to feel some sense of pride for what what we do with those advantages, so long as we recognize that those initial opportunities were a product of privilege. What is the alternative? Do we shun every opportunity that comes to us as a product of our race/gender/ability/class/religion/height/etc? Access to clean drinking water and medical care is a privilege I have simply by being born in a particular country. I'm not going to apologize for having that advantage (or the advantage of access to higher education, technology, or other things of the sort) but I can work to change the system that has favored me. But lambasting someone who actively brings awareness to a flawed system simply because they don't suffer from the absolute worst oppression the world has to offer, does nothing to help the cause.
And just out of curiosity... What would it take for those who criticize to accept Courtney's discussion of her life? How disadvantaged do any of us have to be by the system before we're allowed to speak about the particular types of oppression we face. What combination of traits ranging from class to race to ability does one have to possess in order to try to make a difference?
This was not meant to be nearly so rambling or hostile as it came out. I'd like to add that I think splendidscribbler has an excellent point that a little bit of guilt keeps us from merely accepting the advantages of our birth and (hopefully) pushes us towards actions.
Meanwhile, I would love to think more with people about ways to create more cross-class (cross all demographics really) relationships between feminists...
I suppose to begin, you could act like you care at all about the economic systems creating inequality between feminists in the first place, which would require writing about something other than things like Barbie and your daily life.
Yes, I'm being harsh and it probably sounds judgmental or like I'm jealous and trying to take it out on you, but I'm serious...The bottom line is you care about different things than I do. My feminism holds that economic oppression is a major factor in creating the most serious issues most women face. I don't just mean writing about how certain representational issues hurt poor women even worse, but writing about actual economics. Anything that doesn't actually address structural economics is like putting a new coat of paint on a movement that has been irrelevant to 90% of the population for a hundred years...not about fundamental change. At the end of the day, this isn't just about a difference of privilege and experience, it's about having completely different political motives. I'm afraid that unless you want to seriously join a conversation about capitalism, you won't get any sort of deep cross-class feminism, since strictly cultural, experiential, privileged feminism is pretty much useless.
Maybe you have no interest in trying to learn more about our feminism or in sharing our priorities. I don't hold that against you. But you can understand why it starts to wear on your nerves when you realize even "teh feminists" don't really get it, even while they sit around talking about intersectionality and privilege, as if that alone makes them activists...
I suppose to begin, you could act like you care at all about the economic systems creating inequality between feminists in the first place, which would require writing about something other than things like Barbie and your daily life.
Courtney has written at length about issues of eating disorders and body image in girls and women. As an eating disorders awareness and education activist -- yes, activist -- and someone who has struggled to overcome anorexia and bulimia, I am highly offended by your casual dismissal of these serious, life threatening feminist issues as mere "Barbie" talk. I can think of nothing more anti-feminist than to mock or dismiss issues that affect millions of women simply because you personally feel them to be irrelevant.
Never ever ever did I say that talking about eating disorders or even barbie (that wasn't a reference to eating disorder posts, btw, I was talking about an actual recent post about barbie) were not important or not life-critical. I neither mocked nor dismissed them.
But feminism that ONLY does those things, and never addresses something as overarching as capitalism, is going to be irrelevant to people whose more pressing concern is their total lack of power in this economic system.
What I dismissed was strictly experiential, privileged, cultural feminism, which never looks beyond representation and experience. And I absolutely stand by that, not to dismiss anyone's experiences or the gravity of those, but to point out how very inadequate they are on the whole.
To clarify on that second to last pronoun--I meant "how very inadequate these sorts of feminist criticisms are by themselves for making sense of most women's lives." Not that the experiences were inadequate in some way...
Erm, Marxist feminism?
Try again-- your hostility towards Courtney is misdirected.
Thank you for your totally intelligent, substantive rebuttal. You're right. Marxist femnism is nonsense. How could I have been such an idiot...
My feminism holds that economic oppression is a major factor in creating the most serious issues most women face. I don't just mean writing about how certain representational issues hurt poor women even worse, but writing about actual economics. Anything that doesn't actually address structural economics is like putting a new coat of paint on a movement that has been irrelevant to 90% of the population for a hundred years...not about fundamental change.
Economics is not feminism, it's economics. Yes, there's inter-sectionality between economics and feminism, but I wouldn't come to a blog called Feministing to read about it.
Why does feminism have to encompass the "most serious issues women face"? I think it encompassing the most serious issues some women face, but the truly impoverished or homeless woman, or ill woman, or Palestinian woman, is facing some greater oppression that has to do with something else, not being a woman. Feminism means something different to everyone, but I thought it was about overcoming the issues women face because they are women. If that is wrong, then what -ism, or what field of inquiry exists to address women face because they are women and for no other reason? If not feminism, then what?
I think it should be okay-- critical, actually-- to admit that sometimes those issues aren't all womens' issues and may not even be the most important issues for any given woman. Feminism can't possibly do all of that without blowing up into a meaningless boondoggle.
In your blog, you wrote-
Courtney goes too far when, in the comments, she asserts that "privilege comes from secrecy." That is decidedly not where privilege comes from. If privilege came from secrecy, some of us could reveal our salaries, mortgage payments, trust fund balances, etc. while others revealed their long work hours, low wages, and total lack of financial resources -- and then somehow things would be better.
Yes, that would make things better. Openness wouldn't erase generations of exploitative economic systems-- but openness would have prevented the Madoff Ponzi scheme.
It would have prevented Enron.
It would have exposed the problems in the mortgage market much earlier and may have prevented the worst lending- which was based on deceitful motives and reporting- entirely.
With respect specifically to openness about your own life-- without openness you have no basis for dialogue or discussion because you can't even relate to someone. I don't see how I can relate to someone when I have no idea what their life is like. For someone whose life is very different from mine, but where the difference is acknowledged, at least I have some chance, of relating to them. To someone whose life is very different from mine and this different isn't discussed- we have no chance of relating.
If you believe all that, (for instance, that economics and feminism can even be distinguished from one another) it's a matter, like I said, of fundamentally different political motives. But instead of neglecting perfectly legitimate socialist feminist critiques that abound out there and pretending there's still some unknowable reason we aren't having good cross-class feminist dialogues, let's call it what it is. Let's just admit we have different priorities and possibly different stakes in capitalism...
For the record, your second quote is from my co-blogger ln, not me. Not that I don't agree with her, but I think such wise words ought to be properly credited :)
Arvilla,
My point isn't that we have different priorities. Truthfully I am deeply concerned about economic and class issues, but there are other blogs on my blogroll where I go for in-depth economic analysis. And yet others for political analysis. And so on.
The point is that my self-identification as a feminist doesn't describe the entirety of my priorities or beliefs. So when I say feminism means to me challenges that women face because they are women and only ones they face for that reason, it doesn't say anything about my priorities, only my definition of feminism.
Women and queers need some -ism or field of inquiry that addresses sexism and gender identity specifically. It's not a good thing if this means it's not relevant to some women, but the alternative is to expand the definition of feminism toward something both broader and more specific at once, but also less effective. I think a balance needs to be achieved between these competing objectives, and we should recognize that achieving this balance is one of our challenges.
But why? Why do you think oppositions to hegemony should be compartmentalized like that? What good does that do anyone?
Do you think the oppressions themselves are actually compartmentalized? You think there is such a thing as pure anti-womanism or sexism that has nothing at all to do with economics or racism or heterosexism? Honestly? It's just such an unnecessary simplification of such a complex web of ideology.
Talking about economics and racism and sexism all at once isn't some far off dream and doesn't create a "meaningless boondoggle," lots of feminists do it all the time...we do it at Pink Scare every day and there's nothing original or risky or horribly complex about that at all. In fact, taking on oppression as it takes on us (that is, all at once and all mingled together) actually helps us hope to come up with an adequate, comprehensive, and coherent theory about how it works and how we might fix it. How can you ever hope to do that if you keep all your concerns in different corners, and hope to stamp them out with different approaches, one at a time.
In fact, taking on oppression as it takes on us (that is, all at once and all mingled together) actually helps us hope to come up with an adequate, comprehensive, and coherent theory about how it works and how we might fix it. How can you ever hope to do that if you keep all your concerns in different corners, and hope to stamp them out with different approaches, one at a time.
I think you're asking some deep questions. Honestly, I have been browsing on pink scare but some of the names (Badiou, Althusser) and the depth and abstraction of the discussion involved make me feel that most young women (and men) today wouldn't be able to understand or relate to the writing. That's not anything you're doing wrong- you're thinking at a higher level than most people. But most people simply will never engage at that level.
Also I think this is sad, but it is sometimes easier to stamp out problems one at a time than to try and create a coherent theory about how everything works and then fix it all at once. For one thing, I don't think I'm smart enough to come up with a coherent theory of how everything works that I would actually feel comfortable implementing. But I also think that as activists, we can actually accomplish more by being specific about our problems and breaking them down to tackle them one at a time.
For one thing, if we treat feminism as nothing but the observation that general oppression can also occur on the basis of gender identity, and that we should focus on fighting general oppression, only keeping in mind that gender identity is one form of oppression, then why have feminism as a separate, discrete movement? Why have feminist activism, or feminist theory, at all? Why not just have progressive activism that happens to be anti-sexist?
In an ideal world, that would be a fine outcome, but in reality what would happen is that women's issues would be relegated to the sidelines and a lot less progress would be made. Compartmentalizing this oppression and having a movement focused around ending this type of oppression I think helps make more progress than would be made otherwise.
Hi Qi, I'm one of Arvilla's co-bloggers at Pink Scare. I certainly appreciate your observation that Badio and Althusser may not be the most accessible lenses through which to view these questions of representation, capitalism, etc. The Pink Scare bloggers have a range of engagements with "academia" (or, let's just call it like it is, really tough texts!).
For people interested in the way these writers and thinkers apply to today's capitalism, they can read those posts. For those of us less engaged with these people, we can move on and read the rest of the blog, which I think is more accessible and less intellectually challenging. There are diverse ways of tackling questions of economy, intersectionality, etc., and I guess we try to cover a range of approaches. I really appreciate your comment and your engaging conversation with Arvilla! Thanks.
You have some really good points, Arvilla.
Personally, I mostly don't come to Feministing for in-depth analysis. I come for news, camaraderie, and a time-out from my day (no offense - I and other feminists need those things just as much as we need in-depth analysis). Blogs like Womanist Musings and Racialicious are a lot better about really getting to the crux of something. I've always thought of Feministing as a primer that eased young women into feminism by being very gentle - almost superficial - with the subjects that feminism touches, but I've also never considered that a flaw. We need that just as much as we need the deeper stuff... maybe even more at the moment in an effort to get more women involved, including women of all economic classes, since feminism has such a horrible connotation to so many people. First you have to show them that the tiger won't scratch them before they'll be willing to even get close to the tiger, right?
And personally, I have learned more from my fellow women by telling them my experiences and then asking them for theirs than I ever learned examining anything structural or abstract. I think it's valid to work on understanding starting with personal experience and then moving into broader group dynamics.
At the same time, Courtney herself says she wants to move more in that direction, on this subject at least, which brings us right back to your comment. We can certainly have both, of course, but I'm skeptical, too, of where this is headed since they've seemingly changed direction from the way they've always been going.
I think there is definitely more than a place for talking about experiences. A great deal of my research consists of merely talking to women about their experiences. What I doubt is that that is enough, without building a structural critique with the knowledge of those experiences.
In fact, I would say no structural critique would ever be adequate if it weren't built with a full understanding of actual material conditions, of the real lived experiences of people. All I'm saying is the experiences alone, or representing the experiences, is often a good way of getting at the symptoms and indicators of a structural problem (maybe the best way there is), but it isn't enough...
I can't believe how complex this discussion is getting-- awesome!
There are a lot of things that need to be sussed out in this discussion, and I think we're getting there.
For example, someone raised the issue of personal envy vs. class-consciousness. Is it envy that motivated the original criticism of Courtney's post? Or class-consciousness? Both? If it was envy, does that mean it isn't as valid as class-consciousness? And if it's class-consciousness, on what scale? What does solidarity look like among women who aren't located in the same social, cultural, and economic position, and so are not all engaged in the same struggles?
Also, the issues of guilt and shame were raised. These are difficult affective states to experience, let alone own. They are also often used to silence. They are often induced by criticism and judgment, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. It is sometimes hard to tell when they are warranted and when they are being used as tools of oppression and silencing.
Additionally, the issue of success and the issue of privilege seem to have gotten intertwined somehow. This is a hard one to suss out. I don't think any of us want any of us to not be successful, or happy, or to have control over our time, or even to do yoga and eat sushi. But at the same time, many of us who want to do these things simply cannot. When does 'sharing our experience' become bragging, or inconsiderate? At the same time, does this mean the successful women among us have to "list their privileges" before they express themselves?
All I know is, I'm glad we're all talking about this.
It bothers me how many people have been attacking Courtney for a post she wrote to HELP people interested in becoming a professional writer see what a random day entails as one and to open up a dialogue about our daily schedules. Most people did not share their daily schedules but instead critiqued her for being out of touch, privileged, lazy blah blah blah. Why the hate? Courtney bravely opened up her life and I haven't seen others do the same. I'm sure there is plenty to critique in each of our lives and I hope plenty to praise. We are all privileged in some way and will always be more privileged than someone else. That is no reason to stop living or striving for the best for ourselves and for others. Why can't Courtney be allowed to do this?
I would hope that anyone who has read Courtney's posts on feministing and her writing elsewhere would realize how aware Courtney is of her privileges and see that every day she is working hard to help others enjoy similar privileges. In particular, she is great at helping people who want to be writers too. I read several comments from people who she had helped with their writing aspirations and she helped me last fall too. I was working on a book proposal (I also have a non-writing full time job) and asked if she had any advice for what to format to use. Without knowing who the hell I am, she sent me a draft of her book proposal (of her published, well received book) so I could have an example. I was floored at her generosity.
I am grateful that she is becoming a respected and powerful voice for a range of human rights issues. How many of us would be able to go on Fox news and maintain our composure to defend women's rights? We all have our talents and ways we can and do work to promote the rights of others and writing and speaking are two ways that Courtney is doing so. Why critique her for this?
(in the first paragraph i mostly mean people who posted to her original entry with her schedule tho some in this post are doing the same)
I don't think we should dismiss those comments as hateful criticism. Yes, they were critical, but criticism isn't always a bad thing, and the ones that I read in the original thread tried very hard (and successfully, I thought) to remain respectful while still speaking their minds. Plus, as Edansmommy said just above, this is a very good conversation, a conversation that we should be having, and a conversation that we wouldn't be having if those who disagreed with Courtney hadn't spoken up.
Hey Miss Courtney,
Just as a disclaimer, not all of the things in the first paragraph you quoted were referencing you but were referencing other articles referenced in my post. Also, I wasn't trying to equate you or your lifestyle in your "day in the life of" post with the Salon letter writer or the pitiable bank execs in the NYTimes article, so much as trying to point out that these things are related in one way. The folks represented in much of the mainstream coverage of the economic crisis are largely coastal, well-educated types, movers and shakers. There are real geological divisions to the news coverage that are maddeningly blind, everything from drawing arbitrary lines between different socioeconomic classes to insinuating that anyone outside of a major metropolitan area isn't worth knowing. That was just an undercurrent of my thought though.
What was must frustrating for me as a reader was the ease of your day compared to what me and mine are going through just to make ends meet. I don't know what kind of income you bring in or how hard you work (I know you're a badass and doing really well professionally, kudos on the O'Reilly appearance BTW, he's such an assknob) but it's just so outside of my norm. My frustration really isn't about you though, and I'm sorry this got so personal, it's about how little life experiences like mine are represented in mainstream OR independent media. What kind of feminism do we have when its face is primarily made of white, young, pretty professionals? How can we better represent the working class? Or people outside of major metropolitan areas? Match the numbers of academics represented with everyone else?
[On a side note, it sucks too that the new face of feminism has been imagined as Jessica and Amanda alone, not because they're bad in any way, but because it's limiting for them as well as the movement. It sucks that when I say "professional feminist," readers start picking on Jessica and her living quarters (where she keeps her cabal of purebred wolves right next to her champagne-filled hot tub), for example. Obviously I'm talking about a select group of people, but are these two really the only young, professional feminists out there? No. Leave them and their personal lives alone. Even as I critique their relative power, in that their voices and their worldviews are represented overwhelmingly as this generation's feminism, which again I think is limiting, I understand that their personal power and agency is limited by all kinds of factors which could be the subject of another post.]
I've always imagined how powerful a richly networked mentoring project would be that emphasized the grooming of feminists from all stripes for positions of real power, to serve on boards, to write powerful articles, to show women how to navigate the halls of influence by having the hand and the ear of people who have done it before them. If I knew how to do it I would.
I could keep going, but I'm tired and cranky and feeling bad that I hurt your feelings. Thanks for answering so honestly and truthfully -- I appreciate your transparency on the issue and the (I think) excellent dialogue. Kudos again on your O'Reilly appearance.
Comment above by me, Lauren.
for some reason, that idea for a mentoring project really just irked me. maybe it's because you used the term 'grooming'. maybe also because courtney was talking about sharing resources, which can be good but i think there are some important things to consider about privilege that haven't really been brought up.
privilege isn't just about having things that others dont. its about being the 'default' or the 'standard' that marginalized communities/people are pushed to be like. so, poor people are pushed to make more money. immigrants are pushed to assimilate to american culture. women are told that they should be stronger, more aggressive in order to be successful. you get the point.
so i think while its important to share resources and mentor, it needs to be done in a really responsible way, where facilitators and mentors are not only recognizing their privilege by saying "im white and therefore, i have unearned privilege" but by actively working against "grooming" young marginalized women to be a part of white, middle class, hetero culture. you see?
in any case, courtney - i think its great that you opened up a conversation about this. class is hardly EVER talked about in discussions of feminism so it is very refreshing to see. i also believe that privilege lives on through secrecy so i appreciate your transparency.
Perhaps a poor choice of words, then. I'm talking specifically of helping women learn to navigate modes of operation that they are intrested in pursuing, but may not have the connections, network, or structural knowledge they need. Want to get published? Know how to write a treatment, an abstract, etc., for example. I'm not talking grooming as in assimilation, but professional training to help a potential professional move forward, someone who didn't go to the "right" college and have the "right" networks, which are very much tied to economic and prestige-based success.
The point is not assimilation, it's how to get more kinds of voices represented in positions of relative power, period.
It's funny, Lauren: we actually talked about this at our last Feministing retreat - I think a kick ass mentoring project would be such an amazing thing to work on. In some ways, I hope the Community blog will morph into something like that. In any case, we should talk about this offline if you're feeling it!
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to that hot tub - the wolves are getting antsy. ;)
Thanks Lauren. I appreciate you weighing in again.
I think what you're talking about is some sort of feminist training machine (like YP4, but feminist style), which I also think would be awesome. I went to the Woodhull Institute, and though I found my experiences there flawed in lots of ways, it served to introduce me to amazing mentors and the field of feminist writing. I would love to be part of any effort that creates more opportunities to train young women from diverse backgrounds.
The problem with "visibility"--in this context--is that it is based on a whole very entrenched system where book deals lead to publicity lead to television and radio opportunities lead to speaking engagements etc. We're not, in my opinion, going to be able to upturn the entire way that major media conglomerates do business, but we can get more diverse women (in terms of race, class etc.) into the pipeline so that Jess or me or Amanda aren't the only ones battling O'Reilly or whatever. In the meantime, at feministing we strive to recommend not Jess or I for lots of media opportunities, the Women's Media Center is training progressive groups of women to do media, and I'm going to say yes if it means the feminist pov gets out there or not at all.
It's a lot of short term and long term thinking all at the same time.
There is a group in LA that is supporting young women in finding their voices. It doesn't have a "feminist" slant perse but as a group of women mentoring the next generation I think it is a step toward what you are envisioning.
http://www.writegirl.org/
Courtney,
I'm wasn't angry that you have privilege. (so do i, in many ways!) I wasn't angry that you have a job I'm totally jealous of (I am!) or that you eat sushi (which is delicious). Its just the way it was written-- it seemed flippant and arrogant (and not very feminist-critical-perspectivey?) I realize you didn't mean it that way at all. And I think you're awesome. Did I mention that? But the thing is, just cause you're awesome in many other ways doesn't mean that criticism about that post wasn't legitimate. And it wasn't coming from a place like, you need street cred, or you don't deserve what men have had for so long. That's sort of unfair to reduce it to just that.
Your work is important. And badass. And your posts are normally too. But that doesn't mean that all the different people who were sort of turned off by it didn't have a legitimate point.
A few people are really hung up on the sushi! In my neighborhood, a "sushi regular" is comparable in price to a meal in a crappy family chain restaurant. Unless everyone is eating rice and beans for every single meal, you might get to splurge every once in a while.
Privilege for the most part is contextual. You can be living under the most dire circumstances and meet a new significant other who makes you think you're the luckiest person on Earth. You can also have the world at your fingertips, and an ingrown toenail will make your life Hell. Somewhere in this world is one person who is truly the least privileged individual alive. He or she is the curve by which the rest of us are judged on our own privilege.
Privilege can also be pendulous. One minute, everything is going as it should, and the next you're struggling to get out of bed or even survive. These experiences are valuable, since you can both empathize with those not as lucky as you are, and realize that certain factors associated with privilege sometimes make no difference in the level of your own mental health.
I'd wager that anyone who is able bodied and enlightened enough to be reading this is definitely "privileged." If you're checking this blog, congratulations, you're not in a vegetative state. Congratulations, you're not birthing your baby in a home with no running water and questionable medical resources in a third world country. If you're in an active war zone, congratulations - you might actually be reading this, but will undoubtedly have to be offline soon enough to ensure a speedy escape in case of evacuation.
I was snickering while reading a response from the woman who bought a condo (as if I could ever afford that), and was now thinking of moving into Dad's basement. Well, shit...my dad's new (smaller) home doesn't even have a basement. So there (Oh yeah, what 401K??)!
Some of the Faux Real responses were especially hilarious. If you are able to bicker and dissect the spectrum of privilege with such outrage all day, guess what that makes you? A dude named "Brian" was especially offended by the economic downturn post...evidently he doesn't believe that positive attitudes are an important factor in survival (ask my grandma).
I make an effort to keep up with current events covering many issues, but these responses honestly made me want to cover my eyes and mutter, "...agh, WORDS!" I mean really? You're going to angrily type on your keyboard because one person's situation does not match your own? How many of you would have been able to keep your composure across from O'Reilly (not to mention, I'm sure his minions would be delighted to see all the negative responses to these posts).
To illustrate one example, Gwyneth Paltrow's site is ridiculous, and I believe she is completely out of touch with most people. However, I sure as hell don't feel the need to analyze every entry with outrage. She means well in her own way, but I just choose not to read.
I was just thinking about this today too. It looks to me like the financial crisis was a gigantic robbery where the winners get to retire for life with enough in their bank accounts to support them and their families for generations.
Various cycles of this have happened before: the earlier recessions and downsizing exercises also filled their pockets at the expense of people they considered disposable.
The big shock now is that the robbers have moved up the food chain and wealthy people are now being hit. Lots of them are going to slide into the uninsured, homeless netherworld of people they hate so much right now.
Kind of reminds me of a Bob Dylan song, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues.
But, Dylan seems to be gloating about someone's downfall - Schadenfreude? I suppose I can't help but feel a little of that but it is rather shameful. I can only hope that gets edged out by compassion and the hope that people on the "safe" end of the food chain will see that they're going to be next - and do their bit with the power they still have - to help make things right.
And what that had to do with the topic at hand is - that privilege is on shaky ground, and the shakier it is, the more one wants to protect it. It's an easy environment for divide-and-conquer tactics. It only does us good to find a way to stick together.
There was just too much irony in the comments to the original post, Lauren's response, and this post. Why? Because you're all displaying your privilege while complaining about Courtney.
How many of these comments were written by people who have the time to browse on their computers at work? How many of you have internet access at home? And how many people busting there ass trying to get by on $15,000 a year from McDonald's would love to have a cushy office jobs where they get to dick around on the computer instead of work? Where the worst thing they have to do is get up early enough to be at work by 8:00. You're online talking about how hard it is to make ends mee. There are people out there who are working two minimum wage jobs. They only have time to get to the internet when the can catch a bus to the library. And you're talking crap about someone else's privilege? Really? You're as blind to your own privilege as you accuse Courtney of being to hers.
Also, she was giving you a day in the life. I have plenty of days where I can sit here and comment on feministing all day if I wanted to. Then there are day where I don't even get a lunch break because there isn't a second to be spared. It's natural ebb and flow of my job. I'm guessing freelance writing is a lot like that. I'm guessing a lot of you have jobs like that. That's why you commenting on feministing.
That is the same thing I was thinking. Ironically I wrote a post about it. Everyone here has massive privilege in having hte time and ability to spend on the internet criticizing other's. It's more important that when we're in the real world we walk the talk and not just bitch about other feminists
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/being-an-ally/
My goodness my spelling was bad in that post.
Good point, it is ironic, but not too surprising, at least not to me.
The biggest victims are always the people with the most privlege.
Who complains more about his marriage than the guy who beats his wife?
Americans are chronic whiners. America is also the most powerful country on Earth. Coincedence?
Hitler was a huge victim. Poor guy, who just couldn't catch a break from the Jews.
People who complain a lot generally have power and therefore correctly realize that people might actually listen to what they say. Witness Richard Nixon's victimization at the hands of the effete liberals. The oppression of Rush Limbaugh by the feminazis. The botched trial of OJ Simpson, clearly the greatest victim of institutionalized racisim in the 20th century. Rich people getting robbed through high taxes, beautiful people "not being taken seriously," etc.
I could go on.
This thread has been kind of eye-opening for me.
I am a white privileged feminist. I have never had to worry about where the next dollar is coming from in a significant way. I have a stable job, I can pay my rent. I can eat sushi and go to yoga. So I have some affinities with Courtney. And I have felt defensive about my privileges, so I get it.
But while I do understand her ruminations above were made in good faith, and with the genuine intention to address this issue, they sounded like a bit of a non-apology to me. And, well, I don't get it. I don't get why observations about someone else's privilege will be met by assertions like "I won't pretend that I'm not happy or striving for balance or economically stable because it gives me street cred in feminist circles."
It seems to me this misses the point, and to be direct about it: Courtney, I think people were less offended by the existence of your privilege than they were by your apparent blitheness about it, and I'm not sure this post answers that. Superior acts of empathy are great and important. But they do not negate privilege. They do not negate the fact that you still, apparently, don't understand why some people felt like you were rubbing their noses in it. I get that you think you were trying to tell them what "freelancing is like," but... I'm not sure accounts of daily routines like that are the way to achieve this. I'm not sure that you talking about how happy you are is really that relevant to those concerns.
In short, no one was calling you to asceticism, at least not that I read. They were saying something like - why doesn't Courtney understand that her lifestyle is not something anyone could take up tomorrow? What is her account for how someone acts as a "professional feminist" when she is not so lucky as to be able to live with yoga and sushi and short days? Why does she seem more interested in her own day than in the struggles of other people to change their lives and circumstances? These are all important questions, and I don't think they are answered here.
Two pop culture metaphors:
(1) Discussions of privilege, especially by the relatively privileged themselves, reminds me of the disclaimer in the Old Glory Robot Insurance commercial: "People denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves."
(2) As for how tough people have it, you have nothing on the childhoods of the Four Yorkshiremen.
This.
Also, that sketch is hilarious. I love how they can't keep from cracking up themselves.
Props for posting the Four Yorkshiremen. Brilliant...
I think this has sparked a useful conversation and debate on privilege, but I'm unsure as to why it began. Courtney simply posted a glimpse into a day in her life for people who are curious as to what how one of the Feministing blog authors and noted author spends her work day. She then invited others to do the same, thus giving others an opportunity to share their lives and struggles and demonstrate the ways in which privilege works for or against them, and instead, she was criticized for it. Courtney's initial post reminded me of a quote by Muriel Rukeyeser... "What would happen if one woman told the truth about her life? The world would split open." The world didn't split open, but it sure seems as if Feministing's readers are divided.
I recently wrote about a day in my life to give people an idea of what kinds of struggles and frustrations people with ADD encounter regularly. Should I have first qualified my post with a list of all the ways in which I am privileged and not privileged? Privilege is always a useful discussion to have, but it wasn't germane to the intended purpose for my post just as Courtney's post was not intended to gloat about her privileged status. She was simply sharing her life with us, that's all.
I'm a writer, too, and it's a hard business for anyone to break into, even for the most privileged among us. I'm lucky; I have a professional gig that gives a regular paycheck -- freelance writing is much more unstable, at least budget-wise. Courtney has every right to be proud of what she's accomplished. Her privileges and any advantages she might have gleaned from them do not negate the fact that it took a lot of work and sacrifices to get to where she's at today. Privilege might have given her a map, but Courtney still had to navigate it.
I think that Courtney has always been frank of the ways in which she is privileged and, in turn, has used those privileges in a way that benefits all women, privileged and underprivileged. I guess I don't understand what is expected of her here. She's already cognizant of the ways in which privilege manifests itself and writes useful conversations about it and other issues that affect women's lives. Should she quit her job? Choose Ramen Noodles over fruit? Give up her yoga class? And, is the fact that Courtney is privileged in some aspects make details of her life or her voice any less legitimate, interesting or valuable?
I can't bear to read most of the other comments, so I apologize if someone has said it before or better than I can, but much like male feminists, those with class/race/etc. privilege need to remember to center people who are less privileged at the heart of their work if they're trying to be an ally.
That means, among other things, 1. resisting the temptation to try to 'lead' the discussion, work, committee, etc. Necessarily implied is 2. Listening to the voices of people who you are trying to ally with, and giving them more weight than those who share your privilege. 3. Try to emulate Courtney's introspective thoughtfulness about your own privilege whenever you're called on it.
The original 'day in the life of' post failed at #s 1, and to a lesser extent 2, in a big way. Perhaps it would have been better if you had just asked for different day in the life comments before posting your own. Oh well, c'est la vie. It's certainly opened up a great conversation about privilege that we all need to have.
I think this comment cuts to the issue pretty clearly - a nice combination of straight-forward analysis and constructive recommendations.
I read feministing everyday and this is the first time I have commented... Courtney, this is one of your best posts ever, and you are one of my favorite bloggers. You are a great writer and this post did such a good job articulating an important challenge for the feminist movement. You are brave to work these things out publicly, in an honest way. As a college student, I hope I can find a way to share the resources I have as you suggested.
Damn great post. I agree one hundred percent!
Courtney wasn't 'more interested in her own day' and wasn't trying to 'lead' anything.
She was simply posting about a day in her life.
Once again, it isn't a crime to start work at 11. Some days Courtney may be writing until 2am, we don't know that.
I do think the point is that we should be aiming to level up. Someone already pointed out that the left has a tendency to want to bring everyone down. Also, as women, we are socialised to be unassertive, to believe we don't deserve success, to cut down tall poppies.
And I think mentoring, networking etc. are great ideas. I'm part of the women's network in my workplace (and guess what, one of its leaders is a black woman. Disclaimer: black would be the correct word to use in the UK, where I am from. 'People of colour' would sound a bit, well, off in the UK. Just saying, so that I don't sound racist.)
I don't disagree that making people from more amrginalised and disadvantaged communities 'the same' is the answer. Like I don't think women should have to emulate men in their behaviour to get ahead at work, by being aggressive, for example. So yeah, mentoring etc. should be done sensitively to these things. I think, though, it's simply about sensitivity and valuing people as individuals. It's a balance. Things like commenting on a mentee's clothes, hairstyle, etc. I can see would be out (tell that to the Bank of England, please) - since not everyone can afford expensive clothes, for example - but then, some aspects of appearance are a personal choice. It's a balance. Yes, people *shouldn't* judge by appearances, accent, or a manner that may appear lacking in assertiveness (something I have had issues with myself, since women are socialised to be non-confrontational and all) - or too assertive (a way of speaking that may seem aggressive to your average white middle-class person may just be down to culture). It's a difficult one; no-one wants to feel they can't be themselves, and it is the responsibility of the more priveleged to *listen* to the less so without judging. At the same time, if a few small changes make historically oppressed people more able to succeed, to be listened to, they can in turn help others up. And mentees are free to ignore advice if they wish. It's not, or shouldn't be, about 'this is how to do it because it's my way' - that isn't effective mentoring anyway. It's 'this worked for me, maybe it will for you, try it'. It's respectful, sensitive and encourages the person to then go on and mentor others. I think sharing knowledge and skills is vital, actually.
Haven't men always had the 'old boys' network'?
(Not to say that network is exactly to be emulated, in the worst 'golf and strip clubs' sense, as not all men would be into that, but not all networking and sharing men do is like that. At least in the UK, most workplaces do make some effort to be inclusive of everyone).
It's about sharing privelege.
Courtney has a great point about privelege being rooted in secrecy. For example, if women can see what their male colleagues get paid, they know if they are being paid less due to discrimination, and can act on it.
And yes, it is funny how those criticising Courtney are also, er, priveleged enough to 'sit around on the Internet all day'. Someone who works in McDonald's and would have to be very careful to have the bus fare to the library, in order to use the Internet, would laugh. Scornfully.
It's a privelege, in a way, to be able to say that money doesn't matter. Ask a poor person if they'd like more money. Seriously.
Great post. Exactly what comments would be thrown down if she posted on a day that she was up burning the midnight oil? Would Courtney be ripped into for obviously being another woman doing too much and working twice what a man would?
I thought the original post was "This is what a FREELANCER does", not "This is what a FEMINIST does". Clearly not everyone is a freelancer.
Oh, and people ripping into Courtney for starting work at 11am or whenever it was are really being blind to their own privelege - being able-bodied and healthy.
Some medical conditions and disabilities mean one can't get up to be in work by 8 or 9am. Depression, chronic fatigue, anything involving pain that may make it hard to sleep?
Or hey, if someone's just an owl who does their best work from 11 to 7, or through the night, they don't necessarily do less work than a lark does. And some people are capable of less for health reasons. (I had a good friend at uni who had depression, and was hurt by people thinking she was being lazy when she didn't study.)
It's not laziness.
And all workplaces should be more flexible about hours of work. Workers who have health problems, disabilities, caring responsibilities, or just work better that way, would all benefit. Workplaces would be a lot more inclusive of everyone that way.
So mocking 'lazy' people is not really the way to be inclusive.
Just saying.
Please quote anyone who used the word lazy to describe courtney's day.
You know, I have chronic depression and battle insomnia, but I have to get to work before 8:30 every morning, for shit pay, because I can't afford to miss a day. Courtney has acknowledged that she has a flexible work schedule, and that is not the norm.
You're coming across as defensive. I'm not sure how pointing out the fact that we are all privileged enough to access the internet is supposed to counter valid criticisms leveled at courtney's original post.
Because it prooves that all of the people making these comments are clueless. You're mad that she didn't put disclaimers about her privilege in her post when just talking about her day-in-the-life. But it never crossed any of you minds to put a disclaimer on the fact that you have privilege. Privilege to have access to the internet. You have to get to work before 8:30. So what? Most people with full time jobs need to be there *by* 8:00. And I have to be at work by 7:30. Where is your disclaimer about your privilege in showing up an hour before me.
Like I said in an above post. Most people posting here have time to post at work. Who the hell care if a person has to be at work by 8 if they don't actually have to do a damn thing for a few hours. I'm an advisor. I saw about 5 students from 7:30 to 11 when I went to lunch. Who gives a shit that I had to be here so early. I might as well have shown up at 11. But there will be times where I am extremely, ridiculously busy. Same with a freelancer. All of this criticism is a bunch of bs.
And this is why I don't comment here much. For the record, I had a job until I got laid off in october, where I was working 4 ten hr shifts from 7:30 to 6. It sucked. It was extremely difficult, and the person who did it before me couldn't do it without overtime. They wouldn't sign off on overtime for me, so I had to do it under the table. Get over it. stop being so defensive, middle and upper class white women. Contemplate this for a while. http://antioppressive.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/six-ways-to-be-an-ally/