Posts tagged privilege

thefullmetalbitch:

1. Being an atheist does not erase privilege.
   1. This includes white privilege.
   2. This also includes cis privilege, CNDP privilege, and het privilege.
   3. Seriously, being an atheist does not erase your white privilege.
2. Criticizing exclusively (majority) non-white religions is racist.
   1. This includes Islam.
   2. The existence of white Muslims does not invalidate this point.
3. Black Christianity is not always hetereosexist.
   1. Black people are not the most heterosexist heterosexists that ever heterosexisted.
   2. Black queer/gay/lesbian/non-straight/pansexual/asexual people exist too.
4. Mestiz@s are not the root cause of sexism.
   1. Neither is Latin American Christianity.
   2. You do realize Christianity was imported, right?
5. Atheists are not the only oppressed religious group.
   1. Muslims are oppressed too.
   2. Often by white atheists.
6. Islam is not evil.
   1. Neither are hijabs or niqabs.
   2. Neither is Vodun/voodoo/hoodoo.
   3. Neither is any other religion…
   4. …unless it’s World Church of the Creator / The Creativity Movement…
      1. Which is white supremacist.
   5. …or the Westboro Baptist Church.
      1. Who even the KKK hates.
7. Evolutionary psychology is sexist, racist, cissexist, ableist, and heterosexist.
   1. This includes evolutionary psychology that (supposedly) supports atheism.
   2. Supporting evo-psych means
      1. You have not done your homework, or
      2. You are prejudiced.
8. Other people’s clothing is not your business.
   1. Including religious articles of clothing.
   2. Including hijabs, headwraps, niqabs, burkas, crosses, crucifixes, pentacles, and other symbols.
   3. Even if you really don’t like it.
   4. Even if it’s really religious.
9. Acknowledge other people’s identities.
   1. Even if you’re uncomfortable with them.
      1. Especially if you’re uncomfortable,
         • Because they have racial, sexual, cultural, or disabled identity
10. Paganism is not ‘atheism-lite’.
    1. Neither is agnosticism.
    2. Neither are indigenous religions.
11. There is no such thing as ‘ironic’ bigotry.
    1. Unless it’s atheists whining about Christmas.
       1. Seriously, I thought only evangelicals did that.
12. Trans people are not your special little puzzles.
    1. Neither are autistic / disabled people.
       1. I don’t care if you’re a scientist. We’re still not your Rubik’s Cubes.
13. Not everything should be about science.
    1. There. I said it.
14. PoC are not the reason why a lot of people are wary of atheists.
    1. It’s because of white/het/cis/CND atheists.
       1. Yes, including you.
15. Demanding people educate you is oppressive.
    1. Even if you’re ‘being really nice about it’.
       1. Nice =/= good.
16. Religions are not inherently oppressive.
    1. Did you know that hijabs and niqabs are cultural?
       1. And that many women find them liberating?
17. Using emotion in writing, reasoning, the internet, or decision-making does not mean one is stupid/[silly]/monkey-like/less-evolved/other ableist, racist, eugenicist terms.
    1. It means one is a fucking human being.
18. Disability is not a flaw in evolution.
    1. Disabled people will not die out with evolution.
    2. Fuck you.
19. Being atheist does not mean you are automatically not allistic.
    1. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
       1. You can use Google.
20. Being a queer atheist does not make you white.
    1. Seriously, enough with this racist bullshit.
21. Cultural appropriation is also done by atheists.
    1. Deal with it.
22. There are no purple people.
    1. You should know this.
23. Making fun of ‘them crazy darkies doin’ their ridick voodoo’ is racist, ableist, and the reason why a LOT of black atheists will not have anything to do with you.
    1. Satire is a tool that works when aimed upwards, at the most powerful people.
       1. Black people are not the most powerful people.
          • Especially black people practicing voodoo.
24. No religion is more ridiculous than any other.
    1. Including Mormonism.
    2. …but some have more power, and are therefore better to make fun of.
       1. Like Mormonism.
25. Being colorblind is only okay if you literally cannot see or distinguish colors.
    1. Otherwise, it’s racist.
26. Religions derive strength and power from the social power of their followers.
    1. Which is why evangelical Christianity is a better target than Black Christianity.
27. Being an agnostic (or bisexual) is not ‘taking the easy way out’.
    1. Really, now?
28. Monosexism is real.
    1. How do I know?
       1. You’re doing it right now.
    2. And yes, queer can be a term for polysexual.
29. If you think black people are mean to you,
    1. You’re probably white,
       1. And won’t say you are
          • Because white people never say they’re white.
30. The terms ‘hermophradite’ ‘third sex’ and ‘biological gender’ are
    1. Essentialist,
    2. Bigoted,
    3. Cissexist,
    4. Anti-intersex
    5. And not up for debate.
31. If you refuse to identify your privileged identities,
    1. I’m going to assume you just think you’re ‘normal’
       1. And moderate you.
32. Refusing to acknowledge the power of environment and social structure
    1. Is bigoted
    2. And means you’re a biological essentialist.
33. Intersex people exist.
    1. Deal with it.
    2. And no, they are not ‘miracles of evolution’.
       1. I thought you didn’t believe in miracles.
34. Freedom does not just mean ‘freedom to be an atheist and make the choices I would make’. It means freedom to make even choices I don’t like.
    1. Including religious choices.
35. Social justice / social uprooting / anti-oppression is not about you and your feelings.
    1. Nobody cares about white guilt.
    2. Making everything about your feelings is oppressive.
36. If you’re offended,
    1. Get over it.
    2. Realize that being offended is much better than being oppressed.

(Source: lovelifelivedie.wordpress.com, via fussyfangs)

swanblood:

ordinarywish:

I’m tried of people saying things like, “I accept that people can identify as many things, but…”

When I see this, I hear it like, “I’m not racist, but insert racist comment” or “I’m not sexist, but insert sexist comment.”

If you accept the right of people to identify as they chose, that’s the end of your comment. Full stop.  Adding qualifiers to that is, in fact, not accepting certain people to identify as they actually identify.

Either understand that identifying as otherkin, nonbinary, asexual, and other less common identities are absolutely acceptable OR stop claiming that you actually accept this as a person’s right.

Simple and true.

alexandraerin:

Imagine a minefield… a strip of land seeded with traps that will maim or kill you if you put one foot in the wrong place. What’s the wrong place? You’ll know when you step there. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. The pattern that gets you safely through one part might get you killed in another part.

It isn’t that every square inch of soil in the minefield means certain death, of course. But what would the ratio of safe ground to mined ground have to be before you could actually relax, before you could feel safe… before you could be safe, in practical terms?

Imagine that you and your entire family are woken up at dawn every day and made to cross the minefield in order to just live your lives. You’re not allowed to take the same route as each other. You have to watch each other as you make your way through an invisible deadly maze, never knowing if today will be the day but always knowing that it could be.

And one day, while you’re in the middle of that maze, watching your children or your siblings pick their way carefully around you, you say, “I HATE EVERY LAST INCH OF THIS FUCKING MINEFIELD.”

And then you hear a voice from up above you, from someone who doesn’t have to walk the minefield… someone who’s allowed to use a footbridge to bypass it every day while you’re inching your way through it, someone who gets a head start on everything compared to you and yours because they don’t have to go through the minefield…

And the voice says, “That isn’t fair. Sure, some of the minefield will kill you if you step on it, but it isn’t all like that.”

(via kiriamaya)

racismschool:

Examples of what white privilege deniers THINK it means to be told to “Check Your Privilege.”

• Apologize for being white
• Believe white is bad or wrong
• Be ashamed of being white
• Feel guilty for being white

Examples of what people ACTUALLY mean when they say “Check Your Privilege.”

• You are inserting yourself into a conversation where you shouldn’t be. Acknowledge what you are doing, apologize and stop it.
• You are making my pain about you.  Acknowledge what you are doing, apologize and stop it.
• You are belittling my pain.  Acknowledge what you are doing, apologize and stop it.
• You are making my fears concerns and troubles less important than your annoyance about me talking about my experience.  Acknowledge what you are doing, apologize and stop it.

Now What?

If you believe that PoC want you to apologize for having white privilege, you are wrong. To be honest, I don’t get why you would think that in the first place. Let’s pretend for a second that I DO want you to apologize for having white privilege. Then, let’s pretend that you actually do apologize to me. How does that help me in ANY way? You see, some of you believe that we want to take away what you have or we want you to be ashamed of what you have. This is not the case. We want to be treated like human beings and we want you to understand that you don’t get to assert yourself or your feelings ABOUT OUR FEELINGS onto us or into our conversations.

Your guilt over white privilege also does me no good. You feel guilty? Okay and…? What does that do for either of us? If anything, your guilt tends to bring out MORE racism, not less. We don’t want to be treated BETTER, we want to be treated EQUALLY. Don’t pretend you like Black Joe when Black Joe is an asshole. That does not prove to me that you aren’t racist, it proves that you ARE racist because you are ONLY “Friends” with him BECAUSE he’s black.

Again…how does that help me in any way?

So you want to know what you should do about your White Privilege? See the second set of examples and follow them to the letter. Know that even if society tells you otherwise, you are not better, more important or more valid than anyone else. Know that your opinion should not be something you hold higher. Especially in situations you have not personally lived through. Generally, stop making things about you. That’s really the basics. No one believes that things are going to change so drastically that white privilege will disappear. We are all realistic people. It isn’t about taking something away from you. It is about you not trying to add you to our lives. It’s not about you. If you can only remember one thing, let that be it. It is not about you.

rattyhugs:

racismschool:

I see a lot of questions around “When” an ally should speak up. I would never be able to go over each and ever possible scenario but I can give you a few rules of thumb. As with most “ally” discussions this can often be applied to other areas but in keeping with theme, this will be about anti-racism allies:

• Speak up when the offended party is not around- You and your friend are hanging out. You are both white, they say something racist. Speak up. You need to speak up for two reasons. 1-To let them know what they said was wrong and 2-To let them know that YOU don’t think it is okay. Always remember, silence is acceptance.
• Speak up until you are told otherwise- You (a white person) your friend (a white person) and another friend (a Black person) are all hanging out. Your white friend says something racist. Speak up. For the same reason’s as listed above. However, if the Black person says to let it go, let it go. It does NOT mean that the Black person agrees with what was said, it (more often than not) means that they feel like the argument is both futile and will single THEM out. This is not an easy place to be in, especially if you are the only person of color in the room. In many cases, you will be asked to stop just so they can not have to be the center of attention anymore. Please comply with the wishes of the PoC.
• Never speak up- You (a white person) your friend (a Black person) and another friend (a Black person) are hanging out. One Black person says something about the Black race and the other friend disagrees. This turns into a discussion. Say nothing. You can however speak up if your opinion is asked for-but be warned. If you are the minority white person in the situation, know that human nature will likely cause the person you disagree with to say “This person doesn’t know.” They would not necessarily be wrong about that. Still, this is something that, in this situation I would strongly encourage you to stay out of altogether.
• Know your place- This is the one that causes the most problems for allies. It’s really about knowing when to stop. Okay, you (a white person) are in a racial conversation with your friend (a Black person) this is an open conversation and the Black person has let you know that they are comfortable having this conversation. Now, you start asking questions about their experience or their view point as a Black person. This is perfectly fine if you have PREVIOUSLY been given the okay. Where this get’s tricky for some is when an opinion is given that you don’t agree with. It seems to be very difficult to remember that the experience you are asking for is that of the other person’s. The other person who has a vastly different experience than yourself. When they say something you don’t agree with, do not, I repeat DO NOT DISMISS THEIR WORDS. You disagreeing does not make you right. There is a VERY good chance that your experience and their experience are two very different things. The conversation itself (as long as you’ve been given the okay) is perfectly fine. Disagreeing is perfectly fine. However, talking over, dismissing, belittling or even arguing about who is right is a big NO-NO. This is not and never can be a situation of “I am right and you are wrong” because in this particular case, you think you are comparing green apples to red apples when in fact, you are comparing green apples to ice cream. Two very different perspectives and that is SO IMPORTANT to always remember as an ally. 

good post and applies to many things not just racism

mehreenkasana:

innovateafrica:

You must have heard of the viral video created by Invisible Children (IC), a U.S. organization that has launched a one-year campaign (expires December 31, 2012) to eliminate Joseph Kony, the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group in Northern Uganda that has been embroiled in civil conflict with the Ugandan government for 25+ years. The LRA has admittedly used atrocious tactics such as abductions to engage children in conflict, using boys as soldiers and girls as sex slaves. Needless to say, Kony and LRA must go. That’s where my agreement begins and ends with Invisible Children’s work. I appreciate the organization’s commitment to the issue and can see its good intent, but I strongly question the group’s approach, strategy, and work. Below are some of the reasons why.

Lack of context and nuance: in the video, the founder of Invisible Children tells his young son that Kony is a bad guy and he must go. Daddy will work on making sure he is caught. He states, “if we succeed, we change the course of human history.” Such a humble undertaking! Simply, a long socioeconomic and political conflict that has lasted 25+ years and engaged multiple states and actors has been reduced to a story of the good vs bad guy. And if a three-year-old can understand it, so can you. You don’t have to learn anything about the children, Uganda, or Africa. You just have to make calls, put up flyers, sings songs, and you will liberate a poor, forgotten, and invisible people. 

This approach obviously denies realities on the ground, inflates fantasies abroad, and strips Ugandans of their agency, dignity and humanity- the complexity of their story and history. The work, consequence, and impact are all focused on Uganda, but the agency, accountability, and resources lie among young American students. Clearly a dangerous imbalance of power and influence; one that can have adverse lasting effects on how and what people know of Uganda. It reduces the story of Northern Uganda, and perhaps even all of Uganda, into the dreaded single narrative of need and war, followed by western resolve and rescue. As we have seen from the past, without nuance and context, these stories stick in the collective memory of everyday people for years in their simplest forms: Uganda becomes wretched war. Whatever good IC may advance in raising more awareness on the issue or even contributing to the capture of Joseph Kony, it can never do enough to erase this unintended (I hope) impact.

Invisible to whom: these children have been very visible to their communities for years. After all, they’re somebody’s child, brother, sister, friend, niece, nephew, or neighbor. They’ve been visible to the shopkeepers and vendors in town who protected them. They’ve been visible to the family members who lost them and the community that cared for them. It’s because they’re so visible that Concerned Parents Association opened its doors in the 1990’s, after LRA abducted about 200 girls from a secondary school dormitory, to advocate for and bring to international light their plight. It’s because they’re visible that young people, including returnees from abductions, started Concerned Children and Youth Association. They’re visible to the people that matter, but apparently not to IC.  The language we use in social change often denotes the approach we take, even if subconsciously. Since the children appear to be invisible to IC, then perhaps it’s clear why they’re represented as voiceless, dependent, and dis-empowered.  

The dis-empowering and reductive narrative: the Invisible Children narrative on Uganda is one that paints the people as victims, lacking agency, voice, will, or power. It calls upon an external cadre of American students to liberate them by removing the bad guy who is causing their suffering. Well, this is a misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. Fortunately, there are plenty of examples of child and youth advocates who have been fighting to address the very issues at the heart of IC’s work. Want evidence? In addition to the organizations I list above, also look at Art for Children, Friends of Orphans, and Children Chance International. It doesn’t quiet match the victim narrative, does it? I understand that IC is a US-based organization working to change US policy. But, it doesn’t absolve it from the responsibility of telling a more complete story, one that shows the challenges and trials along side the strength, resilience, and transformational work of affected communities.

Revival of the White savior: if you have watched the Invisible Children video and followed the organization’s work in the past, you will note a certain messianic/savior undertone to it all. “I will do anything I can to stop him,” declares the founder in the video. It’s quite individualistic and reeks of the dated colonial views of Africa and Africans as helpless beings who need to be saved and civilized. Where in that video do you see the agency of Ugandans? Where in that Video do you see Jacob open his eyes wide at the mere possibility of his own strength, as Jennifer Lentfer of How Matters describes here? Can we point out the problem with having one child speak on the desires, dreams, and hopes of a whole nation? I don’t even want to mention the paternalistic tone with which Jacob and Uganda (when did it become part of central Africa by the way?) are described, not excluding the condescending use of subtitles for someone who is clearly speaking English.

How many times in history do we have to see this model to know that it doesn’t work? Even if IC succeeds in bringing about short-term change (i.e. increased awareness or even the killing of Kony) it won’t eliminate Northern Uganda’s problems overnight. It won’t heal and sustain communities. In this era of protest and the protester, we have seen that change is best achieved when it comes from within. Let Ugandans champion their own, IC!

Privilege of giving: that was quiet a 30-minute production? Where did they get the resources? How do they have that reach? Well, in the nonprofit world, the one thing that we have to learn, especially as Africans, is that privilege begets privilege. The IC video is another reminder of the ways in which privilege infiltrates the social justice world and determines the voices and organizations that are heard; simply those that can afford to be heard. There are several local organizations that could offer a nuanced and contextualized perspective on and solutions to the Northern Uganda conflict. They don’t have IC’s reach. They simple weren’t born into the world of financial, racial, social, and geopolitical privilege IC members are.  

Lack of Africans in leadership: Invisible Children’s US staff is comprised exclusively of Americans, as is the entire Board. How do you represent Uganda and not have Ugandans in leadership? Couldn’t the organization find a single Ugandan? An African? Did it even think about that? Does that matter to current staff and board members? I understand that IC’s main audience is American and its focus is on American action. However, when your work and consequence affect a different group of people than your target audience, you must make it a priority to engage the voices of the affected population in a real and meaningful way, in places and spaces where programs are designed, strategies dissected, and decisions are made.

Clearly, I think people should work across borders to address global issues. Obviously, there is a role for Americans in this issue. The problem here is the lack of balance on who speaks for Uganda (and Africa) and how. We need approaches that are strategic and respectful of the local reality, that build on the action and desires of local activists and organizers, and act as partners and allies, not owners and drivers. When it comes to Africa, we have seen the IC approach  play out time and time again, whether it was Ethiopia in the 1980s, Somalia in the early 2000s to date, Darfur in 2004, or now. History is on our side and it shows that these types of approaches often fail. At some point, we have to say enough is enough. Africans, raise your voice! Now and into the future.

For more on the IC campaign, please read:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/uganda.aspx

http://ericswanderings.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/invisible-children-and-joseph-kony/

http://www.how-matters.org/2012/03/06/good-guys-bad-guys/

This entire post is a brilliant take down of the Invisible Children campaign and how it over-simplifies the very complex issue of Kony and his brutal tactics. Highly recommended.

(via kiriamaya)

whencylonsdream:

Like, even from people that are fucking awesome about everything else.

It never seems to cross peoples minds to be inclusive towards trans women.

It never seems to cross peoples minds to acknowledge trans women.

It never seems to cross peoples minds that without inclusive and acknowledging statements, trans women need to assume that we aren’t wanted.

We NEED to do this because we are tired as fuck of assuming that we are being included.

We are tired of coming into women’s groups and being victimized and abused.

We are tired of going to rape crisis centers and being turned away because our existence is triggering.

We are tired of wanting a safe space and then being told WE are the rapists, the deceivers, the monsters, and the child molesters.

We are tired of being the punchline and the joke. The fetish object and “best of both worlds” so long as we’re gone by morning.

Never mind the fact that many of us are victims of rape.

That many of us have dealt with child abuse.

That many of us have been physically assaulted.

That all of us live and deal with the constant deceptive nature of cis people.

We NEED to assume we aren’t wanted. Because the whole wide world is telling us we’re trash and we can’t be arsed to assume that you actually meant to include us when you said fucking nothing.

We don’t have the fucking luxury to assume that we are being included.

So yeah…

Make it damn clear that you want us around.

Make it clear that you won’t put up with transmisogyny.

Make it clear that you view us as women. That you view us as fucking people.

I’d like to see some fucking solidarity, but I wonder if this will even be reblogged?

And if it is reblogged I wonder how many people that aren’t trans women will do so?

I’m honestly not betting much, so I guess we’ll see.

And this is why I am so incredibly irritated with our campus’s Women’s Center putting a trans* symbol on their “Gender Equity Week” and then only using “gender” (not “gender identity”), nowhere mentioning trans* people of any sort, talking about women-centered birth, hosting a “Vagina HerStories” program for “self-identified womyn” (featuring mainly non-binary performers, and ignoring feedback about the program description’s cissexism and the transmisogynist history of the word “womyn”).  jesus.  No your inclusive intentions are not implicitly understood, nor have you executed them at all.

(via angerliz)

eateroftrees:

amianym:

swanblood:

scar-lip asked: I feel like “oppression” is a word that needs a solider definition. There’s different versions of it, and saying “oppression” doesn’t mean “in the way that POC/trans folk/etc are”. I saw someone say that having severe acne causes oppression, just not systemic/institutionalized, and they may have had a point. If the way people treat you for X interferes with your life or even pushes you to suicide, that seems like a kind of oppression. Not saying all otherkin are, but just a thought.

*nod* It’s an interesting point, and I never am sure what I think, but I think we definitely should be able to discuss it.

I agree that we need to have a solider definition of the word. Right now, I don’t feel like I know what oppression means very well. There also is the literal meaning as well as the meanings that it suggests… for example, there is nothing about the definition of oppression that means people have to be physically harmed, but that is often what people associate with it. So, that association is important to bring in.

I think the most important thing is, even if we don’t call it oppression, we need a word for what happens when people harass people to suicide or self-harm because of their identity. And I think the way you said, “interferes with your life”, is quite good. It can seriously interfere with your life and health and functioning, whether it’s oppression or not.

But I would definitely like to discuss what it is that oppression means, how we should define it.

I feel that it might be useful to make a distinction along the lines of like

There being oppressions that are enacted because a group deviates from a privileged norm (which applies to all oppressions), but there being other oppressions that exist both because the class deviates from a norm and is of an oppressed class. This makes oppression in the second sense a subtype of the broader first sense.

Oppressions which may once have existed only in that they are not privileges, become more specific and precedented as a class gains visibility. The first type largely operates by erasure, and by forcing further invisibility when the privileged norm is challenged. The subtype involves more pervasive stereotyping, laws being made to limit people of oppressed classes, etc. - the characteristics generally cited when people object to the naming of ‘kin bashing and other things as oppression. The supertype of oppression progresses into the subtype as a group’s visibility increases and norms are directly confronted.

I was going to suggest using “marginalization” or “disprivilege” for groups that deviate from a norm but are not specifically oppressed, but my intention was to create a hierarchy of which disprivileges are more violent or have a greater magnitude. To me it sounded trivializing. Furthermore, there don’t seem to be any consistent predictors of the “degree” of an oppression, pretending for a moment that degree can be evaluated. For instance, I am oppressed, uncontroversially, for my perceived femaleness, but on a day-to-day basis I feel much more endangered for my plurali- WHOOPS.

Which brings up a further point: Everyone’s sets of privileges and disprivileges mediate, intensify, and transform each other. Oppressions that are huge and awful for one person may be barely a blip on another’s radar, and it really can’t be predicted that one will always be experienced as more violent and limiting than another.

WE HAVE LEARNED: Some oppressions are more erasure-heavy, and some are both erasure-heavy (but less effectively) and also have… property-I-am-grasping-for-a-name-for. This is a continuum, not a binary. Those which start out as the former gradually are confronted and grow into the latter. The severity of an oppression does not seem tied to any specific property; furthermore, severity varies significantly between individuals. OPPRESSION IS COMPLICATED FOREVER.

I’ve called it “active” and “passive” oppression in the past although erasure most definitely can be an active choice (like whenever I look at discussion of accessibility in software there’s almost always a ‘but it’s not really worth accomidating this group because its rare’.  Which is “passive” by that dichotomy—it’s not saying “pft like r****d’s want to use OUR software”.*  But it’s obviously a conscious, active decision.)

So.

That doesn’t really help.

Personally I’ve found oppression is largely secondary in my experience to the problems brought about by abuse (which often relates to privilege/disprivilege but it’s not required at all), but obviously this is not the case for everyone, so yeah, I wouldn’t think any scale should (or would) imply hierarchy of legitimacy.

Also the question of whether or not otherkin (or plural systems) are frequently abused is kind of a bit unambiguous.  (And in fact all this “but you aren’t REALLY oppressed” stuff seems like fucking blatant abuse apologism, regardless of whether otherkin meet any definition of oppression, because there’s very obviously a problem, but it’s putting semantic accuracy over actually doing anything.

Anyway I definitely think the distinction is fairly useful to make, but it’s pretty clear both are oppression.

(via amianym)