[lbo-talk] Check your privilege?

Tayssir John Gabbour tjg at pentaside.org
Mon Aug 19 11:11:26 PDT 2013


While I was never comfortable with the "check your privileges" term, I've really tried to understand it.

I like to translate it to "undermine your privilege". To me, that means learning a) how these privileges affect discussion/action, and b) what tactics disrupt these inequitable dynamics.

(It helps to communicate I'm doing this, and solicit help. It's a skill to learn and get better at.)

I agree that our dynamics can turn corrosive... but I also think there's two sides to each story. Many guys I meet are deeply incapable of observing their aggression and putdowns; they lash out when it's pointed out to them. (And these people can be perfectly friendly, even flatterers normally; hard workers too.) A movement which caters to their whims will fail to attract diverse non-tokens who won't tolerate playing enabler.

Also, I like to attend initial meetings, even if I'm silent, because you never, never hear an unbiased and full account. When I'm curious about a conflict, I must investigate both sides personally. Many aren't self-questioning enough to be in the habit of trying to see as the other fellow... Again, lots of talkative/friendly people are like that, but they have blindspots.

All the best,

Tj

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:42 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:


> had anyone figured out why this might be so?
>
> It seems very similar to a certain left tendency to be exceedingly angry
> toward people who aren't on board the leftist clue train. They tend to go
> on and on about how fat, stupid, lazy, and greedy USers are for instance.
> If they'd only get a clue and get on board the leftist klew train, all our
> problems would be arighted. Everyone would be fighting the revolution.
> There's a kind of mean spirited bitterness, a tendency to belitte, attack,
> shame, ridicule with a specific focus on attacking their physical being and
> tastes. It's sort of a "*I* figured it out you lazy fucks, why can't you?"
> sentiment, with the implication being that the people who don't see the
> light are morally culpable.
>
> the tendency seems to assume that getting on board the leftist klewtrain
> is the act of morally righteous individuals.
>
> I used to see this hatred and anger from a sect of radical/cultural
> feminists of the sort where all oppression is rooted first and foremost in
> the sexual domination of women by men. All forms of what they called
> hierarchy flowed from that basic condition.
>
> At any rate, I suspect the problem tends to lie in their tacit theories
> about how social change works: they tend to see it as something special
> individuals make happen.
>
> This tends to flow out of the tradition of critical race theory, doesn't
> it? I have read up on it in years, bt I seem to remember that there was a
> strain of thought where it was expected tat you were supposed to renounce
> white privilege. For instance, I remember one radical feminist telling us
> that she married a black man in order to give up white privilege. how that
> worked, I wasn't sure, but she was serious as a heart attack about it and
> did it as part of some wider 70s countercultural movement with which she
> was associated for awhile.
>
>
> At 11:47 AM 8/18/2013, Andy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:13 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > What's always funny about these conversations is that I remember a
>> > feminist blog war that ensued when a blogger supported some racist POV.
>> I
>> > can't remember the details except that among the critics of said blog,
>> the
>> > white bloggers were very keen to argue and very keen to call what had
>> > happened racist. It was the women of color bloggers who checked their
>> white
>> > feminist allies, asked them to tone it down and, repeatedly, refused to
>> use
>> > the "r" word - even in the face of some ridiculous Scarlett O'hara-like
>> > flouncing.
>> >
>>
>> That was suggested in the FB thread, that it was most often invoked by
>> whites, males, etc. (pick your dimension). I can't really say, I tend not
>> to stick around long enough to determine who is in fact a dog.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andy
>> "It's a testament to ketchup that there can be no confusion."
>> ______________________________**_____
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list