I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not theirword. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.

So, the challenge: how to get across the ideas bound up in the word “privilege,” in a way that your average straight white man will get, without freaking out about it?

Being a white guy who likes women, here’s how I would do it:

Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?

Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.

Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.

As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.

You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.

And maybe at this point you say, hey, I like a challenge, I want to change my difficulty setting! Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t unlock any rewards or receive any benefit for playing on higher difficulty settings. The game is just harder, and potentially a lot less fun. And you say, okay, but what if I want to replay the game later on a higher difficulty setting, just to see what it’s like? Well, here’s the other thing about The Real World: You only get to play it once. So why make it more difficult than it has to be? Your goal is to win the game, not make it difficult.

Oh, and one other thing. Remember when I said that you could choose your difficulty setting in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the computer chooses the difficulty setting for you. You don’t get a choice; you just get what gets given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it.

So that’s “Straight White Male” for you in The Real World (and also, in the real world): The lowest difficulty setting there is. All things being equal, and even when they are not, if the computer — or life — assigns you the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, then brother, you’ve caught a break.

Source.

While this essay isn't perfect, I figured I would link it here since I have seen comments from members saying they have had difficulty explaining the concept of privilege to their male friends, relatives, and partners. It is one of the better explanations I've seen in lay-terms vs. sociological terms. (Also, if there are other tags I should add, please let me know.)

Tags:
 
 
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is redefining its mission and methods. While vowing to never lose sight of abortion rights, the group is shaping a more holistic health-justice agenda and turning to movement-building at the grassroots.

(WOMENSENEWS)--The country's leading pro-choice religious lobby is rolling out a profound re-visioning of its mission and method in light of the changing climate around reproductive rights.

This week, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice also hired a new president to lead it into the new era. previously best known as a national gay rights leader, will take the helm as president and CEO in July.


Read more... )

Source
 
 
Hi all,

I have a question and I hope it's okay to post it here. In college, I was taught that it's sexist for a journalist to describe the way a female politician, professor, etc. is dressed. For instance, "Nancy Pelosi, clad in a blue tailored suit and a string of pearls, addressed Congress yesterday." or "Sarah Palin looked stunning in a black silk blouse that emphasized her full figure as she answered questions from reporters" are obviously sexist, because it's irrevelant what they are wearing or what they look like, and it diminishes women as nothing more than eye candy for men.

However, what if the woman one is writing about is a celebrity who was dressed to the nines in elegant clothing, and she clearly spent a lot of time to make herself look beautiful? Is it acceptable for the journalist to describe her attire in that case?

I ask this because I have been assigned to write an article about the gala fundraiser for the non-profit that I work for. The gala was last night, and the MC was a local TV news anchor who is a very beautiful woman. She was wearing an elegant strapless ball gown with a full length skirt, and looked absolutely stunning. She was dressed much more fancily than anyone else in attendance. It was obvious that she went to great lengths to dress up and look beautiful, and no one could take their eyes off of her. I'm a straight woman, and even I was dumbstruck by her appearance and her dress. Would it be appropriate to mention her dress in the article? In the draft, I have written so far, "The Emmy-award winning anchor, clad in a stunning floor-length black strapless gown adorned with ruffles, thanked everyone for coming." Is this appropriate?
 
 
02 May 2012 @ 08:16 pm
Originally posted by [info]spiffynamehere at Help Us Support Planned Parenthood
Originally posted by [info]xlickety_splitx at Help Us Support Planned Parenthood
Originally posted by [info]theljstaff at Help Us Support Planned Parenthood



Join us in standing up for reproductive health and education. Planned Parenthood, the organization that delivers reproductive health care, sex education and information to millions of people worldwide, has come under fire in the U.S. lately, with many politicians on both state and federal level seeking to end funding (and in a few cases succeeding).

During the month of May, you can send a specially designed Planned Parenthood vgift to your friends to help support this cause. (And if you need someone to send it to, [info]frank is always happy to receive gifts!) There are three variations ($1, $5 and $10) for you to choose from, but they'd all look good on your profile when your friends know that you stand by something so important.

                    

Thank you all for your help in our support for Planned Parenthood. This promotion ends June 1, 2012; LiveJournal is not affiliated with Parent Parenthood. For more information about Planned Parenthood, please visit: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

-The LiveJournal Team

(If you'd like to help spread the word that we're raising funds for Planned Parenthood, you can crosspost this entry in your own journal or community by using the repost button below!)




P.S. According to staff, 100% of proceeds will be donated to PP at the end of the month.

DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS unless you're looking for assholes and YOU CANNOT BUY THESE WITH LJ TOKENS.
 
 
Within the confines of science and the bedroom, the G-spot is something of a holy grail.

For decades, researchers have debated its existence in medical journals, while Lotharios have implied with a wink they already made the discovery.

But none went so far as Adam Ostrzenski, a retired doctor and researcher who travelled to Poland this past September to conduct a “stratum by stratum anterior vaginal wall dissection on an 83-year-old cadaver.”

His study, published in the May issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, appears to confirm the anatomical existence of the alleged pleasure zone. He will return to Poland in May to verify his findings in female cadavers of other age groups.

“It is my conviction that it’s not something that this 83-year-old lady had . . . and the rest of you guys don’t,” he said from his home in St. Petersburg, Fla., where he is the director of the Institute of Gynecology.

Theories about the G-spot have long been controversial. In the March issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, a research team reported that there’s no “strong and consistent evidence” to confirm its anatomical existence, although there are “reliable reports and anecdotal testimonials” about the highly sensitive area.

Read more... )
 
 
I will be angry.

I will be angry because I am not allowed rights to my own body.

I will be angry because I am not acknowledged even in issues that concern me intimately.

I will be angry because I am jailed for being a victim and trying to bring my attacker to justice.

I will be angry because I am unworthy of protection.

I will be angry because I am not valued.

I will be angry because I can't take a joke.

I will be angry because I am an outlawed word.

I will be angry because I am crazy.

I will be angry because I am not crazy

I will be angry because I am a slut.

I am a target.

I am decoration.

I will be angry. I will be furious. I will feel every emotion it is possible to feel, and I will not hide it. It is my strength. It is my right. No matter what you say, how you say it, or what you have backing it, I will not be complacent and I will not shut up.

I will not be happy for your comfort, and I will not be polite for your feelings.  

I will be angry.


Full Article.
 
 
TW for discussion of body image and weight.

The whole piece can be found here at the Daily Beast.

The Conversation about women’s bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.

As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women’s bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the “good” pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it’s wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one’s lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that.

However, the recent speculation and accusations in March feel different, and my colleagues and friends encouraged me to know what was being said...

(...)

That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

(...)


----

Comments at the Daily Beast are about 90% "You go girl!" and 10% "God, quit whining fatso!" which is much better than I would have expected for something like this.

I'm glad that someone of her stature has taken this on, so maybe it can reach a wider audience. And that she doesn't make it just about herself, but how criticism of her body specifically is a criticism of all women's bodies and affects them too.

Plus her writing is just awesome. Apparently she was a women's studies major in college.

Edited to fix broken html... stupid dash instead of an equal sign.
 
 
01 April 2012 @ 07:18 am
i'm not really sure if this sort of post is suitable for here, but i've never posted here since joining, and i haven't been on lj in a while in general and really just wanted to post somewhere that isn't facebook, somewhere that i thought someone might understand and not judge or make fun of me like so many of my so-called friends have.

cut for extensive post and possible self-harm triggers )
 
 
I ran across this list, and even though it was originally written by a black man for other black men, I think it would also be a good guide for white women, since we also marginalize women of color and their history, both generally and specifically in feminist communities.

If anybody has other recommendations, they can post in comments.

12 Books by Black Women Every Black Man Should Read

by Ewuare X. Osayande

In honor of the Women’s History Month, and, more so, in honor of the herstory of Black women and the truths of that story that continue to be overlooked, undermined, belittled and denied by men, I have compiled a list of twelve books that have educated me toward a greater understanding, respect and admiration of Black women and a deeper appreciation and awareness of the issues that confront them and all of us in the Black community in the United States and the world around us.

As men, we are often socialized to not view women as our intellectual equals. Rather, we are socialized to view women as overly emotional, irrational beings that have been placed here on this earth for our personal benefit and pleasure. This kind of patriarchal socialization often leads to a condition where we dismiss the consideration of what women have to say. This dismissal is often a form of patriarchal protection. If we can deny their voice, then we do not have to be held accountable to the truths that are revealed from their experiences. This position produces an environment that is often hostile to the voices of Black women. In limiting our exposure to the literature of Black women, we are indeed limiting ourselves as Black men and contributing to a condition that is not healthy for us or our sisters, or our community as a whole. There is a wealth of insight in books by Black women that can only make us better Black men, better fathers, sons, brothers, friends, lovers, better human beings, better able to make a positive and constructive contribution to our community’s development.

This list is written for our education and edification as Black men. By reading books by Black women that encourage us to think more deeply and feel more fully even as we are challenged to move past our socialized misperceptions of women, we are provided an opportunity to evolve our consciousness and grow and develop into the men that our community needs us to be.

1. When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America by Paula Giddings

Whenever we talk about “Black History,” great men always come to mind...(list with long descriptions behind the cut.) )

These 12 books read over the course of 12 months have the potential to revolutionize our minds as men and will catapult our consciousness to a level that will lead toward the development of a new manhood that is based on a respect and appreciation for the equality of women and the fullness of their self-determination. These twelve are just the beginning. The hope is that it will open your mind to the world of knowledge and wisdom that lies within the life-changing literature of Black women.

-------

Ewuare X. Osayande is a poet, political activist and author of several books including Misogyny & the Emcee: Sex, Race & Hip Hop. He is also creator of Onus Rites-of-Passage. His website is Osayande.org. Twitter: @EwuareXOsayande
 
 
30 March 2012 @ 02:22 pm
Margareth S. Aritonang, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Thu, 03/29/2012 8:40 AM

The newly established antipornography task force says it will crack down on women wearing skirts that fall above the knee as such clothing will be included in the group’s universal definition of pornography.

Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali, the task force’s chairman, said Wednesday that the definition would be universally applied to all regions in the country, regardless of cultural background.

“We have yet to set a standard definition of pornography on which we will base our work. However, there must be a set of universal criteria to define something as pornographic, one of which will be when a woman wears a skirt above the knee,” Suryadharma told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting with the House of Representatives’ Commission VIII overseeing religious and social affairs on Wednesday.

When asked whether the task force would give leniency to women living in non-Muslim provinces, such as Bali and Papua, Suryadharma said that the task force would ensure the standards were universally applied.

“I know that some parts of the country have unique cultures, such as Bali and Papua. Nevertheless, we think that we must set universal criteria to be implemented in all parts of the archipelago. Requiring women to wear skirts that fall below the knee is one such criterion,” he said.

The plan was swiftly condemned by top politicians and activists.

Read the rest. )

The article at Jakarta Post.