It's hard to take advantage of all the Black Friday steals when you are being accused of stealing...
Happy Thanksgiving and Buy Nothing Day, everyone!
The tabs on my web browser have really been accumulating over the past month, as I stumble into story after story about sexual harassment, misconduct, rape. Lest we (privileged) men continue living with collective clean conscience, I feel some obligation to share just a handful of such articles.
To start, an (female!) advice columnist suggests that young college women need to get their acts together and stop getting raped. Ok, ok. She actually tells them to stop getting drunk, because this too often leads to the former. But as other commentators have pointed out, this smacks too much of victim-blaming.
I mean, what about men? Why wasn't the original post directed at the actual perpetrators of drunken violence? Why must satire be drummed up to show just how ridiculous it is to blame women for being women?
I likened this story to the Trayvon Martin case. Would we chastise him (or now other young Black men) for wearing a hoodie?
As a black man, you really shouldn't wear hoodies. People feel threatened by it. Who knows what they'll do in their [racist] fear.
This truly is ridiculous. Just as black men can and should dress however they damn well please, without fear of being gunned down by the local neighborhood watch, women should be able to live their lives (yes, including getting drunk) without fear of harassment or rape.
Today I heard about a particular harassment story, wherein the perpetrator was a "family court" marshall. The victim, who had only been there for a routine divorce proceeding, was ordered into a waiting room by herself and sexually assaulted during "an unexplainable drug search". When she returned to the courtroom, the (female) judge hardly bothered to look at her as she distressedly recounted the assault. The very same marshall proceeded to arrest her for no apparent reason.
These kinds of stories are so upsetting to me. While I don't harass, assault, abuse, or rape women myself, it becomes clearer to me with each case that it's not enough for me not to be sexist or misogynist. It's not even enough for me to be (or say that I'm) feminist (though this may be a step in the right direction).
As a person of privilege (cis male), it's imperative that I'm on the frontlines of the cultural battles against oppression of all kinds - including sexism, misogyny, and patriarchy. And while I can't accept responsibility for the actions of all men, I can continue to challenge sexist attitudes, speech, and behavior whenever I encounter them. Lest we continue to live in a world where "there is no greater threat to women than men."
Back in April, Sheryl Sandberg, the conspicuously female COO of Facebook and author of Lean In, gave an interview on Jon Stewart's Daily Show. There were some interesting comments she made in the conversation, I thought, that spoke to sexism, gender stereotypes, and male privilege. So I shared the video here on this blog.
Admittedly, I never read the book and never really gave thought as to how women - particularly other contemporary feminist thinkers and writers - might regard the book. Indeed, the new book was shining a spotlight on Sandberg and her unique perspective of gender relations in the workplace; but perhaps I should have asked - if she's dabbled in feminist rhetoric (it's not a feminist manifesto... or is it?), then why the media blitz and fanfare? Isn't feminism yet a radical, marginalized worldview in a patriarchal society?
I've now dug a little deeper, and found what at least one feminist writer had to say about the book. I stumbled upon an article by bell hooks on thefeministwire.com that I found to be rather illuminating. She writes on Sandberg's book, focusing on a number of issues that speak to the broader theme of this blog - privilege.
I've fished out some excerpts here, but if you like what you read I hope you'll check out the full article at this link.
In recent years, discussions of feminism have not evoked animated passion in audiences. We were far more likely to hear that we are living in a post-feminist society than to hear voices clamoring to learn more about feminism.
Suddenly, as if by magic, mass media brought into public consciousness conversations about feminism, reframing the scope and politics through an amazing feat of advertising. At the center of this drama was a young, high-level corporate executive, Sheryl Sandberg, who was dubbed by Oprah Winfrey and other popular culture pundits as “the new voice of revolutionary feminism.”
In her book, she offers a simplistic description of the feminist movement based on women gaining equal rights with men. This construction of simple categories (women and men) was long ago challenged by visionary feminist thinkers, particularly individual black women/women of color. These thinkers insisted that everyone acknowledge and understand the myriad ways race, class, sexuality, and many other aspects of identity and difference made explicit that there was never and is no simple homogenous gendered identity that we could call “women” struggling to be equal with men. In fact, the reality was and is that privileged white women often experience a greater sense of solidarity with men of their same class than with poor white women or women of color.
On Gender (In)equality
No matter their standpoint, anyone who advocates feminist politics needs to understand the work does not end with the fight for equality of opportunity within the existing patriarchal structure. We must understand that challenging and dismantling patriarchy is at the core of contemporary feminist struggle – this is essential and necessary if women and men are to be truly liberated from outmoded sexist thinking and actions.
Ironically, Sandberg’s work would not have captured the attention of progressives, particularly men, if she had not packaged the message of “lets go forward and work as equals within white male corporate elites” in the wrapping paper of feminism. Sandberg offers readers no understanding of what men must do to unlearn sexist thinking. At no point In Lean In does she let readers know what would motivate patriarchal white males in a corporate environment to change their belief system or the structures that support gender inequality.
On Intersectional Solidarity
Given the huge amounts of money Sandberg has acquired, ostensibly by paying close attention to her financial future, her silence on the subject of money... undermines the call for genuine equality.
Her failure to confront the issue of women acquiring wealth allows her to ignore concrete systemic obstacles most women face inside the workforce. And by not confronting the issue of women and wealth, she need not confront the issue of women and poverty. She need not address the ways extreme class differences make it difficult for there to be a common sisterhood based on shared struggle and solidarity.
Much feminist thought by individual visionary women of color (especially black women thinkers) and white female allies [has] called for a more accurate representation of female identity, one that would consider the reality of intersectionality. This theory encouraged women to see race and class as well as gender as crucial factors shaping female destiny. Promoting a broader insight, this work lay the groundwork for the formation of genuine female solidarity – a solidarity based on awareness of difference as well as the all-too-common gendered experiences women share. It has taken many years of hard work to create basic understandings of female identity; it will take many more years for solidarity between women to become reality.
Even though many advocates of feminist politics are angered by Sandberg’s message, the truth is that alone, individually she was no threat to feminist movement. Had the conservative white male dominated world of mass media and advertising not chosen to hype her image [guilty!], this influential woman would not be known to most folks. It is this patriarchal male dominated re-framing of feminism, which uses the body and personal success of Sheryl Sandberg, that is most disturbing and yes threatening to the future of visionary feminist movement. The model Sandberg represents is all about how women can participate and “run the world.” But of course the kind of world we would be running is never defined. It sounds at times like benevolent patriarchal imperialism... Sandberg uses feminist rhetoric as a front to cover her commitment to western cultural imperialism, to white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.
Clearly, Sandberg, with her website and her foundation, has many female followers. Long before she was chosen by conservative mass media as the new face of faux feminism, she had her followers. This is why I chose to call my response “dig deep,” for it is only as we place her in the overall frame of female cultural icons that we can truly unpack and understand why she has been chosen and lifted up in the neoliberal marketplace. Importantly, whether feminist or not, we all need to remember that visionary feminist goal which is not of a women running the world as is, but a women doing our part to change the world so that freedom and justice, the opportunity to have optimal well-being, can be equally shared by everyone – female and male.
The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.