Tag Archives: privilege

A quick response to a bad article

Doctor John Dickson wrote today for The Drum, an article titled “Time for some nuance between the gay and the god-fearing“, which is an attempt to justify continued Christian Homophobia with the old, “hate the sin but love the sinner” approach (the comment section of the article – with the exception of a couple of bigots is really good).

Contemporary minds are fixed to think of only two possible camps on the gay issue. Either you are pro-homosexual and therefore open-minded, kind and respectful, or else you are a mean-spirited, homophobic bigot. You are either for me or against me. No space is given to a third group, much larger than the current discourse allows, made up of people who sincerely want an end to discrimination and who show nothing but care and respect toward gay friends but whose deeply held convictions prevent them from endorsing same-sex practice.

Perhaps in the tradition of ‘an eye for an eye’ the church deserves some purgatorial derision. No one could deny that professed Christians have used very condescending and spiteful language toward gay people (and, shamefully, sometimes even resorted to violence). But tit-for-tat won’t help us in the long run. The biblical perspective on sex – that all sexual intimacy outside heterosexual monogamy is contrary to the Creator’s good intentions – is not going anywhere; and nor are our gay neighbours. This realization alone demands that we work out together how to have a respectful, nuanced public conversation.

In particular, we have to ask whether holding a moral view is in itself hateful. Obviously, strong moral codes, whether religious or secular, can promote hateful speech and behaviour, but are the codes inherently hateful? Specifically, I want to ask David Marr: Do you not believe it is possible to profoundly disagree with someone’s lifestyle and sincerely care for them all the same? I am not offering a defence of Christian teaching on homosexuality (which may, of course, be wrong); I am simply affirming that believers ought to be able to hold their view thoughtfully and respectfully without being considered ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobes’.

But there is a third way, based on a different logic. We ought to be able to love even those with whom we profoundly disagree. It must be possible for Christians to question the moral status of sexual intimacy outside heterosexual monogamy while demonstrating respect and care for neighbours who are neither heterosexual nor monogamous. True open-mindedness is not merely accepting as true and valid someone else’s viewpoint; it is the more difficult and noble commitment to honouring people whose viewpoints you reject.

I dispute that the “third group” as mentioned by Dr Dickson is “much larger” as he suggests.  I also dispute that the “hate the sin but love the sinner” is anything other than homophobic bigotry.  If you show “care and respect” towards your LBTIQG family and friends, but not unconditional love, then you’re not following the commandments of Jesus, that man you claim to be a follower of.

As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34 (NIV)

If you want to have a “respectful, nuanced and public conversation” with the LBGTIQ community, then there are some things you need to do first.  I’d first suggest a public apology, much like the ones the 100 Revs who march in Mardi Gras have given time and time again to the GLBTIQ community.  I’d also suggest you LISTEN to the grievances the GLBTIQ community has with Christianity and actively ensure that the BLQTIG community feels heard.  Then, before any public conversation takes place, you should go away to a quiet place and learn about Jewish and Christian theology (no, I don’t know what your doctorate is in, and nor do I care), and how that has changed as needs arose over the centuries – things like the outlawing of slavery, increase of status (to human no less) of non-white people, the equality of women, the lack of death penalty for disobeying parents, the creation of rape as a crime against the rapist (and not the victim), tattoos becoming socially acceptable, blaming Jews for the death of Jesus, the abolition of limbo, etc.

If Christianity can change all these things, that are in the bible, then it can change its views on BTQGLI too.  Christianity is well known for picking and choosing which bits of the New and Old Testaments remain valid (women are allowed to speak in places of worship now – something that Paul suggested was a really bad idea), so why not shed the homophobia and accept that difference makes the world a far more interesting place to be in, and that what two (or more) people do in their bedroom is actually NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

Is holding a moral view hateful?  That depends on the moral view.  If that moral view suggests that a group should be marginalised, stigmatised, and treated negatively for an attribute they possess, then yes, that moral view is hateful.  And what you are suggesting Dr Dickson is the continuation (with sanction) of a hateful moral view because you find the LBGTIQ community threatening to your world view.

Calling being gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, or queer (not so much intersex in this statement) a “lifestyle” is INCREDIBLY INSULTING.  A “lifestyle” is something you choose.  You choose to eat X food, you choose to undertake Y activities, these are “lifestyle” choices.  Being BGLTIQ are not “lifestyle” choices they are innate qualities.  To reduce them to a choice is to deny lived experience of these people and science (something which some Christians are quite happy to deny anyway).

Let me state again if it isn’t already abundantly clear – to consider that someone who is GLBQIT is sinful in anyway is bigoted and homophobic.  To judge someone else goes against what is taught by Jesus, the man you claim to follow:

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

So stop it.  Stop right now and never ever let me catch you doing it again.  I agree that you can love someone you disagree with, even when you disagree with them strongly.  I disagree with my parents about various things, but still love them, I disagree with friends, partners and others and can still love them.  Disagreeing is completely different to TELLING SOMEONE THAT THEY ARE WRONG.  Let me put that another way:

DISAGREEING WITH SOMEONE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO TELLING SOMEONE THAT THEY ARE ALL WRONG – THAT EVERY LAST BIT OF THEM IS INHERENTLY WRONG.

It is not possible for Christians to be involved in anyone’s sexual practices – that is rude, invasive, immoral and seriously how could you write that sentence and let it be published?

The final statement I copied and pasted into this post is so full of problems that I’m going to unpack it separately.  On the surface it sounds reasonable, but when you begin to think about it, it’s all really wrong.

True open-mindedness is not merely accepting as true and valid someone else’s viewpoint; it is the more difficult and noble commitment to honouring people whose viewpoints you reject.

First Dr Dickson attempts to define “open-mindedness” as “accepting as true and valid someone else’s viewpoint” (which is all good – but something he’s not subscribing to), but then also as “honouring people whose viewpoints you reject”.  He also claims that this is a more difficult and noble commitment… something which I completely reject.  It’s impossible and potentially dangerous.  I reject the views of racist/homophobic/transphobic/biphobic/sexist/etc bigots and there is NO WAY that I am going to honour them for their views, in fact I’m going to condemn them for their views, for those views are harmful to people.

A true Christian, a Christian that follows the teaching of Jesus would love unconditionally, not judge others for any perceived or imagined transgressions, turn the other cheek if someone insults them, and lives in accordance with the commandments stated by Jesus.  I can’t imagine that Jesus would, if he came back today, condemn any LGBQIT person – afterall, if you believe that we are all god’s creatures, then why would god create gay people except for them to be loved, to love, and seek happiness and fulfillment on earth?

And let’s consider another thing, as a Christian Dr Dickson, and everyone who is Christian and agrees with him, are an incredibly privileged group whining about how a less privileged group is pointing out that the privileged group has treated them badly.  He deeply wants to hold onto the power imbalance that currently exists and is attempting to use his religious privilege to do so.  “But my faith told me so” is not a defence.  It’s time to let go and move with the times.

As I read today on Fat Heffalump:

Equality is extremely threatening to people who have always benefited from the lack thereof.

Related Posts:

I’m fat and am going to die (eventually)

I’ve been doing a lot of reading on being fat and living in Australia recently (given I’m fat and living in Australia) and a recent article in Yahoo! made me squee with delight.  It was a, “Should you tell people that they are fat? Yes/No” article with opposing views put by two different authors (both so full of fail), but I learnt something… because I’m fat, I’m going to die.  It’s a huge relief, because I was worried, that like my thin brothers and sisters, I’d live forever, and that wasn’t ideal.

Michelle Bridges (our very favourite person) was on the “yes, tell them that they’re fat” team because:

If you are obese you can look forward to diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis, stroke, cancer or even death.

Wow, I’m going to die… eventually… of something… whether I’m fat or not.  Does every fat person get diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis, stroke, and/or cancer?  Looking at my family history (given I don’t have asthma which my paternal grandmother died from), I’ll live to around 70 and die from a heart attack or the effects of a stroke.  My regular exercising, non-smoking, and fit paternal grandfather died of a heart attack when he was a little over 70.  My maternal grandfather died at about 60 of a heart attack.  My not overly fit, non-smoking, disabled (short-term before she had her stroke) maternal grandmother died at about 80 from a kidney infection some years after having a stroke.  70 years… that’s a good life, and I’m half way through it.  Should I go “woe is mean, I is going to die” and be depressed because of that, or should I continue loving my life and my body and the awesome things it can do?

Michelle continued with:

More than this, though, is the emotional damage, the unhappiness, the depression and poor self-esteem that comes with carrying too much weight.

Now let’s look at that some more.  Why is it that fat people suffer emotional damage, unhappiness, depression and poor self-esteem?  Oh yeah, that’s right because they’re literally shamed, made to second guess themselves and their body, not believed, insulted, belittled and hated by large sections of society.  Fat shaming and fat abuse are all far too common, on the internets, the streets, hospitals, doctor surgeries, the workplace, you name it and fat shaming probably happens there (with the exception of Fat Acceptance and Heath At Every Size blogs where it’s moderated out.  Thank you so much for doing that).

Only once in my life have I had “Fat Slut” yelled at me, which made me laugh more than anything else at the time, though it upset my husband quite a lot when I told him about it later.  I am generally quite… insulated might be the right word when I am out in public.  I do not listen to words but to tones, so I may have had other comments made about me that my brain has not translated for me.  When I am grocery shopping I wonder what people think of the things I am buying, whether I’m buying fresh fruit and vegetables or supplies for a party.  I wonder when I’m shopping for clothes what people are thinking of me and what I’m buying.  Most of my preferred medical practitioners do not comment on my weight, for which I’m grateful, but again I have this lovely insulation in my head which tends to sometimes refuse to hear certain things (and I honestly don’t know why that is), so things might be said and I just don’t hear them.  I do also spend a lot of time thinking to myself that it is not about me (people talking to each other is not about me for example – unless it specifically is).

Spilt Milk put it beautifully recently, when she wrote, “I am not your cautionary tale“:

Obviously, his piece was about The Biggest Loser, a particular kind of “freakshow”. Me going to the shops to buy my bread and milk? Not so freakshowish, admittedly. But I am still there, I am still visible, I still jiggle, I still have a double chin, I still look fat enough to be a folk devil.

A friend on Twitter, Jennifer Gearing, mentioned this afternoon that Birmingham’s article “reminds me of time stranger told his 5-6yo she didn’t want Maccas or she’d look like me.” That’s right, children, fear and pity that fatty over there, and thank your lucky stars it’s not you.

One thing that can be missed in the debate about how horrible fat people are, and how much emotional damage they’re inviting by being fat (etc), is how much emotional wear and tear is suffered by people who love those who are busy being belittled by society.  How children can be hurt by being told (or having their parent feel) that their parents are worthless because they are fat.  How partners can be hurt by being told that they’re wrong or fetishistic for loving a fat person. The damage spreads beyond individual fat people when society pours hate and scorn on all fat people.

So I’m fat, I’m generally happy with my body, I live, vote, shop, work, exercise, cook, eat, love, fuck, and do all the fun things that I have time and energy for.  The rest of you out there that have a problem with that, including you Michelle Bridges, can fuck off and get educated somewhere else.

Other recommended reading (both by Doctor Samantha Thomas):

Fat Acceptance: What it means to me.

Weight. An emotional issue.

Related Posts:

Things I wish I’d learnt as a child

  • How to be rude to those that deserve it
  • How to be angry
  • How to complain effectively
  • How to negotiate
  • How to bargain/barter
  • How not to be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, biphobic, ablest (I learnt these far later)
  • That sex wasn’t something to be ashamed of
  • That I should love my body and that I can be healthy at every size
  • How to think critically
  • How to manage personal politics
  • How to budget effectively
  • How to spot abusive behaviour in relationships and how to get out of them
  • How to say no
  • How to be loud
  • How to stand up for myself

Related Posts:

Credibility? He no longer has some

I’m not claiming that the Catholic Pope actually ever had any credibility with me, but I know he does with some Catholics (still), and I wonder how they can let his latest two foot in mouth statements through without suggesting that he be sacked.  It would be nice if the Catholic Church was a democratic institution wouldn’t it… let me enjoy that vision for a moment…. mmmm… ok, sadly back to reality.

Ok, first stupid statement was published before Christmas, and I know I’m late to the blogging party with this one, but I thought I’d blog on it anyway, as well as link to already fantastic commentary on his ludicrous claims.  This claim being that “paedophilia wasn’t considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.”  All I can think, when I read something like that is, “WTF?  Have you no idea about the world you move in?”

Dispatches from the Culture Wars has an excellent deconstruction of the claims made by the Pope, as does Pharyngula here and here.

Continue reading Credibility? He no longer has some

Related Posts:

A little bit of respect please

A dear friend, who is a devout Baptist, sent my husband and I a Christmas card this year.  He’s recently found out that we’re now atheists, both queer and probably that we’re also polyamorous.  This was probably a bit of a shock to his system, but I thought that the inclusions of the following in his Christmas card was not necessary:

He hasn’t forgotten you and neither have we

and

“If there is no God we must conclude that we live in a randomly generated mechanical universe in which moral judgements are merely a matter of preference and a moral objection to the holocaust has the same weight and validity as a dislike for lemon cheesecake”

The last quote is unattributed, so I don’t know if it was something that he wrote, or something that he quoted and failed to attribute.  I’ve done a quick google search and am unable to find the source of the quote, so if you do know, tell me and I’ll attribute the quote accordingly.

And then today my husband’s guest post received a comment from David which is kinda summed up (in essence at least) in the quote provided by my dear friend.  I want to point out to Christians, and believers in any other faith traditions, that this kinda behaviour is really rude.

Continue reading A little bit of respect please

Related Posts:

White male privilege

I recently discussed male privilege with someone who took offence at another woman referring to another man misusing his “white male privilege.”  The woman, lets call her Jane, stated that she was frustrated with another man, we’ll call him Fred, because he was misusing his white male privilege when he was transphobic and refused to listen and apologise .  The first man, we’ll call him Geoff, derailed the conversation and stated that he objected to the term “white male privilege” as it creates a perception that white males are “the bad guys” and that Fred’s actions were indeed wrong, but they were wrong in their own right, not because Fred is a white male.  Geoff believed that there was  a fallacy of division being painted here that he saw just as bad as the transphobic behaviour.

I pointed out, as gently as I could that white male privilege exists and pointed Geoff towards several resources, specifically:

A – The wikipedia article on male privilege

B – A quote from the Geek Feminism blog:

“Privilege is described as a set of perceived advantages enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess.

A privileged person is not necessarily prejudiced (sexist, racist, etc) as an individual, but may be part of a broader pattern of *-ism even though unaware of it. “

And C – Andrea Rubenstein’s awesome post on “Check my what?” On privilege and what we can do about it

In the next conversation about white male privilege, Geoff suggested that he didn’t mind the term privilege but to associate it with another term is similar to saying “Islamic Terrorist”, and indeed that’s the way he regularly sees it used; as an emotional term, or used as a type of discrimination.

I admit that I began to lose patience at this point.  I reminded Geoff at this point that the term was not used in relation to him.  That the initial discussion was about Fred and not about Geoff.  Geoff responded that the term “white male privilege” gives people a target to aim at, and that as a white male, he is part of that group and therefore about him because he cannot escape being a white male.

I then wrote a long essay, which I will pretty much reproduce below with thanks to those who have written before me to help guide my thinking and for the parts of their writing that I have quoted below.

________________________________________________

Men, especially white men, are at the top of the pile as far as privilege goes.   It’s not really a venn diagram. There’s male privilege and there’s white privilege; but white male privilege is more than the two put together. There are things that white men get, for being white men, that neither white women nor non-white men get.  For example, a non-white man would have a hard time being a priest in many of Australian parishes; (but so would a white woman), likewise a business banker, or a CEO, or a CIO etc.  There are exceptions, but these are things society generally gifts to white men; over coloured men or any woman.

You can draw a venn diagram of all Islamic (or any nationality or religion) people and have a small overlap with terrorists and say “this tiny proportion of people in here are Islamic Terrorists (or English Terrorists, or Australian Terrorists)” but privilege doesn’t map that way.

I don’t know if you read any of the links I put in my emails, but I am going to continue to do so anyway, because they are useful and may help explain my position here:

http://meloukhia.net/2010/01/your_privilege_check_it.html
http://meloukhia.net/2009/08/lets_talk_privilege.html

“Once you have a basic grasp on the system of privilege, the next step is one simple self-realization: you are privileged. Chances are, your reading that has made you feel  defensive. While it’s a perfectly natural, and common, reaction, don’t let it get in your way of actually thinking about what the statement means. What you need to realize is that we all have privilege to some degree: white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc. The hardest thing is to do is to get over your instinct to fight and say, “But I’m not like that!” If you can do it, you’ve completed the first step towards being a pro-equality in reality rather than simply saying and believing that you are.”
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

I highly recommend reading that entire blog post – it is REALLY good.

It is important to remember that, “If you are in a position of privilege, it is not your fault, and people do not blame you for it.  (For example, I have white privilege. That is not my fault. But I can recognize it and ask myself what I can do about it, and I can respect people who lack white privilege when they ask me to check my privilege.) Privilege is the result of social structure, which means that discussions about privilege are discussions about society, not about individuals who have privilege.” (http://meloukhia.net/2009/11/personal_and_political.html).

“I believe that luck and random chance play an ENORMOUS part in our lives — much larger than any of us (including myself) really like to acknowledge. And I therefore try not to feel too smug and entitled about every good thing that happens in my life — or too guilt-ridden and responsible for every bad thing. (In particular, I try to remember that, as a white, healthy, middle-class, college-educated American, I pretty much won the privilege lottery when I was born, and that griping and whining about the petty annoyances in my life is really kind of pathetic. Not that I don’t do it anyway… but when I catch myself, I try to knock it off.)” – http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/06/not_a_butler_ei.html

As a man Geoff, you ride a much smoother life than many others.  You don’t face sexism, you don’t face discrimination and you don’t face objectification.  As a white person you aren’t questioned for your right to be in the country, you aren’t persecuted, you aren’t likely to be racially vilified, you won’t face discrimination on the basis of your skin colour, assumed religion, assumed association, and you’re more likely to be successful at finding work.

I don’t think that anyone here is aiming at all white men and calling them evil.  Feminists aren’t generally misanthropists, they just want society to change from the Kyriarchy that it is, to something fairer.

Geoff, you said that it is, therefore, about you because, by definition, you cannot escape that category.

In the end, this is a logical fallacy.

Dalmations are dogs.  Spot is a dog, therefore Spot is a Dalmation.

Males misuse male privilege.  Geoff is male, therefore Geoff misuses male privilege.

And as stated above, a discussion about privilege is a discussion  about society and how it can be misused… and in this case, about an individual who did misuse his privilege – and that doesn’t mean that it is about you.

I would like to point out here that asking me to justify myself and explain myself is a use of privilege in itself.

As I stated earlier, white males generally have more privilege than any other group in the world (and even more if you add wealth, cisgender or heterosexual privilege to that mix – and less if you add trans, homosexual or poor (but still usually more privilege than women and people of colour).  So Fred was using his white male and cismale privilege to refuse to listen, to state that his desire for personal freedom was more important than someone else’s identity and freedom to be  themselves and refuse to hear that he had offended, until threatened with potential expulsion [from our group].

This might help here:
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/how-to-check-your-cis-privilege/

[and this summary from Andrea Rubenstein’s post as stated earlier]

“Any time a non-privileged individual busts out with an angry critique (or even a nice one), someone will eventually come up with the, “I’m sorry you hate men/whites/heterosexuals/etc.” line. With rare exception, non-privileged individuals do not hate privileged individuals, but we do hate how many privileged individuals act! Learn to take criticism. Learn to not deflect it with excuses about how the non-privileged person is just angry, hateful, etc. Even if the person in question is angry, hateful, etc. Even if you, personally, don’t act that way.

“There are many issues in this world that are about you, but non-privileged groups are not the place to discuss them unless specifically invited. Yes, men are negatively affected by the patriarchy. Yes, they get raped too (and have their own set of victim blaming rhetoric). Yes, privileged groups can and do come into contact with prejudice and discrimination. Are those discussions valid? You bet. But, are they appropriate when the topic is on the discrimination and/or oppression of a particular non-privileged group? Not a chance.  If you think the subject may not be appropriate, don’t bring it up.  There’s always a later discussion, a new thread, and especially proper forums for discussions like those.

“If You’re Not the Problem, Then You’re Not the Problem
But if you feel the burning desire to leap to your own defense and declare, “I’m not the problem!” then you just might be. The facts are, people who have followed the steps I’ve outlined will most likely not be the problem. If they are the problem, they accept that and will be working on a way to be less of the problem. If they’re not the problem, then they feel no need to protest the critique by saying that since they aren’t the problem, then the point is obviously invalid.  So, whenever you feel an urge to defend yourself against a criticism about your privileged group, think about why you feel that way. Chances are, the more aware of your privilege you are, the more you’ll see it as a knee-jerk reaction about having your privilege challenged (even if you don’t, in fact, engage in the behaviour being ranted against).” – http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

_____________________

The copyright for the quoted sections of text belong to the respective authors.  I also appreciate the assistance given to me by my sister and girlfriend for helping shape my thinking in responding to Geoff.

In addition to that, I would like to add one further link that I found today.  Justine Larbalestier talks about men derailing conversations about sexism to make it about them called “I know you mean well”.

Related Posts: