Privilege Revisited

[caption id="attachment_580" align="aligncenter" width="367" caption="Sorry about the typo. It's not my image."][/caption]  

Last night, while Skyping with the boyfriend, he burst out laughing at a photo I’d put on my facebook (above), and then revealed to me that he’d never actually heard the term “Feminazi” before.

 

“Really? Never?”

 

“Never.”

 

I was a little surprised, but as C tends not to be all that involved with the feminist movement, it doesn’t particularly shock me that he’s managed to make it 26 years without ever hearing “feminazi.” Certainly, if he’d had heard it, it wouldn’t be a term directed at him.

 

I tweeted shortly after that conversation:

 

 

And I’ve been spending most of the day thinking about this concept. For me, “feminazi” is something that’s always been there – I can’t even recall the first time I heard it as a term. That’s how common it is to me. I think I’ve only been actually called it once or twice, but I’ve witnessed it leveled at fellow feminists multiple times (to the point where I did an entire series a few months ago on the idea of “feminazi”).

 

It occurs to me that even for two people who are incredibly similar in political, theological, and relational views, we still have had incredibly different life experiences. Not only does the revelation of “I’ve never heard ‘feminazi’ before” cause me to realign how I approach feminism with him, but it causes me to remember my own privilege when having similar conversations.

 

Growing up in South Dakota, I have no concept of what it’s like to be a minority. I just don’t. I got a small taste of it while living in Japan, but even then, I was massively blinded by my own privilege and my own (albeit unconscious) expectation that because I am American, foreigners would listen to me and be willing to help me out. Even after that, I realize – pretty much every time I talk with friends whose work is specifically with minorities – that I still have no idea what that experience is like.

 

I can do two things with this knowledge: I can either chalk it up to individual experience and still argue for political positions and stances that treat every single person as though they are exactly the same.

 

Or...

 

I can consciously try to shift my views. I can remember that by being a white woman, I have a very different life experience than those of my friends who are black women. And different doesn’t mean bad. It means that there are some things that have been handed to me or doors that have opened that may not have for minorities.

 

And I also cannot co-opt this experience. This is a big mistake that the privileged make in trying to rectify the gap that privilege naturally creates – we take over the struggles of minorities and try to make them our own, when these experiences are not ours to own. I know I’ve used the term “give voice to the voiceless” before, but it strikes me, the more I think about it, as an inadequate and even, at times, offensive stance.

 

The “voiceless” are not actually without voice.

 

We are just without ears to hear the tale they are telling.

 

My job, as a person of privilege, is to listen and to understand. If they want amplification, then I will help them find a way to do that. But ultimately, “help” itself is inadequate. The assumption, even, that my stepping in wouldn’t just royally screw things up, is a wrong one to make.

 

I’ve been thinking about this concept a lot this past week, not just in terms of trying to explain to my boyfriend why feminism is so important (he’s already a feminist in all the things that count, for the record, even if he doesn’t recognize it), but in mulling over popular culture.

 

This past week saw the release of Machine Gun Preacher, a Hollywood block buster about Sam Childers, a born again Christian who heard about the conflict in the Sudan and decided to go over and kick some ass.

 

No, really.

 

The reports that have subsequently followed paint a gruesome picture – a white man with an AK-47 shooting people to “rescue” children, only to put them in an orphanage that, by many reports, is almost as bad as the conditions they were rescued from. One common thread through all the stories about Childers? That he’s a hard man to deal with and it’s pretty much his way or the highway.

 

What I see in Childers’ story is a man whose view of himself and the world is cultivated by the “white savior” in culture – the idea that rich, well-off white person, goes to Africa to help the little brown babies and will do good! But what is actually left, when said white person inevitably thinks they know better than the natives, is often worse than before.

 

Essentially: it is a hard road to navigate, but the first and foremost thing in any social justice approach needs to be peace, patience, grace, and mercy. Understand things before you dive in to “help.” You may just learn something worth knowing.

Friday Finds: Video Friday!

I realized this week that most of my links for you are videos, so that seemed to decide for me: this week is a video centric post! As a result, there aren't many links, but what I do have is worth your time.  

1. Today, in Saudi Arabia, tons of women engaged in a unique protest: they drove. For women in Saudi Arabia, driving is illegal. Thus the protest. Videos of women driving are posted all over Youtube, and this is one of them:

 

http://youtu.be/1rb77qKZseI

 

Go Saudi Women! I don't think I've ever been so happy to see a video of someone driving. My favorite bit is the fact that she has her three kids sitting in the back, all strapped in their safety belts, just like a soccer mom here in the US. There are so, so, so many things we take for granted, and I cheer in solidarity with the Saudi Women as they fight against discrimination and unjust laws. What a model that mother is for her little girl.

 

2. Last night, Rachel Maddow opened her show with an amazing segment of commentary about the Weiner scandal, which I commented on yesterday. The fact that news is not driven by "newsworthiness" but rather ratings is shameful.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43434957#43434957

 

It's long, but it's worth your time.

 

3. I like commencement speeches a lot. I like Conan O'Brien a lot. So it makes sense, then, that I would like a Conan O'Brien commencement speech. I was right. Here it is:

 

http://youtu.be/KmDYXaaT9sA

 

4. I don't really like The View. Listening to people who don't know what they're talking about yell at each other every morning is not my idea of a good way to start the day. That said, occasionally, something is said that makes a good point. Whoopi Golberg provided that this week:

 

http://youtu.be/pEOSH1lqzRw

 

Duuuuuuuude.

 

5. And last, but definitely not least, the video I have watched at least three times a day, every day this week. The Tonys were this week, and with them came the first nationwide look at the musical the creators of South Park put together. Yup, you read that right. It's The Book of Mormon and this performance alone was enough to make me buy the soundtrack.

 

http://youtu.be/tggtPHDmrR8

 

There are your five videos for the week. Enjoy!

Female Presence: the Bechdel Test

 

One of my newest areas of interest has been paying attention to the ways women are portrayed in media. This is, indeed, a distinctly "first world problem," as many are wont to put it, but it is still important. Part of the "sisterhood" of feminism is understanding and knowing how women who are different from you are portrayed to society at large, and recognizing how that shapes your viewpoint.

 

For example: Pay attention to commercials sometime. How are men portrayed when it comes to household tasks? As idiots, right? We have the idiot husband who is so ignorant of cleaning products that he doesn't know how to make his life easier. We have the husband who apparently can't read. And we have the man who go to Vegas without bothering to understand how casinos work.

 

The opposite side of the coin is true, too: Women are almost exclusively featured as the ones doing the cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, doing household-y, woman-y things.

 

Advertisements are just one area in which we get stereotypical (and often idiotic) portrayals of both men and women, but it doesn't just stop there.

 

This sort of media literacy lens can and needs to be extended to the media we consume in the everyday. And that's where the Bechdel Test comes in. The test is named for Alison Bechdel, a comic strip writer, and it is a simple three step process to check if a movie is trying to create an accurate portrayal of women:

 

1. Does the film have at least two women with names?

 

2. Do these women have at least one conversation?

 

3. Is this conversation about something other than a man?

 

It's simple, but eye-opening, and a great entryway into the discipline of media literacy. An astounding amount of the media we consume features overwhelming male characters, often in situations where a female actress would do just as well. Granted, there are some films where it wouldn't make sense to cast women (a movie about D-Day, for example, is probably not going to have very many women), but in a surprising amount of situations, our plots are still incredibly male-centric.

 

Take one of my favorite movies, for example: Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. There are multiple women in the movie. Many of them do have names. Do they have a conversation about something other than a man?

 

Nope. So close, and yet so far.

 

Now, just because a movie has a female presence doesn't mean that it's a feminist movie. I ran this test on my own movie collection. I have, approximately, fifty movies. 36 of them failed the Bechdel test. The 11 that passed? Mostly "chick flicks." Amazingly, Never Been Kissed passes the Bechdel test, as well as 10 Things I Hate About You.

 

The Bechdel test isn't necessarily a sign that the movie you have is a feminist treatise or even a movie that isn't anti-women, but it does serve as a solid indication of female presence and is a good indicator of whether or not the cast is balanced. It alerts the observant viewer to the presence of women on the screen, and can be a good starting point for feminist criticism. And just because a movie does not pass the Bechdel test does not mean it's not feminist in nature - approximately ten of the movies I own that fail the test have feminist themes (Lord of the Rings, for example [the character of Eowyn, in case anyone forgot]).

 

And having a collection that fails the Bechdel test so extraordinarily does not mean that these movies are bad or that I am a bad feminist. You don't have to feel bad when you realize that your favorite screenwriter is terrible at writing women (coughAaronSorkincough). As this Occasional Planet blogger put it, "the test reminds us that biases like sexism, racism, heterosexism, and classism are the water in which we swim. They pervade our culture. They are our culture, and to such an extent that we sometimes forget about them until someone like Bechdel reminds us."

 

And it's important to be reminded.

 

So I invite you to do your own Bechdel test and think about the media you consume. How many of your movies have a female presence? Books? Favorite TV shows?