Consciousness-Raising
Greta Christina, while discussing the sexism kerfuffle at an atheist conference, brings up a commonality among various forms of consciousness-raising.
...in particular, I want to address the people who have been asking the question, "Why do we have to keep having these fights? Why is it that every time there's an atheist conference, there's some kerfuffle about sexist comments or actions, and everyone flies into a tizzy about it, and it's the only thing anyone remembers about the event?"
Let me ask you this. When religious believers tell atheists, "Why do you have to keep talking about atheism? Why do you have to keep pointing out religious privilege, and anti-atheist bigotry, and the ways that religion is so deeply entrenched in our culture? It's so divisive. Nobody can talk about religion and atheism without starting a huge, ugly fight. So why do you keep bringing it up?"
When religious believers say this to atheists... do you say to yourself, "You're right. This is such a troubling, divisive issue. I'm so sorry I brought it up. We'll stop talking about it now."
Or do you say to yourself, "Wow. You really don't want to hear what we have to say, do you? There's a part of you that knows we're right, or that fears we're right, or that's getting some assumptions challenged that you're deeply attached to... and you're uncomfortable with that. And you're trying to shut us up. Knock it off. And try listening to what we have to say for a change."
This is why I can relate when somebody talks about consciousness-raising and cultural blinders. I have been thinking for nearly a year about how to point out the commonality-- I don't want to be misunderstood as equating the seriousness of various problems. I'm not trying to get their sympathy or appropriate their issue as my own. I'm saying their communication is getting through to me, and this is part of why.
What faith has in common with privilege is that most people:
1. ...do not do so with any ill intent.
2. ...are dumbstruck with sincere surprise when someone challenges assumptions they have never thought to question.
3. ...think you're calling them or their identity group monstrous, unforgivable atrocities, when really you're just trying to tip them off that at the moment, they are without perspective.
Mostly, people get power over other people through social dynamics and institutional systems that can rarely be traced back to any individual's decisions. People who oppose these systems get much, much more angry when told that it's just no big deal. Far angrier than we were at whatever incident caused the discussion.
As a rationalist, few things scare me more than my own self-affirming perceptions, or that there is some aspect of my environment to which I am blind or conditioned. I know that I'll never be perfect at it, but I know it's possible to become less wrong, and the idea of improvement is dear to me.
Comments
pstscrpt on Jul. 13, 2011 3:18 PM
The linked article brings up several good examples of sexism and how its a problem as side notes, but the main theme is arguing *for* sexism in some cases.
Resistance to the idea that you shouldn't interact with women in a way that would be appropriate for men is the opposite of sexism. And thinking a man could approach a women in a way that a woman could approach a man is not privilege. She's right, it's not about getting laid, it's resistance to the idea that you should be sexist, no matter how right that probably is.
matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2011 3:27 PM
Can you rephrase without the multiple negations and opposites and resistances? If it weren't for you saying "She's right", I wouldn't know which position you're taking.
pstscrpt on Jul. 13, 2011 3:33 PM
I don't think I can, no. And I think you misinterpreted the "She's right".
I'll try to think of another way to say it, but I'm drawing a blank right now.
matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2011 3:45 PM
Let me try it. Let me know if I get your position right.
1. It is sexist to interact with women differently than with men. 2. Privilege is being able to interact differently or be interacted with differently. If you interact the same, it equals out-- therefore that is not privilege, it's equality. Standing up for the equality of men and women is more important to men than getting laid.
pstscrpt on (None)
pstscrpt on Jul. 13, 2011 3:56 PM
The last sentence is going too far, but the rest is in the right ballpark. Standing up for equality is more important than getting laid, but it should not usually be more important than making someone feel threatened.
You probably should treat women differently than you treat men or than you would want to be treated. But learning to do that quite likely means learning to compromise some of your own ideals.
pstscrpt on Jul. 13, 2011 3:49 PM
Maybe decontextualizing will help.
Let's say you're thinking of approaching someone you're attracted to and letting them know you're interested (not getting into an outright proposition). Whatever your own gender, doing that with a man is roughly as appropriate anywhere and any time apart from work or a family gathering.
After a childhood spent having two ideas drilled into you:
1. Men and women should be considered equal.
2. You should treat others the way you want to be treated.
...the idea that you should treat women differently than you want to be treated and than you think a typical man would want to be treated is a bit offensive.
Even when you know it's probably right. Maybe especially when you know it's right, because then you're reacting defensively dealing with the cognitive dissonance of it.
sarahmichigan on Jul. 14, 2011 12:57 PM
The golden rule is problematic for just that reason. I try to treat people they way THEY want to be treated, not the way I *think* they should be treated or even the way I would prefer to be treated, because I realize... people are different!
pstscrpt on Jul. 14, 2011 1:51 PM
I think when you're a bit strange, you learn earlier that the golden rule is bullshit. I think my all-time favorite introduction was the woman who came up to me, put her hand on my crotch, and said "Hi, I'm Lisa!", but I would never try that with someone else.
I still have trouble with the gender differences, though. I think I'm mostly saved by the fact that my default mode is to sit back and listen quietly, with anyone.
sarahmichigan on Jul. 14, 2011 12:58 PM
I very much want to be challenged for exactly the reasons in your last paragraph. There are some things I've hardened my party line on for a couple of reasons, but in those cases, I recognize the fact that I'm biased and that, even if I'm right, I might not be right for rational reasons. But for the most part, I'm not embarrassed when someone points out a fallacy or urban myth I've bought into - I really want to know when I might be wrong!
mrblue92 on Jul. 17, 2011 5:54 AM — With regards to the incident in question...
If the stream of links there was consciousness-raising, I'm afraid I didn't see much of it actually happening.
To me it looked a whole lot more like a whole buncha typical humans misinterpreting and talking past each other. And for that, everyone involved is "wrong". Although one supposes the meeting of minds may more often tend to happen in quiet corners, away from the noise of offended sensibilities and angry, knee-jerk reactions.
Leave a Comment