Blueprints for understanding the perspective of the marginalized can often be summarized succinctly as “STFU and listen”. Here is a longer version though just to be extra clear. A big thanks to Shakesville for the summary.
This, then, is a very rudimentary, but also very straightforward, primer for dudes who want to communicate more effectively with female partners, friends, relatives, and colleagues during good faith conversations about feminist issues:
1. Every woman is an expert on her own life and experiences.
2. No woman speaks for all women.
3. No woman speaks for all feminists.
4. Because of the way cultural dominance/privilege works, marginalized people are, by necessity and unavoidability, more knowledgeable about the lives of privileged people than the other way around. Immersion in a culture where male is treated as the Norm (and female a deviation of that Norm), and where masculinity is treated as aspirational (and femininity as undesirable), and where men’s stories are considered the Stories Worth Telling, and where manhood and mankind are so easily used as synonymous with personhood and humankind, and where everything down to the human forms on street signs reinforce the idea of maleness as default humanness, inevitably makes women de facto more conversant in male privilege than men are in female marginalization. That’s the practical reality of any kind of privilege—the dominant group can exist without knowing anything about marginalized group, but the marginalized group cannot safely or effectively exist without knowing something about the privileged group and its norms and values.
5. Which is not to say that men can’t become fluent, with effort. But it is important to remember that it does take effort. Even though men’s and women’s lives can look so similar at first glance, it is shocking how very different they can actually be. (For example.)
6. A woman with intersectional marginalizations cannot wrench herself into parts. Asking a woman to set aside her race, or disability, or sexuality, or body size, or stature, or whatever, in order to discuss a “woman’s issue,” is to fail to understand that one’s womanhood is inextricably linked to the other aspects of one’s identity.
7. It is similarly unfair to ask a woman to leave aside her personal experience and discuss feminist issues in the abstract. You are discussing the stuff of her life. Asking her to “not make it personal” is to ask her to wrench her womanhood from her personhood.
8. You are not objective on women’s issues because you’re not a woman. Your perception is just as subjective as hers is, but for a different reason. Either we stand to be marginalized by privilege or stand to benefit from it. That’s the reality of institutional bias; it compromises us all.
9. Don’t play Devil’s advocate. Seriously. Just don’t.
10. Listen.




7 comments
February 25, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Love it!
“That’s the practical reality of any kind of privilege—the dominant group can exist without knowing anything about marginalized group”
Kinda like what America does to Canada, isn’t it?!
“7. It is similarly unfair to ask a woman to leave aside her personal experience and discuss feminist issues in the abstract. You are discussing the stuff of her life. Asking her to “not make it personal” is to ask her to wrench her womanhood from her personhood.
I found this point very interesting.
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 9:11 am
The Arbourist
Kinda like what America does to Canada, isn’t it?!
In a certain sense, I think you may have a point. Given that most Americans have a very poor sense of history the polarizing struggles between our countries have mostly likely been relegated to the sidelines as the narratives for the American side were mostly negative when it came to pursuing “manifest destiny” northward.
Arb: “7. It is similarly unfair to ask a woman to leave aside her personal experience…[…]”
Vern:I found this point very interesting.
I’m guessing you found this point interesting because the way it excludes the property of pulling a concept into a purely rational arena where an item can be dissected and discussed without direct interpersonal connection.
I’m not sure I agree completely with this point, but I think getting the idea that there are some issues where a privileged male perspective might not be the best way of assessing a particular situation is what is important.
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 9:55 am
Vern R. Kaine
Re: America vs. Canada, I agree. America can exist with most Americans not knowing anything much about Canada, and perhaps vice versa, but if it’s a matter of existing well, then that means suspending the contempt that both sides have for each other as the start towards greater understanding.
I realize that the sources for that contempt are largely different between the two countries (i.e. fact vs conjecture), but the point is that no matter who is “right”, nothing changes unless that contempt is first set aside by both parties. I think the same can be said for men and women.
Re: point #7, you guessed right! Perhaps that’s why some guys appear callous or obtuse when in conversations with women. I’m not quite sure I agree, either, but to me it invites a very interesting “nature vs. nurture” question: rationally can we not all detach, and should we always have to? (I guess that’s two questions!)
And to the point about a PMP not being the best way to assess a situation, as a “lightweight” example I can think of any time I can “listens”, and then offers advice.
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 10:04 am
Vern R. Kaine
Oops, messed up that reply. Re; America vs. Canada, I was going to say that I agree, that much of America’s early history is negative and barely talked about in comparison to her positive. Further, regarding conflict with early Canada, it is usually written as America vs. Britain, yet it was really early Canadians that kicked America’s ass in those battles (1812, 1814, etc.). Yes, we won the war for Independence from Britain but lost the war in trying to assimilate Canada, but all you’ll hear is, “It was all against the British, and we won!” haha
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 10:21 am
The Arbourist
And to the point about a PMP not being the best way to assess a situation, as a “lightweight” example I can think of any time I can “listens”, and then offers advice.
Maybe I can offer a little insight into that idea. When engaged in women’s issues, or issues that directly effect women it can be ‘unhelpful’ to offer up the dominant position/idea/advice on said topic because what it serves in effect is to obscure the issue and some of the structural memes we take for granted. I offer the following example.
Woman: I really am getting creeped out by that guy over there at the bar, he’s already sent me a drink and tried to dance with me on the dance floor.
Unhelpful Male Adviser: Oh just tell him NO and tell him to get lost….
Woman: Err…..
You see, offering advice that would work for a male “just say no” to a female who is in a different societal position vis a vis her gender is generally not very helpful. Also, the advice obscures what is really going on is that because the Woman is not the dominant gender her “NO” is often interpreted as playing hard to get or being coy etc. The idea of rape culture is also pushed to the background because of the implicit assumption that women, like men, have the same level of autonomy and safety in society thus again shading over the explicit disparity that exists in our culture.
This unhelpful advice has been termed manslpaining by feminists and to a certain extent captures the idea that the WMP point of view is not always helpful in all contexts.
LikeLike
February 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Bleatmop
Re: Point #7
The personal is political and the political is personal. Purely academic and abstract discussion of feminist issues, as with most issues, without a connection to real life is, well, pointlessly academic and abstract. It’s like science, if the theory doesn’t match the hard data, then the theory needs to be changed or discarded. Just like in discussing feminism. If what is going on in the abstract discussions of feminism doesn’t match what happens in real life, then the abstract conversations are wrong and need to be altered to take in account of real life (or discarded and replaced).
Asking women to discount real life in discussion on feminism is like asking a scientist to discount reality.
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 9:40 am
The Arbourist
Very well put Bleat, succinct and to the point. :)
LikeLike