Please, sir -- could I have some more equality?

On FB, my friend K. linked to an interesting piece called "The Distress of the Privileged." My initial reaction was to roll my eyes at the title, but I read it, knowing that this friend is not usually on the side of the assholes. It turned out to be a thoughtful take on responding to those feeling what the author calls "privileged distress." Muder's piece is an attempt to articulate how one might deal compassionately with those reeling from the loss (or, more often, the questioning) of their privilege, without lessening the importance of the justice due those harmed by the privilege in question. "Confronting this distress is tricky," writes Muder, "because neither acceptance nor rejection is quite right." It is, as I said, a thoughtful piece, perhaps insightful on the mental state of those thrown of balance by the tectonic shifts of the world around them, or the shaking up of the things they thought were solid ground.

It took me a while to figure out what it was about the piece that made me uncomfortable, but I eventually did. It is thoughtful and it is generous: to be honest, I feel like the generosity is at least a little bit misguided.

At the very least, there's a distinction that needs to be made, between those who "uncritically accept" their privileged role, and those who actively work to maintain it. In the former case, I am more than willing to espouse the virtues of dialogue, and the attempt to reason. If someone simply hasn't thought things through in a careful way, I think it is crucial to try to help them do so. Ignorance is not a character flaw. But, if you refuse to think critically, to listen, to engage, then you have actively refused to participate in dialogue, or to reason. Ignorance may not be a character flaw, but I believe that willful ignorance is.

Muder speaks of the danger of an implacable resentment on the part of the dis-privileged, but says nothing of even the possibility of an implacable sense of entitlement on the part of the privileged. He writes that "it never works to ask others for empathy without offering it back to them," but he seems only to be writing that to those he sees as needing to "win over" the privileged. The message seems to be that the dis-privileged must meet the privileged in the proverbial middle, taking care to coax them gently into non-hegemony in a way that makes them comfortable and soothes their wounded psyches. 

Now, one problem here is that meeting in the middle only works if the middle is actually where we should be. Consider the current national discourses on climate change and evolution. If what you're saying is counter-factual, meeting you halfway is a mistake. In terms of privilege, if I say "we need to level the playing field," and you say, "I'm used to being at the top of a mountain -- how about we just make it a smaller mountain," then you're still privileged, and I'm still fighting an uphill battle. That may be an example of compromise, but it's not really justice, which, as Muder points out, is what's at stake.

But, even more than this, I believe that there is a real and significant injustice in expecting people to ask nicely that someone stop hating, oppressing, or otherwise mistreating them.

As someone in the comments pointed out, "allies" (those invited to the Muder's proverbial party, but sympathetic to the concerns of those excluded from it) may be able to ask nicely, to supportively validate the good-personhood of those peers they hope to persuade to more enlightened treatment of their friends outside. But they're able to do that because they're at the party. They stand shoulder to shoulder with the privileged group -- they're not being directly threatened or hurt by the inequality in question. The fact that they're on the same level makes them well-placed to offer a supportive shoulder to those for whom the world seems suddenly incoherent or antagonistic, even as they attempt to persuade them of the error of their ways. But, while those struggling to gain full recognition of their human dignity *may* be generous enough to attempt to rehabilitate those who have denied it, to insist that they must be, or even always *can* be, is to claim yet another unwarranted privilege.

If you refuse to acknowledge an inequality that diminishes my personhood, it is not my job to preserve your positive self-image. If you are working to maintain a status quo that denies my full and foundational human dignity or threatens my well being, I shouldn't be expected to care about winning you over, or to try and lessen your feelings of disorientation when I defend myself. I should only be expected to care that you immediately stop diminishing my personhood, denying my dignity, or threatening my well being, regardless of whether or not you've been won over or convinced of my full humanity. If we're all at the party, and we're standing side by side, perhaps we can have a mutually open-minded and sympathetic conversation. But, if you've got your foot on my neck, you can't reasonably expect me to care if my throwing you off upsets your balance.

Under Construction

A quick heads up: I'll be tinkering with things in the next few days, including importing in some archival material from previous blogs. If you follow me on a feed, things might go a little haywire -- my apologies in advance!

As I prepared to post this, I thought I'd find a stock "under construction" image to add, just for kicks.

This one seemed apt:

While this one seemed oddly ominous:

Then I thought maybe I'd post a hot construction worker, instead. Now, I figured I knew what would come up on a google search for that term -- lots of heavily oiled models, probably some frontal nudity (true, on both counts). But, after the first few greasy photo shoots, and before the first penis, there was a familiar face:

Any guesses? Here's a hint:

Wow, 1994. Can we just take a moment to talk about the fashion and hair in that commercial? I mean, I know some of the women are supposed to look particularly repressed, but...wow.

But back to Lucky. 18 years later, I recognized this guy's face, and immediately remembered his name. Lucky Vanous. Now, it's a memorable name, in all fairness, but I'm not really sure what made his face stick. He's good-looking, but I'm not sure I'd really pick him out as particularly hot, if I saw him in an ad today. Maybe that's part of it, though. The commercial caused quite a stir, and was notable for its then-surprising reversal of the standard "hot chick's hotness used to sell something" trope, and Vanous was sort of a thing, for a bit -- enough that he was featured in that annual archive of It Boys and Girls: People 's "Most Beautiful People" issue:

Credit: People.com

The commercial seems pretty tame now, but I feel like it was kind of A Big Deal, 18 years ago (let that sink in), that the blatantly objectified body being used to sell something besides Calvin Klein underwear was male. And were those CK ads (first one in 1982) ahead of their time on that?

I've never been sure whether this was brilliant marketing on Coca Cola's part, or not. Here's what I do know: I do remember it as a Diet Coke commercial, but it never induced me to drink Diet Coke. Even in 1994, when I remember talking about that commercial in the hallways at school, there wasn't guy -- male model or not -- hot enough to get me to drink Diet Coke.

We, the people.

This is Bill O'Reilly, explaining/bemoaning Mitt Romney's defeat:



The problem, according to Bill O'Reilly, is that "demographics are changing -- it's not a traditional America anymore." And what does he mean by "a traditional America"? Well, that's one in which "an establishment candidate" wins easily. Well, "establishment" we know -- it's a group that holds the real power, most often by holding it away from everyone else. The establishment wields the socio-economic and political influence in a society. So, who is this establishment, according to Bill O'Reilly? Well, it's "The White Establishment," which "is a minority now." And who, just to be sure, does Bill O'Reilly think is not a part of "The White Establishment?" No surprise here: "Latinos...Blacks...and women." Thanks for clearing that up, Bill.

O'Reilly mentions that "the voters feel that this economic system is stacked against them," then goes on to demonstrate exactly why "the voters" (by which I presume he means that half of the people who did not vote for "The White Establishment") are justified in that feeling. The fact that Bill O'Reilly can still even hope for victories for a "White establishment" -- a group that, by definition, does not include people of color or people (even White ones) who are not a part of "The Establishment" -- means that there is, by his own admission, an established system, from which many are excluded. What I love about this is that he keeps saying that it's because "people feel like they're entitled to things." This may still count as a dog whistle, but I'd say that it's a shout-out to the continued demonization of the poor, and people of color in general, as grasping, lazy, demanding. O'Reilly says the issue is that "people feel like they're entitled to things," but can't stop himself from saying what's really bothering him: White (rich, straight, male) privilege is no longer absolutely secure, because their Establishment is no longer calling all of the shots.

"People feel like they are entitled to things." Yes, Bill, they do. Those women, those poor, those LGBT, those young, those people of color -- they "feel like they are entitled to things." As my friend A. pointed out, the "things" those people think they're entitled to are basically "dignity, equality under the law, opportunity unhindered by bigotry, and the franchise." We, the people, feel that we are entitled to a full voice, a fair share, and equal opportunities to participate in a thriving life, to establish ourselves as an equal part of our nation. Ours, O'Reilly -- not just The White Establishment's.

Ours.

eta: the original video eventually disappeared. This video includes the same footage, starting at about 4:00. (http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2012/11/oreilly-blames-potential-romney-loss)