During the great big "fun feminists" internecine conflict of last week, there was much discussing of "feminist credentials" and whether such behaviors as waxing, wearing heels, and delighting in make-up vitiated one’s commitment to the ideals of the broader cause. It got to be quite an intense discussion that took in at least a dozen blogs, if not more.
I thought I wasn’t going to post more on this subject, and then I read this long, fascinating piece at Mind the Gap Cardiff: How do I look? Thoughts on femininity and white middle-class feminism. I read it hesitantly, worrying it would turn into another Jill-bashing frenzy. But instead, I found it challenging, and it’s got me thinking about a point that I know BitchLab (not work safe for all) has been making as well: many of us tend to see everything through the lens of gender, and tend to ignore the class implications of what it is that we’re writing about.
From Mind the Gap:
When we have fights about waxing for example, are we assuming that all women can afford waxing, that waxing is expected of all women in the same way, and that waxing has the same significance for all women? The way in which women experience, or take part in feminine beauty practices, is enormously tied up with class, race, and also sexuality.
The construction of white middle-class femininity and its practices define my experience of oppression, not least because my own family has, over the last two generations, been in the process of achieving middle-class status. My father comes from a working-class family. His mother was a milliner and later a caterer, his father was a merchant seaman, and he was the first in the family to go to university. My mother’s parents were also both from working-class backgrounds and were obsessed with becoming middle-class. My maternal great grandmother drove herself crazy trying to convince everyone that she was white and middle-class (she was neither, but that’s a story for another day), and so the feminine beauty practices encouraged in my maternal grandmother and mother had a lot to do with the pursuit of a middle-class white identity and with erasing marks of race and working-classness.
For example, waxing has clear ethnic implications. One of my favorite former students, "Armine" (not her real name) reads this blog, and she came to see me yesterday. We talked about waxing, and about my post two days ago on men’s hairy chests. Like many of my students, Armine is of Armenian ancestry. As she herself remarked (her words not mine), "My people are known for being particularly hairy!" Armine talked about the tremendous cultural anxiety she had been raised with about hair. From the time she hit puberty, she’d been removing hair from her forearms, her lip, and elsewhere on her body — and she had been encouraged to do this by her mother and older female relatives. She’d also seriously considered rhinoplasty to reduce the size of what she called her "stereotypical Armenian nose". Her older sister has already had that surgical procedure done.
Armine is quite clear that there is a specific goal to all of this: "We want to look white, not ethnic." Armine feels that the ideals of feminine beauty she grew up with were primarily white women with "cute little noses" and little or no hair on their bodies. Here in Pasadena in 2006, she’s engaged in the same practices that the Welsh great-grandmother was in the Mind the Gap post above: pursuing a middle-class white identity and erasing marks of race and ethnicity. Armine points out that within her culture, it’s possible to balance an intense pride in Armenian heritage with an equally intense contempt for how women from her backgound naturally look. To paraphrase something she said, "At the same time we were being told to make our noses smaller and our bodies hairless, we were told we could only date Armenian men and we had to never forget the genocide."
While I think that Jill — and other pro-waxing, pro-heels feminists — were rudely and unnecessarily savaged last week, I get the point that Armine, Mind the Gap, and BitchLab are making in different ways. Brazilian bikini waxes aren’t just something that women do — they are something that women who can afford them do. And while we generally have no idea how much hair a woman might have in her pubic region, forearm and lip hair (a big concern of Armine’s) is visible. Its removal is at least moderately expensive and moderately painful, and certain ethnic groups (whose DNA carries the genetic material decreeing that body hair shall be abundant) thus have to work harder, pay more, and endure more discomfort in order to meet an ideal that is still set largely by the white middle class.
This still doesn’t mean that I think anyone, white or not, affluent or not, ought to be racked with guilt over the decision to remove hair from the pubis, climb into stilettos, or apply really good make-up. But not all shoes look the same, and not all make-up looks the same. A $400 pair of heels often look like a $400 pair of heels; the make-up at an upscale department store is generally better than the Maybelline one buys at the corner drug store. And a really first-rate waxing job isn’t cheap. This doesn’t mean that only rich women buy nice make-up or get waxed or wear great shoes. It does mean that for women on a budget, the decision to spend on these things means less money for something else. And it also sends a signal to other women about what is appropriate, acceptable, and expected.
Ultimately, all of this raises the difficult question of communal obligation. To what extent are feminists responsible for the signals they send to others? To what extent are those signals even under our control? Jill Filipovic attracts intra-feminist hostility more than most, frankly, because she is a young, pretty, law student living in New York. She takes trips to Europe. She goes to parties and has great hair. Some of these things are within her control, some aren’t, but she gets singled out time and again because she’s both an immensely articulate young feminist and an easy target for envy. (Flame away, but let’s be candid here.) Jill has done the vital work of acknowledging her privilege, even while she has pointed out that she is — like so many of her generation — under a mountain of debt.
Folks seemed to take special issue with Jill because it’s clear that she comes closer than virtually any other feminist blogger to a particular middle-class, white ideal for feminine attractiveness. Unlike her co-bloggers, she does post pictures of herself (in a Flickr account). She leads a more "visually public life" than many other feminists, blogging under her full name and with many details of her private life laid open. So when a pretty, young, white female law student talks about getting a bikini wax, it’s going to produce a strong reaction from some quarters. It’s hard for some people to separate what Jill does from who Jill is.
Though Jill and I are very different, I recognize that perceptions of class and attractiveness function in my own life and work as well. When I’ve posted about my own body anxiety, for example, I usually get some annoyed comments talking about how "I have nothing to complain about." When I talk at length about the fact that I work out anywhere from 15-24 hours per week (including private Pilates and boxing lessons) that sends a stark, even grating message about privilege. My increasingly lean and toned flesh is a testament to my physical work ethic, sure — but it’s also a testament to discretionary time and discretionary income, both of which are associated with tremendous amounts of privilege. That doesn’t mean I am going to stop running, lifting, Pilate-ing, boxing, or cycling any time soon. But it does mean that I am going be cognizant of that privilege just as I know Jill is cognizant of hers.
******
On a tangential note, talking about class reminds me of another aspect of growing up WASP in OKOP culture. One key rule that OKOP follow: talking about class is prima facie evidence you don’t have it. I remember when I was in junior high school, and I repeated something at the dinner table I had heard earlier in the day. I can’t remember what I was describing, but I said something was "classy." An older female relative whom I love very much said to me gentle, "Hugo, please don’t say ‘classy’. It’s vulgar." (For OKOP WASPS, few things are worse than being "vulgar.") The point became clear to me quickly: the people who talked about things being "classy" or about "having a lot of class" were the "anxiously aspiring" who were all-too-eager to try and signify that they belonged in a certain social stratum. Those who had already "arrived", as it were, practiced a careful, elegant pretense of ignoring the whole idea of class. Thus the use of the term "classy" was, as far as OKOP were concerned, proof of its absence!
As she herself remarked (her words not mine), “My people are known for being particularly hairy!”
Ha! This quarter-Italian feminist can definitely relate (although I prefer the term “hirsute”). Somehow I escaped the intensity of ethnic-feminine anxiety, perhaps because my hairy genes were passed down to me through the male line. (Thanks grandpa!)
A $400 pair of heels often look like a $400 pair of heels; the make-up at an upscale department store is generally better than the Maybelline one buys at the corner drug store.
Minor quibble, but I think it is possible to look expensively dressed without actually being so, if one chooses well. A pair of shoes from Payless can go a long way if they are the right shoes. But it tends to be a lot easier to find great stuff in more expensive stores.
Those who had already “arrived”, as it were, practiced a careful, elegant pretense of ignoring the whole idea of class.
I think this is mainly a privilege. If you’ve arrived, you can afford to pretend that class doesn’t exist.
But it is also a requirement. It’s a lot touchier for a “classy” person to talk about class and the chances of inspiring ire and resentment far greater.
…it’s possible to balance an intense pride in Armenian heritage with an equally intense contempt for how women from her backgound naturally look.
This rings true to my half-Mexican self. And I’m sure it would resonate even more with one of my best friends; she is Korean and experiences an enormous amount of pressure from family to “fix” (read: Anglify) her eyes and nose through surgery… while retaining an intense pride in Korean culture.
Your last comment makes me think of a great quote from the Importance of Being Earnest: “Never speak ill of society. Only those who can’t get into it do that.”
As she herself remarked (her words not mine), “My people are known for being particularly hairy!”
I’ve sometimes wondered whether this might be true for Greeks as well, and that’s why hairless seems so troublesome to me. Much easier to wear long pants and avoid sleeveless shirts.
Minor quibble, but I think it is possible to look expensively dressed without actually being so, if one chooses well.
Dress for Success advises going window shopping at the expensive stores, and making note of the styles there, then going to the stores you can afford to buy something that looks similar to the clothes you can’t afford. Not that I have the shopping stamina to actually do this.
Happy; As someone who knows very well the shoes from Payless, that being my major source of footwear, I agree that they can look nice… for awhile, that is.
I’m not so dirt poor anymore, but I’m only a few years away from it. I mainly wore the same pair of shoes (parade boots, $35.00 at army surplus in ‘93) for 5 years (they stiffened and crumbled in ‘98), and I worked on my feet. I splurged and went from there to Docs, which lasted another 3 years.
Pretty shoes from Payless have a higher replacement need than that! Anyway, you can (and I do/did) buy prettier shoes at Payless, but they still weren’t an everyday thing for reasons of the type of work I was doing; and if they were an everyday thing they’d need to be replaced often. Usually they’ll last 6 months or so as an everyday or often shoe.
The best choice for truly poor and looking for quality is to haunt the Sally Anns in richer neighbourhoods. I got a nice pair of dress-up shoes, unworn, for about $3.00. (Still not femme shoes: but blue suede with a chunky heel.) But there is a time cost to regularly showing up, which is harder for women with families; and you do have to have either extraordinarily good feet that don’t get messed up by other people’s wear patterns, or you have to wait for the unworn discards.
Anyway, the budgets of the working poor don’t have a bunch of room in them. For example, while I was a child in the early 80s, my mother had $10 with which to “do” Christmas. She got shoes every 2 or 3 years. I remember when she got Reeboks, after she started a teaching position. She was thrilled; they were an EVENT, those shoes. We talked about them daily for a good two weeks. (”Hey, mom, how are your feet today?”)
So I suppose I’m saying I agree a medium-poor person (a minimum wage worker without kids, say, and a few roommates and no major health problems) will probably able to afford to buy an outfit or two that allows her to “pass” to middle class dressup, but she cannot necessarily afford those outfits for everyday, and her replacement rate for wardrobe malfunction will be much lower than the monied. Which is why I suggest a lower class woman in dressup clothes is expressing power in the moment; that femme has an additional meaning of being off the clock. That’s a huge deal.
Having never owned $400 heels, nor done retail in them, I cannot speak to their fall-to-pieces rate.
As someone who has been poor most of my life, I don’t want to paint the picture that it’s all misery and strife or anything. You make do and find joy. I am exceedingly privileged in that my mom used to make a lot of our clothing and toys and treats, and I wouldn’t say I ever felt deprived.
I should also note that poor people seem to tell the difference between Payless and “good” shoes. I’ve always given money to homeless people, but all the poorer people I know who do/did this (and there were lots of us, that being my social group), give based on a couple of factors including age, gender, and *wardrobe check*. My roommates and friends didn’t generally give a buck to the kid who’s wearing $300 worth of clothes, no matter how dirty - because, unfortunately, we have known monied kids who like to dress punk and stick a hat out. That’s not fair. The dirt would confuse the people who had money of their own, though.
Folks seemed to take special issue with Jill because it’s clear that she comes closer than virtually any other feminist blogger to a particular middle-class, white ideal for feminine attractiveness. Unlike her co-bloggers, she does post pictures of herself (in a Flickr account).
Jill and I were IMing about this during the whole kerfuffle. I feel like I get a pass on a lot of this stuff because not only do people not really know what I look like, but I’m fat and I’m older than Jill. I’m not so enviable in that way. Hell, I had an entire thread on pubic-hair removal, and another on pubic-hair dyeing, and nobody got disillusioned with me or told me I couldn’t be a feminist anymore.
And, no, I don’t put my photo on the site. Except for one, where I was wearing a dust mask and a hard hat, and by God, I STILL got comments about my appearance.
BTW: I should be very clear I’m not femme bashing. I’m merely interested in situating our understanding of the “empowerful” critique more holistically. Since I’m white, my experience only personally intersects with class: but due to my friendships and community, I know the femme icon also has differently situated meaning for some people of colour, some of which you’re here addressing.
Arwen, I hear you. I get annoyed at magazine articles that tell you how to look super-expensive at lower rates and the lower rates are STILL expensive.
I mainly wear shoes from Payless, and occasionally some more expensive shoes (although nothing anywhere near $400, probably $100 max, more like $50). I can personally attest that Payless dress shoes and more expensive dress shoes last about the same amount of time. I think what you’re paying for with more expensive shoes is attractive design subtleties and materials that look better but aren’t necessarily more durable. The difference is really subtle.
But either way, the main point is that dressing up is going to be expensive no matter what if you don’t have the money to do it.
Sidenote– I have read articles about how middle class professionals suffer financially because they have to invest more in wardrobe and drycleaning than say a plumber or a welder, or anyone who is able to make similar amounts of money but with less stringent wardrobe demands. It sounds like a small thing but it can add up.
I’d totally agree, Happy. I switched from barista-ing to reception at one point, and looking “professional” ate all my wage advance plus some. Plus, I suffered higher harrassment.
Now that I’m a programmer, I’m expected to dress in clothing that covers my body, and that’s about it. It’s a good place to enter the middle class. *g*! Gap Casual - which can be thrift store casual or Old Navy casual. To me, it’s very interesting how programming/IT situates itself; there’s a working class ethic at play, it seems, like we’re dressing to be seen as mechanics, only in stainable khakis. I’ve wondered whether this is intended to be ironic, or whether a belt full of new tech is instead the signifier, with clothing being too “mundane” for expression. Every once and awhile, someone busts out the old school punk; I’ve seen kilts. Very interesting.
It’s really not a working-class ethic so much as a “we’re too hip to dress up” ethic.
Yah, I suppose that’s right, mythago. A “too hip” to dress like “the man”.
I wonder also if, now that programming isn’t a mystical thing that no one but a few do, whether dressing up will become more common.
Yeah, programmers are “too hip to dress up.” In the same way that I’m “too personable, too good-looking, and too rich to have a girlfriend.”
Most programmers I know fit into either the working-class ethic or, more commonly, the Asperger’s ethic.
(I almost double-majored in Computer Science and work in a closely related field, so I’m pretty much self-shaming here)
A $400 pair of heels often look like a $400 pair of heels; the make-up at an upscale department store is generally better than the Maybelline one buys at the corner drug store.
“Minor quibble, but I think it is possible to look expensively dressed without actually being so, if one chooses well. A pair of shoes from Payless can go a long way if they are the right shoes. But it tends to be a lot easier to find great stuff in more expensive stores.”- Happy Feminist
This is true, but only if you belong to that particular class anyway and therefore know how to create the same look with less.
I can personally attest that Payless dress shoes and more expensive dress shoes last about the same amount of time.
YMMV. This hasn’t been my experience at all, unless you’re getting a Payless brand that is really the exact same thing as a designer brand, just with the labels changed. (A shoe maven friend informs me that some ‘designer’ shoe companies do this.)
Sorry for the off topic-ness. However, I need to ask a question - what does MRA standfor? Does it in any way describe the misogynists, liars and cowards you seem a lot of posts from?
Mens rights activists, a kind of a revolt against the horrible achievements of feminism (that’s an unbiased definition, btw) ;)
When I talk at length about the fact that I work out anywhere from 15-24 hours per week (including private Pilates and boxing lessons) that sends a stark, even grating message about privilege. My increasingly lean and toned flesh is a testament to my physical work ethic, sure — but it’s also a testament to discretionary time and discretionary income, both of which are associated with tremendous amounts of privilege.
It’s a testament to hard work, not priviledge.
Almost everyone makes their lives for themselves. Very few start out in life set. Gates didn’t start out a billionaire, my family didn’t pay for the schooling that taught me how to run a company, and your accomplishments have to do with YOU, not priviledge.
Discretionary time comes from not watching TV and working out for those 15+ hours per week; it comes from hitting the books, making sound judgements, and good decisions. It comes from going to college and committing to it, rather than taking a gap year that turns into a career at Del Taco. It comes from not hanging out with stoners and druggis, as compared to doing drugs, watching tv all day, and not reading books.
One can sit home and watch TV during the weekend, or spend 6 hours climbing a mountain, and the willingness to do so has to do with character, hard work and the willingness to do what it takes.
Hiking is cheap. Gas and sneakers and a second hand bookbag will get you what you need to hike in the Sierras for a day. Running is cheap. $30 shoes at WalMart, and you run. Easy. The ‘Y’ is $44/month, cheaper than cable.
It’s all about choices, and anyone can chose.
Used to be being poor didn’t mean holding someone to a different standard. They wore a tattered suit and hat, only had one, but they wore it. They endeavored to be civil, and expected high things of themselves.
Now we give the poor a pass, because they aren’t ‘priviledged’.
What is it about them that we are willing to hold them to a different, lower standard than ourselves who allegedly have ‘priviledge’?
When we have fights about waxing for example, are we assuming that all women can afford waxing, that waxing is expected of all women in the same way, and that waxing has the same significance for all women?
We could just be engaged in a stupid argument that focuses on waxing rather than the pressure to beautify.
It’s a testament to hard work, not priviledge
Privilege is a substitute for an awful lot of hard work, and covers for an awful lot of bad luck.
Privilege includes things like having the free time to hike, instead of taking a second job to make ends meet; being able to take a ‘gap year’ in college instead of cramming as much as you can in while you can afford it…oh, and pretending that if your clothes are tattered, you will be treated with just as much dignity as somebody whose clothes came new from Neiman-Marcus.
Lee, while Bill Gates is admittedly very smart and very, very rich, he owes a lot of his success to his parents’ connections and to a massive blunder by IBM.
And running means that you are physically capable of doing so, which isn’t that easy if you suffer from chronic back pain from hideous jobs.
It’s a testament to hard work, not privilege
Privilege is a substitute for an awful lot of hard work, and covers for an awful lot of bad luck.
Amazingly, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
Privilege includes things like having the free time to hike,
Which I have because of sound choices and hard work, no debt and a commitment to spare time. These qualities weren’t handed to me - they were earned. Thus not a privilege.
Privilege:
A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. b. Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
Nothing I posted is of privilege, or was granted, or is a special advantage or exercised to the exclusion of others as others are free to do it as well.
instead of taking a second job to make ends meet;
Then I suggest they cut expenses and increase their value in the labor market.
oh, and pretending that if your clothes are tattered, you will be treated with just as much dignity as somebody whose clothes came new from Neiman-Marcus.
That’s just a Red Herring, as I was posting of those who appear poor and are given
short shrift on expectations by The Left.
This is the irreconcilable clash between those whom see others with things, possessions, qualities they may not have and attributing those to unfair advantage, privilege and the like and those who see earned success. Usually what others have is earned, and viewing it as privilege makes it easier to take what they have (they didn’t earn it, it was given to them, it’s not fair…).
This is just the old envy based attitude of The Left, Socialists and the like.
Lee, while Bill Gates is admittedly very smart and very, very rich, he owes a lot of his success to his parents’ connections and to a massive blunder by IBM.
Gates gave IBM a fair chance and originally passed on the first PC Disc Operating System. He referred them to another shop, they dropped the ball and came back to Gates.
Gates had the smarts to buy QDOS and get a completely unrestricted license for $50,000 in cash. IOW, he owned it and could do what he wished.
Gates then had the smarts, foresight and gumption to insist in the agreement with IBM that he could license DOS to other manufacturers and charge for it. This was IBM, in 1981, a Titan of American Business. What courage and foresight. Brilliant.
Gates outsmarted IBM!. That isn’t anything but good decision making, good legal advice, and he has been rewarded for that, his mother’s friendships with IBM boardmembers notwithstanding.
And running means that you are physically capable of doing so, which isn’t that easy if you suffer from chronic back pain from hideous jobs.
Then do something else like Pilates, seated cycle upper body rows, or walking.
This is just more of the same attitude of:
“I can’t. I am poor. I am tired. I work two jobs. I have a bad back. I cannot be expected to do those things the ‘Privileged’ do. So let’s take their money via taxes!”
These excuses don’t fly, and I speak from personal experience.
I have a bad back, I have had a heart attack, 4 years ago I was earning $500/month, and I have been homeless twice, sleeping in my car in the winter in Seattle with a leaky roof.
When I read such arguments as yours, my reaction is:
“So what?”
Stop making excuses, and stop being envious of those who do things and have things you don’t.
The harder you work, the more bad luck you may have. If you’re working multiple jobs, you’re not exactly going to have the oppurtunity to look for luck.
And how, pray tell, did you manage not to get into debt in the first place? I’d really like to see a person direct me to how I can pay 100,000 dollars worth of an education without going into debt. Doesn’t matter what my summer job is, I’m not getting that kind of money.
Ah, the unquestioned privelege of the smugly self-righteous. I love how this “I just worked hard” attitude means that they don’t have to change anything about themselves. They get to ignore people who didn’t have their resources.
Admitting privilege–be it race, class, or gender–seems to be incredibly difficult for some people. Admitting that without vast amounts of privilege you would not have achieved what you have now is hard. By ignoring the way privilege operates in daily life, you are choosing to blind yourself to the reality that were you born in different circumstances, your hard work and perseverance alone would NOT have gotten you where you are today. It’s ignorant to say that because a few individuals managed to crawl out of the (race, class, or gender) gutter, and be incredibly successful, that everyone ought to be able to. The bootstraps myth is pervasive, namely because of how conveniently it allows us to deny that our achievements weren’t facilitated by our upbringing or position in society.
…it’s possible to balance an intense pride in Armenian heritage with an equally intense contempt for how women from her backgound naturally look.
Can I just say WORD to this? It’s not just an Armenian thing. I cannot tell you how many of my fellow Jewish women have had rhinoplasties done because big noses are considered the height of unattractiveness on women. It’s a site of cognitive dissonance: our noses are symbols (sometimes the only outward symbol) of our heritage,of which we are proud, but are also considered ugly and non-”white”, and therefore worthy of contempt.
I’m writing this anonymously because I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I am also seriously considering having the surgery.
Jas
And what are we supposed to do about it? How do we get rid of this so-called privilege? Should we create a new neo-communist society? Thats the only I can us getting of “old money” and the class system?
Sorry thats supposed to be>>>Thats the only I can us getting RID of “old money” and the class system
rats!
I meant >>Thats the only way I can see us getting RID of “old money” and the class system
The harder you work, the more bad luck you may have. If you’re working multiple jobs, you’re not exactly going to have the oppurtunity to look for luck.
I can’t do anything about your attitude that there is nothing you can do, and it is all up to ‘luck’.
If you think you can, you aren’t guaranteed to succeed, but you stand a chance.
If you think you can’t, you definitely, 100% are guaranteed you won’t.
And how, pray tell, did you manage not to get into debt in the first place?
By not going into debt. By only taking out $8k in student loans that paid off @ $49.01/month.
By not going back for another degree because I realised that most jobs don’t require it, and that you can earn a very good living without one.
Discipline. Low cc balances. Purchase a car used for cash. Basic money management.
I’d really like to see a person direct me to how I can pay 100,000 dollars worth of an education without going into debt.
I don’t intend to be hard-nosed, but you chose to get an expensive education. You chose to go into debt to finance it. You chose your major and career that makes it (apparently) difficult to pay off such a large debt.
No one forced you, you chose of your own free will.
Doesn’t matter what my summer job is, I’m not getting that kind of money.
Time to re-think your assumptions about education, career, and ROI.
Ah, the unquestioned privelege of the smugly self-righteous.
I earned all that I have. Not a dime was given to me. No inheritance, no job placements via a call to Dad, nothing, nada.
I love how this “I just worked hard” attitude means that they don’t have to change anything about themselves.
I am fascinated that you conclude that I didn’t change anything about myself: on the contrary.
Working hard and assessing what works and what doesn’t absolutely necessitates changings oneself, outlook and attitude.
I couldn’t have gotten to where I am being the same person I was 15 years ago. Wouldn’t happen.
They get to ignore people who didn’t have their resources.
Again you imply I had some hidden well of resources, again I reply that I do not, again you simply ignore what I write.
This is, again, an exemplary example of the attitude of those who look at others who achieve and blame some hidden ‘privilege’. Even when I tell you the details of my situation, you just ignore it to continue with your bias of hopelessness, envy and jealousy.
That is sad.
Admitting privilege–be it race, class, or gender–seems to be incredibly difficult for some people.
The assumption that any who succeed did so as a result of privilege, besides being logically incorrect, is a bias.
Admitting that without vast amounts of privilege you would not have achieved what you have now is hard.
Factually untrue. But please, continue to blind yourself to the reality of my life. It amuses me.
By ignoring the way privilege operates in daily life, you are choosing to blind yourself to the reality that were you born in different circumstances, your hard work and perseverance alone would NOT have gotten you where you are today.
By assuming that privilege got me to where I am is blinding yourself to the fact that I had none.
Broke, $500/month in income and homeless doesn’t look like privilege to anyone.
It’s ignorant to say that because a few individuals managed to crawl out of the (race, class, or gender) gutter, and be incredibly successful, that everyone ought to be able to.
It is defeatist to say that every cannot to so.
To blame your station on race, class or gender and require some rectification is just Socialism, Communism and redistribution of your and my hard earned money.
Socialism and restribution of income from the ‘haves’ to ‘have nots’ died on 11-9-89. Humanity tried it, we ran a lengthy experiment, and it failed totally.
I also am not arguing that everyone can be incredibly successful.
Not everyone can, and I include myself. It is called talent and ability. Some have it, some don’t.
Life is unfair, I want it to remain so, and I would not want to live in a world that is fair by that standard.
The bootstraps myth is pervasive, namely because of how conveniently it allows us to deny that our achievements weren’t facilitated by our upbringing or position in society.
I suppose the way to rectify this situation in your eyes would be to give those who ‘are less fortunate’ and ‘have no privilege’ (however that is defined or decided upon) money, preference and other resources for free.
The bootstrap ‘Myth’ is pervasive because it is true, accurate and real.
The man I work for is worth a great deal.
He started out poor, living in the Jewish slums of Argentina. He had zero. Nothing. All his relatives except his mother went up the chimney in Nazi Germany. He built a business in Argentina, took that money and moved to Israel, took that money and moved to L.A. He sold cars for 10 years, took THAT money and started a contracting business. That was 13 years ago.
Now he earns high 6-figures.
No privilege, nothing. An immigrant, with poor English skills (trust me on that one…), no relatives, no inheritance, Jewish, a heavy accent, short.
There is nothing more I can post.
You are convinced that you cannot succeed and that others cannot due to circumstance. I post of people in those, or worse, circumstances, and you simply dismiss these facts.
You think you cannot, and others cannot, and blame race, class or gender. I know the next step is for the government to level this allegedly playing field to be more fair. Next you will take my money to give it away (aka ‘Taxes’).
This is what is at the root of so much Democratic Social Liberalism, and it is why I switched from being a Liberal to a Libertarian/Conservative 12 years ago.
Our life views are irreconcilable.
I want those who succeed to keep their money.
You want to take it to make life more fair.
I know success can be had if you work at it.
You believe most cannot due to race class or gender.
You make plenty of assumptions about how I complain because I am a failure in life and can’t find ways to succeed. I am a 21 year old from a very poor immigrant family who graduated at the top 5% of my class and am in the process of getting a juris doctor. If anything, I prove that the bootstraps theory works. Except… that I know that it doesn’t. For every semi “successful” person in my situation I know, there are 20 others who are not. This is not just due to my hard work and diligence and their laziness.
I’m not going to say “NUH UH, YOU’RE WRONG!!” back and forth with you. We disagree, likely because you are in denial, and likely because the pervasiveness of the bootstraps theory succeeded in convincing you that your own failures are your fault, so no one should be held accountable for making “the system” more unbiased.
I am not advocating socialism or communism; in fact, my family and I escaped it some years back, for good reason. I am advocating a realistic look at why some people achieve success, and why some don’t. Paris Hilton is not a multimillionaire (billionaire?) because she is intelligent, or a good singer, or talented. At all. And there are many many slightly less flamboyant examples of her in the world around us, who have only achieved because their path was already semi-carved out for them. However different our perspectives may be, you cannot disagree with the fact that the same level of success is infinitely easier for one with financial/ racial/ gender privilege to achieve. If so, please explain how it is not.
And what are we supposed to do about it? How do we get rid of this so-called privilege? Should we create a new neo-communist society? Thats the only I can us getting of “old money” and the class system?
See the above. Setting up a strawman and arguing against it is not a very efficient way of discussion. I never advocated communism. What I advocate is the admission of privilege, and its role in your accomplishments. With a more realistic view of privilege will come better social problems (calm down, not socialism) that will allot a tiny bit of privilege to the underprivileged (but not take it away from the privileged, because that is impossible.)
Also, to lee, I think double posting is frowned upon here…
“programs”, and not “problems” in the last sentence. :) I wish editing were possible here…
likely because you are in denial, and likely because the pervasiveness of the bootstraps theory succeeded in convincing you that your own failures are your fault,
Everyones failures ARE their own fault. Mine, yours, everyones. This is called accepting responsibility for your life.
All of us are where we are because of choices WE made, and blaming where we are on someone or something else is just victimology. No one is coming to save you. You want to do something, then do it!
With a more realistic view of privilege will come better social problems (calm down, not socialism) that will allot a tiny bit of privilege to the underprivileged.
That’s redistribution of income and assets, and that’s Socialism whether you want to admit it or not. Hiring preferences, Affirmative Action are both based in the Socialist idea of leveling the playing field for those who have less than others.
Paris Hilton represents such a small percentage of people that she isn’t worth discussing. There are people who are rich, there are people who have rich parents. That’s life. You can whine about it or do your best.
My own family owned a multi-million dollar business in 1960. By the time I was 9 that industry was dust, my father was bankrupt, and we lost it all. I got over that decades ago and I don’t begrudge those who are still in the business whose kids went to Ivy League schools, etc. There will always be someone who has more than you, and looking at them and assuming they got it because of privilege is just envy.
Your friends who aren’t doing as well as you obviously don’t have the skills you do. The U.S. is a meritocracy and if you do well you have the chops. If you don’t do well there is something you lack, whether you realise it or not. Your friends likely don’t have a certain skill that you don’t realise, and that is why they aren’t doing as well as you now. In 20 years they might be much more successful than you.
you cannot disagree with the fact that the same level of success is infinitely easier for one with financial/ racial/ gender privilege to achieve. If so, please explain how it is not.
So what? The world is unfair and it is not the place of government to make it more fair, level the playing field, or get equal outcomes. Some people start out life with more. That’s how it is. I don’t want the government or anyone to put policies in place that decide who has less and then give them money and resources. I do not agree that there are racial or gender privileges in the U.S. today; other than minorities are given preference over whites, men, etc. This isn’t Mississippi in 1947, and this isn’t Saudi Arabia. We have rectified those issues in this country and continued pressing for more equality is just an attempt at superiority at this juncture. Women and minorities in this country have it better than anywhere else, anytime in the history of humanity.
If you think there is racial privilege here, then talk to the Native Americans in Central America. Ask them what happens if they try to sneak into Mexico illegally.
If you think there is gender privilege here, then look into what happens to Iranian women who cheat, have sex out of wedlock, or are raped.
What I advocate is the admission of privilege, and its role in your accomplishments.
And for the third time I am telling you that where I am now has nothing to do with privilege and everything to do with decisions I made over the past 5 years.
Someone once wrote anyone under 30 who has a heart is a Socialist and anyone over 30 with a brain is a Capitalist. I had values similar to yours when I was 21, 25 years ago.
Reality intervened.
All the best,
-Lee.
Right, I look forward to the day I can be more like you…
The quote is “Any man who is not a socialist before he is 40 has no heart.
Any man who is still a socialist after he is 40 has no head.”
There is no way to become a pilot and not pay 100k. None at all. So what you are basically saying to me is unless you’re born privledged, you don’t deserve to have a job you love if it happens to be expensive.
But before we go off on “My life your life” I’d just like to clarify one thing.
Your accomplishments are STILL your accomplishments. Just because you had and have privelege doesn’t mean that you didn’t deserve it. If anything, it means we have no way of telling if you deserved them or not. It’s like a race: if you start out with a headstart and you win, you could legitimately be the better runner and you still had to run the race. But it doesn’t prove that you are better than the person who started out behind you, because the race wasn’t fair to begin with. Similarily, you are right about personal responsibility to some small degree: the person who starts behind you will never win if they don’t run.
Now that I have that out of the way, I’d like to point out some other things in your comments.
There will always be someone who has more than you, and looking at them and assuming they got it because of privilege is just envy.
It seems to be the case here that we are all doing quite well. We can recognize our own privelege without getting defensive, and we can recognize our own barriers, so I don’t think envy has anything to do with it.
Your friends who aren’t doing as well as you obviously don’t have the skills you do.
Or it might just be that they don’t have the resources. I know its difficult to focus on studying if you have a toothache that won’t go away because you can’t fix it because you have no dental insurance. Or the only job you can take is late at night so your not getting the sleep you need. Or any other number of scenarios that might make it harder to succeed. It doesn’t have anything to do with skills.
The U.S. is a meritocracy and if you do well you have the chops.
I’m afraid I cannot answer that without being horrible sarcastic. So I will just say this: if you believe that, I have to say that you are extrodinarily classist and racist.
If you don’t do well there is something you lack, whether you realise it or not. Your friends likely don’t have a certain skill that you don’t realise, and that is why they aren’t doing as well as you now.
Or privelege is making up for the skill you do lack. Almost anyone can beat a video game if they have infinate lives. Almost anyone can get a degree if they get to try over and over again.
So what?
This statement lacks compassion.
The world is unfair
If we thought the world was fair, we wouldn’t be activists
and it is not the place of government to make it more fair, level the playing field, or get equal outcomes.
I’m advocating equal oppurtunities, nto equal outcomes.
Some people start out life with more. That’s how it is. I don’t want the government or anyone to put policies in place that decide who has less and then give them money and resources.
Then I have to ask: why not? Why don’t you care that the game is rigged from the get go?
I do not agree that there are racial or gender privileges in the U.S. today;
Then you are either delusional, lacking empathy, or racist and sexist yourself, and I say this to anyone who espouses this. This is not meant to be an insult, this is a critism.
other than minorities are given preference over whites, men, etc. Again, I’m afraid I cannot answer this without being sarcastic. Perhaps someone else could help me?
This isn’t Mississippi in 1947, and this isn’t Saudi Arabia. We have rectified those issues in this country and continued pressing for more equality is just an attempt at superiority at this juncture. Women and minorities in this country have it better than anywhere else, anytime in the history of humanity.
But they still don’t have it as good as white men. You are doing the wrong comparison: it should be compared to white men in this country, not in the past or in other countries.
If you think there is racial privilege here, then talk to the Native Americans in Central America. Ask them what happens if they try to sneak into Mexico illegally.
If you think there is gender privilege here, then look into what happens to Iranian women who cheat, have sex out of wedlock, or are raped.
Again, it is the wrong comparison point. And, there is a threat implicit in that: stop complaining or we’ll make it like it is there. That is very dangerous ground to be on.
And for the third time I am telling you that where I am now has nothing to do with privilege and everything to do with decisions I made over the past 5 years.
And you are not listening to a word anybody has said. Again, it is not to degenerate your accomplishments, which I’m sure were hard one. But, it is to say no man is an island, and there were less barriers to your accomplishments than to other people that maybe you would NOT have been able to overcome. You probably make good decisions. You probably did work very hard. But that doesn’t mean that no small amount of luck and privelege played a part in your success.
Someone once wrote anyone under 30 who has a heart is a Socialist and anyone over 30 with a brain is a Capitalist. I had values similar to yours when I was 21, 25 years ago.
Ah yes: your views are wrong because you are young. I frequently run into this mindset, as a 22-year-old college female.
Experiences are not the end all, be-all of wisdom. Some experiences make you less wise.
Reality intervened.
Perhaps, or any other number of things could have happened to reduce your cognitive dissonance.