I don’t understand how those defending Amanda can say ’she didn’t appropriate’, as if appropriation depended on how the facts appeared from her point of view ((I would also ask those who read her book and didn’t notice the images to consider how far they trust their own judgement)). To make it about her intentions and thought processes is to centre this discussion on a white woman, rather than women of colour. White people can (and frequently do) appropriate without knowing they have done it.

The post I wrote on visiting a prison with a child, is more directly and urgently based on my own experiences than anything else I’ve written. I was there; I was the one changing the nappy on the floor of the visitor’s centre. But I knew that the experience wasn’t mine in some very important ways. I was travelling through a world that many women live in. I was really anxious not to claim something that didn’t belong to me. Looking back I don’t think I did enough. I think I should have done more than acknowledge that this experience wasn’t mine, but link to what other people had said about that experience.

I write about that to explain that the history of how she came to write the article is not relevant to whether or not she appropriated, and why I think almost every defence of Amanda has made things much worse.

This has been an interesting discussion. I’m sorry I haven’t participated more even when it’s clear I have things to learn but I’ve been kind of busy with a situation that I’ve not had to address before and it’s kept me quite busy. I do have to admit that FM has at least tried to be helpful though.

in fact, speaking of, an old joke (not that I’m laughing here, but by way of illustration, I actually think it’s apt) suddenly comes to mind:

Person dies and goes to hell, and the devil tells hir that sie has a choice of several rooms wherein sie can go and suffer for all eternity.

The first room has people being boiled in oil.

The second room has people lying on beds of knives.

The third room has people standing chest-to-chin-deep in excrement, but they’re actually talking to each other and holding cups of coffee, and don’t seem to be in physical agony. The new infernal tenant tells the devil, “I’ll take this one, then.”

Choice made, the person goes to join the throng. Shortly thereafter, a demon comes in with a pitchfork and goes,

“Right everyone, coffee break’s over, back on your heads.”

That there would be “passing,” basically.

“Passing privilege” — I can’t believe anyone is going to argue that the alleged ability to “pass” makes a group’s oppression somehow “not as bad.” Even if individuals can pass, they can only do so by hiding and disguising who they are. Is homophobia a “lesser” oppression because gays and lesbians (at least the white ones) can “pass?” — if they STFU, anyway. Are we really going to start comparing oppressions? Is that what anyone in anti-oppression work should be doing?

Penka, you’re absolutely right. I mean, to bring it back to writing as an example — look at the Brontë sisters. If I raised an argument that they were successful because they did a great job passing as male writers, and therefore we should not talk about the fact they could not initially publish works as female writers, everyone here would be looking at me as if I had two heads and one was shoved high up my ass. Passing isn’t a privilege; it’s a survival skill. It is a choice to blend in with the oppressors to keep yourself as safe as possible from harm FROM those same people. It’s feeling knots as you hear people who care about you trash and belittle something that is a part of you you cannot change. And it is no cakewalk — it’s difficult to even couch it in terms of being a privilege.

I mean, think about these incidences of passing:

1) A woman diagnosed with a debilitating disease and experiences chronic pain tirelessly works a physically demanding job to reach managerial status as if she is able-bodied because she knows if she revealed that she had that disease and the treatments she receives, she would lose the job she loves.

2) A man attempting to join a primarily heterosexual fraternity gets an impromptu assignment to write homophobic slurs on a friend’s whiteboard. The group dives into writing; the fraternity heads are all watching. But he’s been dating this friend for a couple of weeks.

3) A woman who works three jobs to support her younger siblings while going to college part-time learns about a banquet at the end of the school year for graduating seniors. The banquet is mandatory for all graduates because they present their projects as the main event, and the cost is over $300 per person because of the event’s location. She only has $500 for groceries for the next two months.

In all these situations, people are forced to choose between “passing” and reaching a goal that is important to their immediate advancement or revealing something about themselves that could leave them vulnerable to attack or loss. How is this a privilege?

I tried to broaden these examples beyond race and gender because often the superficial examples of passing seem to scramble people’s brains as a “good thing.” Where is this hidden benefit of being able to pass?

That said, I’d also like to point out that the idea that those of us from Russia and the former Soviet Union can’t “pass” nearly as easily as some people seem to think. I don’t have to say a word to be recognized for what I am. That’s largely because I live in Portland, where 75% of immigrants (documented and undocumented) are from Russia and the former Soviet Union. People here can tell just by looking at me what I am — and they don’t hesitate to act on those assumptions. I have been assumed to be illegal (and, even when they assume or know I’m legal, they still feel that I shouldn’t be here, and don’t hesitate to let me know that). I have been assaulted by anti-immigrant types (my own brother was jumped and nearly killed for being a “fucking Russian” - despite the fact that we are Bosnian, not Russian). Men assume that I will be like the women from the “mail order bride websites,” or that I am a “sex slave” who has been trafficked in (apparently for their pleasure).

And it’s not just your typical racists or conservative anti-immigrant folks who do this — plenty of “progressive” types engage in this same behavior, or seem to think that it’s not a big deal — it’s not “really” racism after all.

As an individual, I have it worse than some, far better than others. As a part of a group, I have it worse than some, better than others. I don’t have any desire to make my oppression out to be any worse than anyone else’s. In fact, I believe doing so is only furthering the oppression in this world.

Radfem; sometimes I really find your writing great, sometimes you drive me nuts and I totally disagree with you. This is time it’s the ladder.

But since there’s been complaints of her behavior in the past, it wasn’t likely she would say anything.

And what’s with the whole “reverse racism” thing of “To say ‘you’re white’ is to discredit any other potential lens that I might be able to view something”? So when the anti-feminist men here start going on about how There’s No Such Thing As Sexism These Days pointing out that they’re men and therefore have a specific, very different point of view to women is somehow shutting them down, denying them a voice, “controlling the dialogue” in an underhanded, dishonest way? Or is it simply stating the truth? When the issue is racism, being white is automatically more significant than any other identity you might have.

Good point. You’d think we’d learn from what’s been done to us, but we really haven’t. Instead, it’s entitlement of some kind conscious or unconscious to repeat this behavior towards other women. The fact that White women’s defensiveness about being called on their racial privilege which is often enjoyed at the expense of other women can become more important than addressing the privilege itself is both a sign of creating a heiarchy of oppression among women and that feminism with all its accomplishments still has a long way to go towards being relevant for many women. Maybe some day that will change.

Also, in all fairness to Kim, she has never (here or elsewhere) ever even implied “There’s No Such Thing as [Racism] These Days.” But we certainly do have people here who are willing to hierarchalize oppression, as though we really can determine who “has it worse” and should be doing so.

And what’s with the whole “reverse racism” thing of “To say ‘you’re white’ is to discredit any other potential lens that I might be able to view something”? So when the anti-feminist men here start going on about how There’s No Such Thing As Sexism These Days pointing out that they’re men and therefore have a specific, very different point of view to women is somehow shutting them down, denying them a voice, “controlling the dialogue” in an underhanded, dishonest way? Or is it simply stating the truth? When the issue is racism, being white is automatically more significant than any other identity you might have.

That’s the problem with this thread. It’s all about controlling dialogue, and that sort of framing is both pretentious and dishonest when it is used to discuss marginalization.

PS, since when did feminists have to be a certain color to talk about marginalization? Since when was who gets to frame it an institutionalized or even acceptable way to have discourse?

To say ‘you’re white’ is to discredit any other potential lens that I might be able to view something.

And I also disagree that you’re objective; when it comes to race issues, no one is objective, because everyone has a context they’re coming from. You’re white, and that effects your perspective — as you well know. So it’s a mistake to claim objectivity.