Recent blog posts by Kate Kelly and Joanna Brooks on FMHseem to embrace some of what I was trying to convey with this post. There seems to me, the way that I read those two articles, a recognition that things are not just about white, privileged, Mormon feminists but the net of equality is cast much larger. Now, I may not agree with their overall assessment of the simple changes that seem to be happening at the HQ level, but, I do, like they, rejoice at the expanding umbrella of inclusion that seems to be happening.
But more than that, I rejoice that there is some recognition in the largely white feminist community that it isn’t all about them.
—————————————————-
One of the war cries of modern feminism is that of male privilege. There is no doubt that in certain areas like employment and pay, education, property rights, sexual rights, etc., men throughout the ages have enjoyed considerable advantage due to perceived gender roles. This so-called privilege has largely, but not completely dissipated in areas of employment and pay and education. While equal pay is still not 100% equal in all cases, it’s better than it has ever been. Women now dominate the ranks of those seeking higher education, particularly Masters and Ph.D. degrees. More married and married with young children women work outside the home (about 70%) than at any other time in history almost on par with single women and far greater than widowed, divorced or separated women.
However, when compared with the blight of women in many parts of the under-developed world, typically women of color, the privileged shoe appears to be on the other foot. And, if you make a real comparison, the privilege of the modern feminist transcends those of males of the third world as well. I thought I would give a few examples, not nearly all encompassing, of the trials faced by women in the third world compared to the privilege enjoyed by those in the so-called first or developed world.
| Third World Female Privilege | First World Female Privilege |
| Breast Ironing | Ability to hold public office |
| Disease | Access to contraception |
| Domestic abuse | Access to excellent OB-GYN care |
| Female Infanticide | Adequate housing |
| Female Sexual Mutilation | Clean water, air and food |
| Forced religious conversion | Education including advanced degrees |
| Forced underage marriages | Employment |
| High Infant and child mortality | Employment advancement |
| Kidnapping | Excellent health care |
| Lack of contraception | Freedoms (many) |
| Lack of proper housing | Generally free from crime and violence |
| Lack of, or poor education | Generally raised in a safe, loving environment |
| Low life expectancy | High life expectancy |
| Low standard of living | High standard of living |
| No voice | Marriage by choice |
| Plural wives | Own property |
| Poor medical and OB-GYN Care | Sexual freedom |
| Poor sanitation | |
| Poverty | |
| Rampant sexually transmitted diseases | |
| Rape | |
| Slavery, including sex slavery | |
| Violence | |
| Wife burning |
I know that some would immediately take issue with some of the privilege they enjoy stating that their particular life has some level of hardship. Everyone’s does. Many men also have hard lives, certainly not ideal and that hasn’t stopped the claim of male privilege.
It should not be understated that many women all over the world have suffered at the hands of men. That is true.
One other interesting aspect of this situation was one that was recently brought to light by an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled “For many black Mormons, racism is a bigger issue than sexism.” In a very telling quote, “”If you look at the reality of a white woman’s lot in life in terms of freedom,” says Catherine M. Stokes, a former public-health professional who joined the LDS Church in Chicago in 1979 and now lives in Utah, “you [black women] don’t have much to identify with.”
This particular article prompted one Mormon feminist to write, “I’ve realized how blinded by my privilege I’ve been.”
And while you can certainly read ad infinitum about all the daily injustices the Church, its rules, its practices, the Priesthood, garments, the men and other women have done to these women, what you do not see is much sustained concern for the blight of the women in the third world or women of color who face many more real trials than, for example, not being able to hold their baby during a blessing of the child.
Why is that?
Wheat & Tares 
Fallacy of relative privation
The existence of a greater evil does not excuse inaction against lesser evils. Humanity is quite capable of remedying more than one wrong at a time. Evils need to queue up to be addressed.
Hmmm, do you happen to have any examples of WASP groups being the underclass?
Sorry should have read Male WASP groups.
“Hmmm, do you happen to have any examples of WASP groups being the underclass?’
Vietnam era vets, the homeless, the poor, non-violent drug offenders with a prison record, to name a few. What’s the point?
Plus-One for Daniel. The fact that things could be worse, and are worse elsewhere, shouldn’t blind us to what could be better here. Nor should it prevent us from trying to make it better here.
I do note that the people who most often advocate this form of “resting on our not-so-bad laurels” are usually the ones who have the privilege.
“I do note that the people who most often advocate this form of “resting on our not-so-bad laurels” are usually the ones who have the privilege.”
Looks like both you and Daniel have missed the point. I guess I didn’t do a good enough job of trying to frame it. This is nothing about who has it worse.
I feel like the post could have gone a lot more into intersectionality (since it hints and dances around this concept), and I’ve definitely had discussions around Peggy’s SLTribune article on race and sex…but ultimately, I wanted to get at Jeff’s response in comment 4 to Howard:
In this list, I’m wondering which of these are examples of when male WASPs were in the underclass *specifically because of social ramifications of their male WASP* status.
Because pointing out that male WASPs can be poor elides that poorness isn’t associated with male WASPness (or attributed to it, or attributed to “male WASP culture” or whatever.)
In contrast, if you look at non-violent drug offenders with a prison record, this is one of the biggest examples used for demonstrating white *privilege* rather than oppression, as despite the statistics on drug usage by race, etc., black folks (and especially black men) are more targeted, imprisoned, and disenfranchised for these sorts of things.
I definitely think that Daniel Smith’s first comment is extremely relevant. Saying something like, “Overall, if you’re a Mormon feminist, you are probably pretty well off, because American Mormonism is pretty full of typically socioeconomically well off white folks” doesn’t excuse or justify not trying to improve the conditions within this religion.
Jeff, you may be right about needing to reframe, because if there was a larger point beyond, “See the list in the table? Clearly feminists who harp about privilege have it WAY easier than they want us to believe,” I am not seeing it.
I actually dislike the word privilege and think it is flung around much too freely in a buzz word kind of way that robs it of real meaning much of the time, so I prefer to divorce it from academia and go for the gospel corollary, which for me is empathy. It’s about being willing to try to stretch ourselves beyond the glass we see through darkly (where everyone’s experience is just a version of our own with better or worse personal choices) and feel another’s pain. Then look and see if there is anything we can do in our sphere to alleviate it.
I was recently laid off and have been feeling pretty sorry for myself at the prospect of finding another job that will compensate me as well and allow me the flexibility to care for my baby. Articles like this do a good job of putting things into perspective for me, because I do have it way better than many people across the world.
But I don’t feel like that’s the goal of this post. I feel like the rhetorical position is that I should feel ashamed for feeling undervalued at church because lots of people have bigger problems than that. And that doesn’t help me.
Evils need NOT queue up to be addressed.
Well I suppose if a very important descriptor of yourself is limited to Vietnam era vet (ended 1975 btw), homeless, poor or non-violent drug offenders with a prison record you *may* be of a very limited male underclass. But the draft is long over and most Vietnam era vets have far more on their CV today than that. I lived with the homeless for many months and I can tell you that is mostly a choice for homeless men. Are the poor disproportionally males without options?
Sharon Eubank, director of LDS Charities spoke to FairMormon Conference audience with a similar point to your article. The title of her talk was ‘This is a woman’s church’ Why is it a woman’s church? The title was reportedly taken from a quote from sister in rural Ghana. It turns out one of the major reason’s she though so is the church teaches their husbands that they must not beat wives or children. So it’s a woman’s church because we don’t beat our women!!!
If your point is that privilege is relative, I completely agree. If you point is that privilege is well distributed between both men and women in the LDS church I completely disagree.
Andrew S,
I merely answered Howard’s specific question with a few things off the top of my head. I didn’t plan to address the world’s ills or the plight of any other group.
To the others,
I am quite happy to allow you the space to glean from this post whatever you wish. It is what it is. I’d like to foster the discussion. While I was writing the post, the word “perspective” was in my mind as my wife and I have been discussing it a lot lately.
In spite of our own personal trials, you can always find someone worse off and better off than you are. That’s not what I had in mind. That’s a bit too easy to jump to that conclusion.
We’ve been taught that the Lord allows adversity to enter our lives to help us to grow. I’ve often wondered why some people seem to suffer more than others, especially when it is not of their own doing
Jeff,
It just seems strange that you would answer a question of, “Do you have examples of male WASPs being the underclass” with answers that wouldn’t characteristically be attributed to male WASPs but to other groups.
It seems strange to say that you didn’t plan to address the world’s ills or the plight of any other group when in your post, you contrast the ills of x group with the ills of other folks in the world.
I don’t get it. The clarifying comments are making things murkier.
Whoa, wait a minute. I thought my privilege was the result of something I did in the pre-existence. (Said with a hint of sarcasm, but also with a questioning wonder at why there is such diversity in the world, and why God allows it.)
Andrew S,
“Do you have examples of male WASPs being the underclass”
He didn’t ask, “where they are the only members of an underclass,” did he?
I think the term privilege is problematic. Yes, everyone is privileged to some extent, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t examine unfair systems regardless of their relative unfairness. +1 for Daniel Smith’s point.
Yet I do find a lot of unexamined privilege among the Mormon feminists. I think they are on that journey to learn where their privilege exists, too, as we all are. And as a second wave feminist, I struggle to see staying at home as an equally valid choice for a feminist. I am willing to concede it, but it goes against my innate values, so I concede it without understanding it. I suspect I will change my mind on this the more I read about it (I’ve been reading an excellent book on the history of marriage, so look forward to posts on this topic–it’s been fascinating).
Jeff,
But Howard also didn’t ask, “where they are members of an underclass”
He asked: where they are the underclass.
In other words, that male WASPs can be poor doesn’t change the fact that it’s the poorness, and not the male WASPness that is the underclass.
Vs. if you’re black, you can be socially economically well off, but your race is the underclass in certain situations and environments.
If you’re a woman, you can be socially economically well off, but your gender is going to be the underclass in certain situations and environments.
Pointing out (per this post) that you can be a woman and then suffer additionally because you’re socio-economically worse off *as well* (and that the intersection could be worse than the “sum” of its parts…) doesn’t negate the idea that in some environments and situations, certain traits or aspects are the underclass, while others are not.
Does that make sense?
so Andrew, do you want to continually split hairs on who’s worse off or have a discussion about the concept of privilege as I wrote about in the post?
I dunno, man, it seemed like the subject of your post was to split hairs on who’s worse off. When others have pointed out that being better off in many respects does not negate the areas that may exist for improvement (or the justness of efforts to seek improvement) — meaning there is no need to write about the relative privilege of x group over y group — you haven’t really wanted to engage that.
Our own privilege can hard for us to see because we long ago habituated it, to us it just seems like the normal state of things. In addition our privileged life may not seem all that great to us given our other challenges so having someone point out privilege can seem like an unwanted interruption by whinny victims. But in reality they’re saying: “Excuse me, I don’t think you realize that you are standing on my toes!”
It’s good to remember others’ suffering in the world and to try to help improve their situations. However, there really is very little we can do. So many of those problems are cultural and would require inside change that none of us have influence over. But we can try to improve things where we are, so mormon feminists try to improve mormonism. The more things improve for women in any sphere, the more likely other cultures may change to improve things for women in more severe situations.
“meaning there is no need to write about the relative privilege of x group over y group — you haven’t really wanted to engage that.”
Only because I think that is too obvious.
Jeff, I agree whole-heartledly with Daniel, Andrew, and others above. But instead of rehashing their points, I will try to just answer your question: “… what you do not see is much sustained concern for the blight of the women in the third world or women of color who face many more real trials than, for example, not being able to hold their baby during a blessing of the child. Why is that?”
The short answer, at least with respect to the church, is that our church leaders are apparently not as interested in the blight of third world women as they are in temple work, missionary work, implementing handbook policies, holding disciplinary councils, and in general have meeting after meeting after meeting. The church’s focus will be placed where the leaders focus is. And right now that focus is not foremost on abuses to women in the third world.
On its face, that answer can seem rather harsh against our leaders. Let me offer them a defense – one which, importantly, applies equally to the first-world women you critique in this post. We live in a world of great limitations – time, resources, information, energy, etc. As such, while I find that most all people are good intentioned, they also tend to apply their time and talents to the problems they are most aware of and which are closest in space to them. To use a common phrase from conference, they lift where they stand.
In other posts, I have seen you often come to the defense of church leaders. Why not judge sisters in the church as kindly as you do the leaders? Their desire to bless their babies (to use the one example from your post) may not be as critical a need as other women have, but it is a righteous desire and so should be given due consideration. If we were to move the extreme position of only dealing with first-world issues once all third-world issues are resolved, well, then you might as well shut down all the temples for the foreseeable future.
Dave K,
I’m not Jeff, but I’ll push back against your comment.
So, feminists in the church are critiquing problems they see with what the church leaders are emphasizing, teaching, enacting as policy, etc.,
If these feminists are “not as interested in the blight of third world women as they are in”…requesting ordination (for example), then that’s a problem.
I think your defense is good, but to the extent that you can apply it to both leaders and first-world women, it does show that said women also have privilege. (Which is of course true.)
***
As an aside, I think I’ll write a post or two on this or a similar, as I’ve been having several conversations with people (particularly about the racism vs sexism prioritization thing), and there are definitely good thoughts on this. One thing is that some folks (e.g., well-to-do white feminists) recognize that there are also injustices to women of color, etc., But they point out that if they tried to start a movement on behalf of these women, they’d get eaten alive (e.g., white savior complex, etc.,) Anyway, I’ll try to write a post about this sooner or later.
# 19 “But in reality they’re saying: ‘Excuse me, I don’t think you realize that you are standing on my toes!’ ”
That should be the motto for Mormon feminism. It says what needs to be said with clarity. It also makes it rather obvious when those doing the stepping would rather engage in polemics than move a little bit.
Thanks for that, Howard.
#22 Dave K, standing ovation!!!
Isn’t it amazing how God manages to care about *all* of His children, wheteher it’s the third-world mother without clean drinking water or the middle-class, American woman struggling to find her place in this church? It must be an exhausting job. I don’t know how He does it.
The church’s focus will be placed where the leaders focus is. I think this is one of the main points of LDS feminism.
Andrew (#23),
Thanks for the critique. I’ve always found you to be very fair. Addressing your last point first, I agree that there is often a “savior complex” problem. In fact, in the days pre-OW I recall seeing some websites began by LDS men who supported female ordination. Some sisters thought they were acting out of place and that any effort for female ordination must be lead by women. That problem must be accounted for anytime someone “of privilege” tries to help another.
Now, addressing your main point, I can’t see why it is “a problem” for a woman in the church to seek ordination even if she is not equally as interested in solving third-world women’s problems. It strikes me as highly inefficient and practically impossible to require people to address all others’ needs before their own. There has to be some balance where people can petition for their lives to improve while at the same time actively working to improve the lives of others. Otherwise, please do suggest what problem is at the very base of all others on this planet as that would be the only problem that LDS women, LDS leaders, or anyone person on earth could defensibly deal with right now.
IMO, a better critique to women’s ordination – one that I’ve seen from Fiona Givens and others – is that while ordination may be a blessing to some first-world women, it could actually work against the interests of other women, particularly in the third world. I’m not saying Fiona is right, but at least that argument gets my attention.
I was going to say the best thing we could collectively do is to assist (in whatever way possible) in having the gospel preached in all parts of the world so all or most of the negative things cited by Jeff would go away. But, would MoFems boycott the idea since they see the church (as guardian of the gospel) as part of the grand effort to denigrate women? After all, more members live outside the US than in, and the sisters in the rest of the world STILL can’t bless their babies. Maybe this is what Jeff is getting at.
This entire post is in bad faith. The purpose is not to actually address problems faced by citizens of poor countries or to open a dialogue about types of privilege, but to silence and embarrass people you apparently disagree with. Pretty rotten, if you ask me.
In re. #6 . . . I guess I didn’t do a good enough job of trying to frame it. This is nothing about who has it worse
Apparently you didn’t, because not only does it read that way, but after being called on it by a number of commenters, not only do you not frame it any better, you dodge the question entirely (q.v. #11, I am quite happy to allow you the space to glean from this post whatever you wish. It is what it is) and then you try to turn it back on the questioners (#17, do you want to continually split hairs on who’s worse off or have a discussion about the concept of privilege as I wrote about in the post?)
Unfortunately, you didn’t “discuss the concept of privilege” in the post. You might have intended to, but what came out was a comparison of relative privilege, as Daniel pointed out in #1. You don’t define privilege as a concept, or offer any suggestions on how to measure or calibrate it, overcome it, compare it, or anything else. You simply say that the people complaining about being on the short side here would be on the long side elsewhere.
Your last paragraph summarized it well: And while you can certainly read ad infinitum about all the daily injustices the Church, its rules, its practices, the Priesthood, garments, the men and other women have done to these women, what you do not see is much sustained concern for the blight [sic] of the women in the third world or women of color who face many more real trials than, for example, not being able to hold their baby during a blessing of the child.
You can re-write the post and address the issues you hoped to address, if you’d like, but you haven’t met your burden here, and it seems a little hollow to protest that people are calling that out. FWIW, I think an interesting discussion could be had about the concept of privilege – how we have it in some ways but not in others; how we tend to forget our privilege in some facets of our lives as we lament our lack in others; how our perception of our relative privilege at a given moment colors our thinking about a situation; how we explore the extent of our privilege and its effect on us; etc. and so on. Give it a shot.
re 28
Dave,
I don’t see it as a problem to prioritize one solution (especially one solution that one may personally have more expertise, may be closer to accomplishing, etc.,) over another — I can’t really salvage that comment, other than to say that the problem I was trying to get at was more of a problem of rhetoric or approach…the complexity of critiquing leaders for an issue that the feminists would be just as guilty of/using logic that could be applied right back.
Like, one could raise the question, “why is it a problem for LDS church leaders/the church to emphasize temple work, missionary work, etc., over women’s ordination?”
Anyway, since I’ve stuck my foot in it, I’ll just reiterate that we pretty much agree on a practical level.
Dave K,
“The short answer, at least with respect to the church, is that our church leaders are apparently not as interested in the blight of third world women as they are in temple work, missionary work, implementing handbook policies, holding disciplinary councils, and in general have meeting after meeting after meeting.”
I find this a bit harsh and pretty much not true. And completely beside the point anyway.
“Why not judge sisters in the church as kindly as you do the leaders?”
I have nothing against the Sisters in the Church. I’ve worked along side many of them and have nothing but respect for them.
What I have seen is that many of the concerns expressed by some women in the Church, like budgets and input, as equally shared by many men in the church. but when that is raised to them, the “P” word comes out. Some like to point to male potential as opposed to lack of female potential in the Church setting (holding leadership positions, for example). But many men will never have the opportunity and do not have the potential any more than a woman might. And there is really no such thing as “potential potential” just because someone is a male in the Church.
It’s perspective. I very much liked Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk, “Lift Where You Stand.” We could all use that lesson now, couldn’t we?
The issues of ordaining women and third-world women’s problems are not mutually exclusive.
The church largely ignores third world malnutrition, thirst and easily curable disease unless there is an obvious “teach a man to fish” component leading to a more attractive ROI than just providing fish for those who can’t fish for what ever reason or due to the politically conservative philosophy contained in that calculus or both. The rest simply die while the church erects buildings. This needs to be addressed but it is very separate from women’s ordination and when it has been addressed the church will lift both women and men in the third-world. The effort to ordain women doesn’t really hamper this except in the mind Fiona by offending potential misogynist male converts. Perhaps we should also make an exception for third-world member wife and child beatings so as not to offend these future members?
Linking these two just doesn’t make much sense to me.
Women who feel empowered are able to empower other women. Perhaps Mormon feminists feel they need to realize their own (and by first world standards, entirely reasonable) empowerment before they can turn outward. Check out this group of inspiring and empowered women: http://www.acelebrationofwomen.org . Amazing.
As a follow up, Mormon women seem to feel more than empowered on the modest fashion front (see: http://houseoftong.blogspot.ca/p/mormon-modest-fashion-bloggers.html), perhaps because they are institutionally encouraged to do so. Maybe once we see our young women being raised as leaders instead of modesty fashionistas, we will see an uptick in their concerns for the real struggles women face, not just other women’s bare shoulders.
NI,
“Apparently you didn’t, because not only does it read that way, but after being called on it by a number of commenters, not only do you not frame it any better, you dodge the question entirely ”
I went back and re-read it and I think it is actually pretty clear, starting from the title. Certainly, I might have a different perspective than many of the commenters here. I wanted to write a provocative post which includes an observation that I have made over the last few months. I didn’t expect folks to agree.
I don’t know if you read the Mormon Feminist blogs and Facebook pages, but I would encourage you to do so and then evaluate what I have written.
“Linking these two just doesn’t make much sense to me.”
So why do you think you and others are doing that, because I didn’t? The word does not appear in my post.
“As a follow up, Mormon women seem to feel more than empowered on the modest fashion front ”
Why try to extrapolate it to this? It’s not part of the post.
Well a linkage is implied via your comparison (emphasized by the break I inserted) in this paragraph:
Jeff, I am going to be honest. The point of the post seems to be to attack Mormon feminists.. According to you,they don’t worry about important things. My point is that empowering Mormon women IS an important first step. Once empowered, we can move past worrying about baby blessings and develop the “sustained concern for the blight of the women in the third world or women of color who face many more real trials.” If you are really concerned about the plight of women, why not attack the women who are spending their free time writing fluffy posts about modest being hottest? Why attack Mormon feminists? Yes, many are privileged. As are you. So why aren’t you doing more to help women in third world countries? Or are you immune to attack since your agenda isn’t to help women at all?
Howard,
“Well a linkage is implied via your comparison.” No, it’s not. it’s you who is linking them. Holding a baby during a blessing has nothing to do with ordination.
“Jeff, I am going to be honest. The point of the post seems to be to attack Mormon feminists..”
Sorry, but you are incorrect in your assumptions about me.
“And while you can certainly read ad infinitum about all the daily injustices the Church, its rules, its practices, the Priesthood, garments, the men and other women have done to these women, what you do not see is much sustained concern for the blight of the women in the third world or women of color who face many more real trials than, for example, not being able to hold their baby during a blessing of the child. Why is that?”
Well, because people tend to talk more and do more about things (1) that affect them or their friends directly, and (2) that they feel they might be able to do something about. That’s something that almost everyone does, almost all of the time. Most people don’t dispassionately rank the world’s problems in descending order of significance and preferentially address the worst ones. Is there some reason you find this tendency particularly problematic in the context of first-world feminism?
Also, privilege is not a competition. The purpose is not to quantify everyone’s various privileges for the purpose of determining who is and isn’t entitled to complain. The point is to recognize that certain characteristics confer certain advantages on those who have them as opposed to those who don’t. I have some privileged characteristics and lack others. So do you. So does everyone. The fact that I have some privileges does not negate the harm caused to me by my lack of others. The fact that I lack some privileges does not negate the advantages I have from the others.
Jeff – “Holding a baby during a blessing has nothing to do with ordination.”
So then why can’t women hold babies during blessings? Elder Oaks has made clear that women have priesthood authority and priesthood power. The only thing they do not have is priesthood office. Thus, if women are excluded from holding their children during blessings, I can only conclude that church leaders believe that ordination is necessary for that act.
Jeff,
OW is commonly offered as a method of addressing complaints that you call the daily injustices the Church then you say what you do not see is much sustained concern for the blight of the women in the third world or women of color .
This *implies* linkage independent of holding a baby during a blessing.
Jeff, I apologize for making false assumptions about you. I wish you could make your intent clearer. I don’t think I am the only one confused.
I do think your final question is interesting. Do we really see more sustained coverage of Mormon women’s issues compared to third-world women’s issues? Are the people concerned about Mormon women’s issues some how neglecting a greater responsibility toward third-world women?
I think it would be reasonable to expect a specifically Mormon issue to dominate discussion forums establish to discuss Mormonism. The discussion of women’s issues in these circle is also hardly sustained. It has been cyclical and periods of emphasis have only just recently occurred close enough together to even resemble being sustained. When considered in the context of discussion of global ills, Mormon women’s issues have had nowhere near the level of sustained concern that global poverty and all its attendant ills have generated.
The last time I checked, the most publicized proponent for ordaining Mormon women makes her profession helping third-world women. So at the very least, the person agitating most for Mormon women has her priorities set exactly opposite to what you have asserted.
So in answer to your question, why is that?, I would answer, it is not.
Howard,
“This *implies* linkage independent of holding a baby during a blessing.’
Perhaps in your mind, it does, which I think is part of the issue I am trying to point out. It was not in mine and not implied in my post.
Daniel,
“Do we really see more sustained coverage of Mormon women’s issues compared to third-world women’s issues?”
I think we do within the circles of our association. but how exactly does that square with the Gospel?
Daniel,
“The last time I checked, the most publicized proponent for ordaining Mormon women makes her profession helping third-world women. So at the very least, the person agitating most for Mormon women has her priorities set exactly opposite to what you have asserted.”
So I’ve heard. I have to admit I’ve not seen much evidence of that. Not saying it isn’t the case, but it’s clearly overshadowed by the other things.
Jessica,
“The purpose is not to quantify everyone’s various privileges for the purpose of determining who is and isn’t entitled to complain. ”
I agree with this 100%. The purpose is to live the life that God desires of us, isn’t it?
Well fine Jeff, as they say at Burger King, have it your way! But others seem to be interrupting them as linked. So while it may have been unintended it seems, it is what it is.
At the risk of adding something of substance to this thread, if anyone is interested in helping with real third-world problems, here is a great LDS organization to check out:
http://www.liahonachildren.org/#/home
Bill Reel, who has guest posted at W&T, also runs a podcast in which he intereviewed one of the leaders of this group. The podcast can be found here: http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/
“At the risk of adding something of substance to this thread, ”
Risk away…. I am hoping people can get out of their own mantra here.
Within the circles of my association, Mormon women’s issues rarely come up at all. The one exception is Mormon blogs (which I think is entirely appropriate). To tip the scales and perceive Mormon women’s issues to be a greater concern with more sustained coverage, I would have to live my life entire through a small set of Mormon blogs. In my home, my work, and my congregation, poverty is discussed more often by an overwhelming margin and if it weren’t I would have no one to blame but myself.
Yes it is more difficult to find information on that aspect of Kate Kelly’s life than on her involvement with OW. She is a very small fish in an enormous pond with regard to world poverty, and the opposite is true with regard to Mormon women’s issues. Here’s a biography that was prepared for a panel discussion on women’s rights in the Middle East and North Africa (your exact fallacious example).
Kate Kelly is the Donald M. Wilson Fellow at the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. At the RFK Center, among other projects, Kate has worked closely with grassroots female activists in Africa, including Aminatou Haidar, President of the Collective of Sahrawi Human Rights Defenders (CODESA) in the Western Sahara to strategize regarding litigation and other international advocacy to protect the rights of the Sahrawi people. During law school Ms. Kelly was an Ella Baker Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and an intern at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San Jose, Costa Rica. She also participated in an integrated learning program in Geneva, Switzerland, working directly with theUnited Nations Committee Against Torture. She has a J.D. from American University Washington College of Law.
I think the term “privilege” is one of those that has become so stretched rhetorically that is risks becoming useless. My understanding of the origins of the term as used in these contexts was much more limited to “the broad advantages one enjoys simply by the virtues of ones gender (or race), particularly those that are hard to see when you have them”. Personal advantages that are easy for one to see (which are large in number) aren’t included. However, it has now seems to be used as any advantage anyone has over anyone else. I think once it loses that degree of unconsciousness and subtly that the term become rather analytically flacid. The way these things go it is unlikely to be successfully reclaimed.
rah,
“more limited to “the broad advantages one enjoys simply by the virtues of ones gender (or race), particularly those that are hard to see when you have them”.
You and I seldom agree on anything but I very much agree here. We have terminology used these days which lose their meaning when applied too liberally (not in a political sense, but in a “many” sense). Racism is the term that comes to mind.
Privilege as it is used also plays to stereotype. And as we all know, not everyone fits a stereotype. So in my mind terms like male privilege paint with too broad a brush to actually apply to everyone in the so-called category.
Jeff @ 58:
I’m guessing that you don’t really agree with rah here—it appears that they are suggesting (correctly, IMO) that privilege properly refers to a systemic phenomenon rather than an individual one. Likewise, most sociologists would tell you that racism properly refers to systemic and structural phenomena rather than individual prejudices. Thus, an act does not require specific racial prejudicial intent to be racist, and a prejudicial act based on race is not necessarily racist. Based on your prior comments in the Bloggernacle, I’m guessing you would disagree with that position.
Jeff and Nate,
I think I would probably split the difference here (as a sociologist, albeit speaking outside of my particular specialty). I agree with Nate that racism and privilege when use more strictly do refer to systematic phenomenon that are largely created and reinforced above the individual level. However, I also do agree with Jeff that particular manifestations of racism and privilege can be usually seen as varying at the individual level. If you take my definition above on privilege then coming to awareness of the dynamics of ones own privilege definitely changes its nature and that occurs for different people on different issues at different times. Certainly, men still hold the advantages that we attach to “privilege” but once someone is aware of them and incorporates that understanding into their thought and behavior then it is qualitatively different. I imagine other sociologists might disagree with me here and I could even being going outside of conventional sociological usage. I am open to changing my mind.
One of the hard things in all social sciences is that once you come up with a truly useful concept and it starts to get used broadly it begins to morph and change. You lose control of it really. For my personally, I judge the value of a social science concept on how useful and how specific/unique it is. I think the concept of privilege as originally concieved and more narrowly drawn is a useful for one for understanding many dynamics surrounding inequality. I see the OP as reaching toward a critique of its popular usage – pop feminism if you will. I wouldn’t lay that on “feminists” broadly or serious feminist thinkers particularly. There is wide variation there. Some use it ways that are useful and others in ways that are too loose for my liking.
So I am happy to agree with both of you. Kumbaya!
here is wisdom feminists don’t want equality they want supremacy
Everyone keeps saying blight, but I think they mean plight.
I do think intentionality and examination of our own privilege is necessary.
Life isn’t a contest of who has it harder. Yeah, 3rd word problems are horrifying and need rectified. You know who are the women in the church who are spreading the most awareness about FGM and linking and donating to the Malala Fund? Feminists. We can care about multiple issues and work on them at the same time. Perhaps you hear more about #1stWorldMoFemProblems more is because: (1) Sphere of Influence and (2) Low Hanging Fruit. Much easier to convince ppl locally to have a pinewood derby for girls than to hope the church starts caring humanitarian about access to female hygiene products in India. We can do both. A good place to start discussing privilege and issues women across the world face is the documentary Menstrual Man, or Half the Sky. Watch those and we’ll talk. Sometimes the first thing 1st worlders can do is to raise awareness. That’s always the first step…….
Ok, I’ll kick the hornets nest –
“Hmmm, do you happen to have any examples of male WASP groups being the underclass?”
Feminism.
A friend of mine is a manuscript evaluator for a local publisher. She recently read what she described as a good book about strong women in distant and recent history. She said it was good, but she couldn’t get past the fact that it was written by a man.
I know there are some who don’t believe that it’s possible for men to be an underclass, since ultimately they’re the oppressors of the world, but just like the examples in the OP, we’re talking about where all issues can be addressed, even the ones that seem smaller than others. We shouldn’t feel the need to rank them, but allow space for all of the issues to be dealt with, by whomever is willing to help.
I very much agree with Kristine A’s comment about spheres of influence. The closer something is to affecting us, the more we tend to care about it. We also have a better chance of actually doing something about issues that are closer to us, which helps us do more than shake our heads that such things happen in the world. Education is also important in this, as it helps those who may have felt powerless or overwhelmed see what can be done.
There is too much work to be done to spend time decrying others for not doing it right.
Howard, as the son of an enlisted man in the military, I can tell you that enlisted personnel as a class, especially the men, are part of a Male WASP group that is under class. It is also why integrating the officer corp was much more important than just integrating the military.
I’ll note that my father was originally put in for a silver star for bravery in efforts alerting and evacuating a barracks that caught on fire during shelling in Viet Nam (with those inside unaware), but that he never got it, in part due to the fact that he was enlisted, in part due to the fact that it was the “colored” barracks — which is why no one else had stepped in until he noticed it and did something. The only other man who would help was Black.
“that male WASPs can be poor elides that poorness isn’t associated with male WASPness (or attributed to it, or attributed to “male WASP culture” or whatever.)
In contrast, if you look at non-violent drug offenders with a prison record, this is one of the biggest examples used for demonstrating white *privilege* rather than oppression, as despite the statistics on drug usage by race, etc., black folks (and especially black men) are more targeted, imprisoned, and disenfranchised for these sorts of things.”
Exactly. For the most part, poor whites are at an extreme advantage over poor Blacks. On the other hand, a Black lieutenant is definitely at an advantage over a white tech Sargent — on base. Off base, even a federal bankruptcy judge is at risk (at least in Houston) of being arrested for walking while black in his own neighborhood.
Otherwise, the most common examples are of non-WASP white males. E.g. Planned Parenthood and their eugenics program to sterilize all the Greek and Italian males in the United States as part of a drive to rid the gene pool of the worthless southern/eastern European blood.
So, if you are asking about “White Anglo-Saxon Episcopalian Males” — not many places where they are not at an advantage (“advantage” seems to disarm the reactive hatred that “privilege” generates in conversation).
“Donald M. Wilson Fellow at the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights”
Thank you for that information.
Anyway, just adding my two bits in.
rah,
“If you take my definition above on privilege then coming to awareness of the dynamics of ones own privilege definitely changes its nature and that occurs for different people on different issues at different times. ”
I am not a sociologist and never took a Sociology class in school. I am an Engineer and a Marketer. As a marketer for most of my career, I know that words matter. how something is expressed can influence a person positively toward your product or service or not. Some words become overused and tired and their impact diminishes completely. So we think of new words.
So I see words like privilege and racism and I no longer know what they mean. They have lost their impact from overuse. So you cannot have a reasonable conversation without an agreement on what the words mean.
What I find among the most intriguing about the post I wrote was that I didn’t deny male privilege and I didn’t discuss female ordination in the LDS Church and yet, if you read the comments, you see quite a number of comments, not on what I wrote, but on what I didn’t write.
Proved to me that people either do not read carefully or are too invested in their own ideas and agenda to consider a different angle.
It’ smy observation that “privelege” is somewhat a matter of perspective, and many, despite apparent ‘disadvantages’, do quite well in life. Ergo, at least in the “New-Nited States of ‘Merika”, blacks, women, and black women (to wit: Oprah Winfrey, I still to this day don’t see how she’s succeeded so well, but indeed she has) can and do well enough in their pursuits in life that their resultant success isn’t “in spite of” anymore. And thank goodness for that, b/c to treat their God-given status (race, gender, circumstances of birth, etc.) as a ‘handicap’ at times smacks of condescension and patronizing behavior, at least in my view.
Likewise, I never perceived that being white and male of itself gave me any particular advantages or privleges. If out there exists some “white boyz” club, where we with pale skin and “outties” can gather, smoke cigars, and guffaw and lampoon at our perceived lessers, and plot to either skin them out of their hard-earned monies or lord it over them, I’ve remainder ignorant of same for all of my 55 years. What little I have I’ve earned by either mine own grunt and sweat (or at least mental effort), no one GAVE me anything.
Mine observation is that most that consider males, or at least the Caucasian portion thereof, to be “priveleged”, have their own ideological axe to grind and largely have abandoned reason and reasonable discourse.
http://amptoons.com/…/09/26/a-list-of-privilege-lists/
A List Of Privilege Lists
On the word choice of privilege v. advantage. The latter seems to imply more of an involuntary nature, doesn’t it?
I like Advantage over Privilege. “Privilege” has evolved into putting people in boxes and categories and thus make them a product of characteristics rather than a complete person, therefore easier to dismiss or dehumanize.
And talking of advantages doesn’t raise people’s hackles. Instead it often gets them thinking of just how many advantages they have, kind of like “count your blessings” rather than “consider your blindness” — though it is important to consider how blind you might be.
Time after time I’ve seen people react to “privilege” by just turning their minds off. On the other hand, “advantage” and they start counting them.
priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/
noun…See More
h a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most
vs….
advantage
[ad-van-tij, -vahn-].
Stephen,
You raise an excellent point. Thank you
I am not a fan of the “first world problems” tone in this article. I absolutely agree with what is said that we in the ‘First world’ don’t have the same, severe injustices that are faced in third world countries, but that doesn’t mean we should not continue to fight for improvements here, or that the problems we face are not worth trying to fix. If we look at the political climate and the asinine comments made about women’s bodies by politicians, attack on available access to reproductive health options (especially for poor women in this country), supreme court decisions (Hobby Lobby any one?), it becomes VERY clear that if we DON’T continue to fight and stand up for equality here, our current rights can very easily be stripped away. Every civil right and liberty that has been granted to people of color and women since the inception of this country has come from HUGE amounts of effort and blood sweat and tears (and even LIVES) being sacrificed for those rights and equalities to be granted. We cannot just look at other countries and say “they have it worse, so we should just be happy with what we have”. If we get complacent, we will lose what others have worked so hard to provide for us.
It has taken many families many generations to build and protect wealth. This process involved selflessness, good choices and seizing if opportunities.
The first settlers from Europe were the disadvantaged. Criminals and those in debt were sent here, many as indentured servants without choice.
All of them didn’t succeed. We rarely here about them.
The only people I don’t see succeeding in this country are those who choose poorly and don’t seize opportunity. There is a huge problem with taking personal responsibility and it’s in vogue to identify with so called victims of any type.
Soooo sick of men being bashed. They created the birth control pill- which freed women in so many ways.
Jeff, I am so sick of your passive-aggressive smack downs Feminism—this last one by saying that US feminists are too privileged to claim inequality exists! Domestic abuse is real in the US, not just third world countries. Rape exists. Sexual harassment. One in three US girls will experience sexual harm before she grows to maturity.
We all seek to rectify injustices in the culture we live in. We fight the battles on our own fields, not always the whole war. Bull Run fought Bull Run, though they were part of the whole Civil War. Same with Antietam and Gettysburg. No one would think of smacking down any of those battles because black soldiers weren’t in their ranks, or they didn’t consider the sorrows of another battlefield as much as their own.
Male privilege is a fact. So is white female privilege. Suffering exists for both genders in first, second and third world countries. But gender inequality within nations, cultures and religions is reality, and we righteously seek improvement until we overcome all these terrible, horrible privileges and mortal injustices. White feminists must carry on. Women of color must carry on. All peoples who lack equality and justice must carry on, male and female, bond and free, privileged and oppressed, black and white—Because we have not reached Zion yet!!
Jeff, you’re a good guy. But you constantly belittle the feminist movement by blaming the flaws feminists have as making their cause out to be whining, cry-baby, sniveling spoiled brats who don’t deserve what they seek because they aren’t perfect. You have every right and privilege to feel that way. But I’d invite you to be less judgmental and more understanding of the righteous desires and goals feminists seek. I’m not talking about radicals and extremists within the movement who claim to hate men and children. The vast majority of feminists love the men in their lives, they love children everywhere, and have no desire at all to be men or even be like men. They just want the same privileges, opportunities, voice, and blessings equality brings to them as individual disciples, to their marriages if married, and to their families if they have children. And they want them for all women in every country on the earth. The work goes on…..it would be so nice if you’d join in the labor, and if you don’t agree, then could you at least please stop shooting us down? In all sincerity, we’d be most grateful.
This is fulfillment of latter-day prophecy. White men have run the world since history began, while knowingly or inadvertently stepping on women and all peoples of color. Now is the time when we must open our eyes to what being Zion includes and means. Hence, for a season, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. One day, all our flaws will be overcome, and Zion will flourish in all her beauty because there will be no more privilege of one over another, nor stepping on anyone, nor dominating any “-ites” among us. All will count with equal measure, voice, representation, participation, and inclusion. And yet we will happily still remain in our genders, cultures, races, and nations!
Oh happy, happy day!
Wow Rockiesgma. Personal attack because someone questions your beliefs? You really think you are more “tolerant” and “progressive”?!
Priviledge is a fact? No it’s not. Its an opinion in the eye if the beholder. Just because a bunch if louder people scream in agreement doesn’t mean its fact. Conservative voters are quiet. It doesn’t mean we agree with you.
Suggesting advantage is a more apt word than privledge as it’s being applied nowadays isn’t passive aggressive. Someone questioning your beliefs or simply playing devils advocate fosters a healthy analysis for most. Check emotions at the door pls.
RockiesGMA,
“Jeff, I am so sick of your passive-aggressive smack downs Feminism.”
I am just going to leave this alone.
but, I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterize my comments or my intentions.
I am nothing against the progress of women. Whether it’s in the Church or without. In the marketplace, it has been governed by market forces and government action. The women I am surrounded by are some of the most capable people I know. Aa I stated in the past, the best Manager I had at work has been a women. My most successful hires have been all been women. I have had more positive females role models at work than males for over 30 years.
I think the route within the Church is different and should be done in a manner that is both respectful and part of the ongoing process, regardless how slow it is. The “I want it now” mentality does not work and only serves to create animosity among those that might be big supporters of change.
One only had to go over to the FMH facebook page, for example, to see immature, snarky, disrespectful and inaccurate comments that get made to understand why the tactics are in fact, undermining some of the effort.
In spite of that, some progress is being made. Whether it is being pushed by the movement or not, it is good news.
But, in the end, one must recognize their own privilege (or advantage) before getting on the high horse and pointing the finger at others.
Daniel Smith, who were you referring to here? “The last time I checked, the most publicized proponent for ordaining Mormon women makes her profession helping third-world women. So at the very least, the person agitating most for Mormon women has her priorities set exactly opposite to what you have asserted.”
He is referring to Kate Kelly