Please help me understand social justice rhetoric!
March 30, 2015 10:10 AM Subscribe
I recently saw an interview with a musician where he said that his impetus for starting a monthly party was the desire to give voice to minority groups -- that is, non-white, non-straight, non-cis-gender-identifying producers and DJs. He was not saying this in a fetishistic way, and he himself is a white non-straight male. (More inside.)
This musician then ended the interview by saying that he and his fellow organizers started the party because "we didn't want to just book white straight cis men at every fucking party... Because I don't even want to hang out with white straight cis men at... anywhere, most of the time."
What I want to know is what makes that statement ("I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men") different from "I don't want to hang out with gay people" or "I don't want to hang out with black people" or "I don't want to hang out with people who listen to Nickelback." Surely it's discriminatory, no?
The reason I ask Metafilter is because I don't think I could ask this question on other channels without it coming across as a Gamergate or Red Pill type thing. Still, I think it's worth saying that I am not suggesting anything or assuming anything by asking this question -- I would just like to be pointed towards sources, opinions, and people to help me understand how and why this apparent discrimination against a particular kind of person (white, straight, cisgendered, male) IS or IS NOT equal to any other type of discrimination based on race, sexuality, or gender.
Also, please do let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this! Thanks alot.
This musician then ended the interview by saying that he and his fellow organizers started the party because "we didn't want to just book white straight cis men at every fucking party... Because I don't even want to hang out with white straight cis men at... anywhere, most of the time."
What I want to know is what makes that statement ("I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men") different from "I don't want to hang out with gay people" or "I don't want to hang out with black people" or "I don't want to hang out with people who listen to Nickelback." Surely it's discriminatory, no?
The reason I ask Metafilter is because I don't think I could ask this question on other channels without it coming across as a Gamergate or Red Pill type thing. Still, I think it's worth saying that I am not suggesting anything or assuming anything by asking this question -- I would just like to be pointed towards sources, opinions, and people to help me understand how and why this apparent discrimination against a particular kind of person (white, straight, cisgendered, male) IS or IS NOT equal to any other type of discrimination based on race, sexuality, or gender.
Also, please do let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this! Thanks alot.
Best answer: In context, "I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men" is missing the word "only."
People saying they don't want to hang out with gays, African Americans, etc, don't mean they don't want to hang out with the same old people all the time...they're just assholes.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:17 AM on March 30, 2015 [26 favorites]
People saying they don't want to hang out with gays, African Americans, etc, don't mean they don't want to hang out with the same old people all the time...they're just assholes.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:17 AM on March 30, 2015 [26 favorites]
Best answer: What I want to know is what makes that statement ("I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men") different from...
I think it would help you to back up a bit to this part of what you quoted: we didn't want to just book white straight cis men at every fucking party
I think he is saying that, as a minority, he is kind of tired of ONLY finding himself among this particular dominant group such that it isn't even really okay to admit he's not one of them. White straight cis men are very overrepresented in the public sphere. They are very overrepresented in politics and professional careers and on and on. So people who are underrepresented get crabby about some group that is less than 50% of the actual population being something like 80% to 90% of what you deal with in a great many settings and that because of their dominance, even the folks who don't tick every last one of those boxes, will downplay or hide that fact and let people assume they do because it's problematic to do anything else.
On preview: What blnkfrnk said.
posted by Michele in California at 10:18 AM on March 30, 2015 [14 favorites]
I think it would help you to back up a bit to this part of what you quoted: we didn't want to just book white straight cis men at every fucking party
I think he is saying that, as a minority, he is kind of tired of ONLY finding himself among this particular dominant group such that it isn't even really okay to admit he's not one of them. White straight cis men are very overrepresented in the public sphere. They are very overrepresented in politics and professional careers and on and on. So people who are underrepresented get crabby about some group that is less than 50% of the actual population being something like 80% to 90% of what you deal with in a great many settings and that because of their dominance, even the folks who don't tick every last one of those boxes, will downplay or hide that fact and let people assume they do because it's problematic to do anything else.
On preview: What blnkfrnk said.
posted by Michele in California at 10:18 AM on March 30, 2015 [14 favorites]
Best answer: You're in a class. John has been answering every. single. question. Nobody else can get a word in edgewise. And it's getting annoying.
The teacher says "John, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but why don't you let everybody else get a shot at answering the rest of the questions?"
Can you see how the teacher's actions-- of asking John to be quiet for a bit, so that others can be heard-- are different from John's? And, how in some ways, even though it's "discriminatory" against John, it can be argued to be just, because it allows others' voices to be heard?
OK, so replace "John" with "cis straight white male performers".
posted by damayanti at 10:19 AM on March 30, 2015 [66 favorites]
The teacher says "John, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but why don't you let everybody else get a shot at answering the rest of the questions?"
Can you see how the teacher's actions-- of asking John to be quiet for a bit, so that others can be heard-- are different from John's? And, how in some ways, even though it's "discriminatory" against John, it can be argued to be just, because it allows others' voices to be heard?
OK, so replace "John" with "cis straight white male performers".
posted by damayanti at 10:19 AM on March 30, 2015 [66 favorites]
Best answer: My assumption would be that, since he is a white straight cis male, he gets enough of that at home and wants to meet different people. Or is totally bored of samey samey DJs and hopes other demographics might DJ in a more novel way. Kind of like how I avoid "British" restaurants like the plague on holiday, and try to eat what the locals are eating.
Of course there's more than a whiff of exoticism/othering about all of this from the point of view of the non-cis white male DJs, but I don't think it's particularly offensive to the dominant group.
posted by tinkletown at 10:20 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Of course there's more than a whiff of exoticism/othering about all of this from the point of view of the non-cis white male DJs, but I don't think it's particularly offensive to the dominant group.
posted by tinkletown at 10:20 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: This post by Virgie Tovar is particularly relevant, but you may not enjoy it. I agree with her in principle.
posted by parmanparman at 10:25 AM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by parmanparman at 10:25 AM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Discrimination against the dominant force is, in a nutshell, punching up instead of punching down (which happens by going with the status quo of discriminating against groups who are systematically discriminated against to the benefit of the dominant force, and actually requires legal and social intervention to prevent it from being literally systematic).
I think he was saying both "I don't want to hang out with cis straight white guys at all" and "these events need to not be only straight cis white guys." I agree with both sentiments - I'm married to a cis white guy and I exclude him from some of the socialization I pursue because I'm tired of them. I don't think it makes me a bad person in any way to be sick of my oppressors even when a few of them are okay. And in the organization of many types of events, you can't avoid cis straight white guys because they're everywhere and it actually takes effort to get anybody else. He's saying that effort needs to be made.
My assumption would be that, since he is a white straight cis male
OP says that the speaker is not straight.
posted by Lyn Never at 10:27 AM on March 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think he was saying both "I don't want to hang out with cis straight white guys at all" and "these events need to not be only straight cis white guys." I agree with both sentiments - I'm married to a cis white guy and I exclude him from some of the socialization I pursue because I'm tired of them. I don't think it makes me a bad person in any way to be sick of my oppressors even when a few of them are okay. And in the organization of many types of events, you can't avoid cis straight white guys because they're everywhere and it actually takes effort to get anybody else. He's saying that effort needs to be made.
My assumption would be that, since he is a white straight cis male
OP says that the speaker is not straight.
posted by Lyn Never at 10:27 AM on March 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
Best answer: What I want to know is what makes that statement ("I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men") different from "I don't want to hang out with gay people" or "I don't want to hang out with black people" or "I don't want to hang out with people who listen to Nickelback." Surely it's discriminatory, no?
The difference is privilege. If you're a straight white cis (upper middle class, Western, etc.) man, you have privilege. That doesn't mean your life is a cakewalk because anyone can suffer from, for example, mental illness which makes life immensely harder. Class isn't an immutable characteristic (you could suddenly find yourself homeless even as a white guy who grew up middle class).
But the people in this category have a certain amount of privilege that gives them power, and they benefit from the oppression of other people, even if they aren't the ones actively or intentionally doing the oppressing. It doesn't mean that all white straight cis men are bad or clueless or prejudiced people, but it does mean they have certain advantages that they haven't earned as a result of how they were born and who they were born to.*
So, to say, let's not keep booking the same privileged people, let's book other people who have less access to exposure, who have more obstacles, and who are just as, or even more talented, isn't really the same thing. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Wanting to overcome discrimination (which sometimes means quotas or limits, which mean that an individual cis straight white guy might not get to play even though he's talented) isn't the same thing as perpetuating systemic discrimination (which means all these other types of people don't).
*Ditto me, even as a woman of color from a non-developed country. I was born to parents who were educated, and although they worked hard I didn't do anything to deserve being born to them.
posted by Enchanting Grasshopper at 10:37 AM on March 30, 2015 [16 favorites]
The difference is privilege. If you're a straight white cis (upper middle class, Western, etc.) man, you have privilege. That doesn't mean your life is a cakewalk because anyone can suffer from, for example, mental illness which makes life immensely harder. Class isn't an immutable characteristic (you could suddenly find yourself homeless even as a white guy who grew up middle class).
But the people in this category have a certain amount of privilege that gives them power, and they benefit from the oppression of other people, even if they aren't the ones actively or intentionally doing the oppressing. It doesn't mean that all white straight cis men are bad or clueless or prejudiced people, but it does mean they have certain advantages that they haven't earned as a result of how they were born and who they were born to.*
So, to say, let's not keep booking the same privileged people, let's book other people who have less access to exposure, who have more obstacles, and who are just as, or even more talented, isn't really the same thing. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Wanting to overcome discrimination (which sometimes means quotas or limits, which mean that an individual cis straight white guy might not get to play even though he's talented) isn't the same thing as perpetuating systemic discrimination (which means all these other types of people don't).
*Ditto me, even as a woman of color from a non-developed country. I was born to parents who were educated, and although they worked hard I didn't do anything to deserve being born to them.
posted by Enchanting Grasshopper at 10:37 AM on March 30, 2015 [16 favorites]
Best answer: This musician then ended the interview by saying that he and his fellow organizers started the party because "we didn't want to just book white straight cis men at every fucking party... Because I don't even want to hang out with white straight cis men at... anywhere, most of the time."
Technically, he's being discriminating, yes. Is it illegal? I doubt it. The quality of a musical act is pretty subjective, so it'd be hard for a straight white cis male to argue that he is more qualified than someone else to perform at this venue.
In the musician's capacity as employer (of musical acts), you could think of this as affirmative action. He wants more diversity at his venue. He didn't say he would never book straight white men, he says he doesn't want to book just them. As far as who he hangs out with in a non-employment-related capacity, that's totally his prerogative and I'm guessing he's had negative experiences with straight men (or just feels really out of place).
posted by desjardins at 10:41 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Technically, he's being discriminating, yes. Is it illegal? I doubt it. The quality of a musical act is pretty subjective, so it'd be hard for a straight white cis male to argue that he is more qualified than someone else to perform at this venue.
In the musician's capacity as employer (of musical acts), you could think of this as affirmative action. He wants more diversity at his venue. He didn't say he would never book straight white men, he says he doesn't want to book just them. As far as who he hangs out with in a non-employment-related capacity, that's totally his prerogative and I'm guessing he's had negative experiences with straight men (or just feels really out of place).
posted by desjardins at 10:41 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I say it's about history. There's little to no history of cis white dudes being excluded from things. There is a long, long history of people of color, queer people, and women being excluded from things. That's why we still have black colleges and women's colleges--people see the value in these historically oppressed groups being allowed to congregate without the presence of their oppressors (ie white dudes).
If you, say, keep a golf club whites only or men-only in this day and age you are perpetuating the same crap that has gone on for thousands of years. If you create a blacks-only golf club, you are giving black people the opportunity to golf without dealing with that crap, in a supportive environment. So yes, there is minor hurt to white people in that situation (they can't use the golf club), but it is far outweighed by the benefit to black people.
posted by chaiminda at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2015 [10 favorites]
If you, say, keep a golf club whites only or men-only in this day and age you are perpetuating the same crap that has gone on for thousands of years. If you create a blacks-only golf club, you are giving black people the opportunity to golf without dealing with that crap, in a supportive environment. So yes, there is minor hurt to white people in that situation (they can't use the golf club), but it is far outweighed by the benefit to black people.
posted by chaiminda at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2015 [10 favorites]
Best answer: The OP's question was with respect to the statement about "hanging out" with white straight men, not about booking only non-white/straight/male people.
It should be noted here that a business refusing to serve certain races/sexes (as chaiminda mentions) is at best questionably legal. Golf clubs can sometimes do so because they are private clubs (discrimination law tends only to apply to public businesses). There are some interesting legal cases regarding these sorts of laws (see Stopps vs Just Ladies Fitness in Canada or the legality of ladies's nights in the USA).
In general, legality of refusing to hire a band/group/artist for a gig based on their race/sex/gender is also interesting, because it is not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or Title VII (which all covers employment discrimination, not contracting discrimination). Interestingly, that's covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and covers only racial discrimination (not sex/gender discrimination).
In other words, it shouldn't be necessarily assumed that it's a good or legal idea for a business to explicitly say they are not hiring white/straight/male musicians.
This discussion is, however, somewhat irrelevant for simply stating that you don't want to hang out with white/straight/male people, which as I've previously stated is not covered under any discrimination law I'm aware of.
posted by saeculorum at 11:01 AM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
It should be noted here that a business refusing to serve certain races/sexes (as chaiminda mentions) is at best questionably legal. Golf clubs can sometimes do so because they are private clubs (discrimination law tends only to apply to public businesses). There are some interesting legal cases regarding these sorts of laws (see Stopps vs Just Ladies Fitness in Canada or the legality of ladies's nights in the USA).
In general, legality of refusing to hire a band/group/artist for a gig based on their race/sex/gender is also interesting, because it is not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or Title VII (which all covers employment discrimination, not contracting discrimination). Interestingly, that's covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and covers only racial discrimination (not sex/gender discrimination).
In other words, it shouldn't be necessarily assumed that it's a good or legal idea for a business to explicitly say they are not hiring white/straight/male musicians.
This discussion is, however, somewhat irrelevant for simply stating that you don't want to hang out with white/straight/male people, which as I've previously stated is not covered under any discrimination law I'm aware of.
posted by saeculorum at 11:01 AM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best answer: It's not about discrimination - it's about dominance.
The speaker you listened to doesn't want to be in a space that is dominated by one already dominant social category.
The speaker wants diversity in identity, experience, and viewpoint.
This is a good thing.
Also, good on ya for asking this question here.
posted by entropone at 11:04 AM on March 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
The speaker you listened to doesn't want to be in a space that is dominated by one already dominant social category.
The speaker wants diversity in identity, experience, and viewpoint.
This is a good thing.
Also, good on ya for asking this question here.
posted by entropone at 11:04 AM on March 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: Fascinating answers everyone, thank you so much!
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: People's answers here are going to vary, and some of that is generational. I am a 2nd wave feminist and that is where my social justice and activism was schooled, but as part of that I believe that as a class, the oppressors cannot be the oppressed. (Which I swore was a bell hooks quote, but I can't find a cite for that.) Straight people cannot be oppressed by not-straight people; white women cannot be oppressed by women of color; cisgender people cannot be oppressed by transgender people.
Anyway, in my ethos, what you are asking about is reverse discrimination, and no, it is not a thing. It is a straw man.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
Anyway, in my ethos, what you are asking about is reverse discrimination, and no, it is not a thing. It is a straw man.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
Best answer: There was a webcomic that I saw recently (but can't find now). A White Dude and a Lady (can't remember her race/other diversity markers) are sitting at a table in a restaurant. White Dude's gets filled glass almost full, but Lady's glass is mostly empty. Lady calls a server over and asks for her glass to be filled up. Server does so, and White Dude loudly complains about discrimination in that Lady was given water while he wasn't, even though the glasses are now equally full.
Now, White Dude is right, the server DID give him less water. And "white straight cis men" from your question are right, Organizer DOESN'T want to seek them out to "hang out" with them. But viewed in context, Organizer is living in an environment where "white straight cis men" are everywhere, and he wants to see more equal representation of other folks. That means giving the "white straight cis men" less water, because in reality they already have plenty. Organizer is going to end up hanging out with "white straight cis men" all the damn time regardless, so why should he actually want to hang out with them?
posted by sparklemotion at 11:18 AM on March 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Now, White Dude is right, the server DID give him less water. And "white straight cis men" from your question are right, Organizer DOESN'T want to seek them out to "hang out" with them. But viewed in context, Organizer is living in an environment where "white straight cis men" are everywhere, and he wants to see more equal representation of other folks. That means giving the "white straight cis men" less water, because in reality they already have plenty. Organizer is going to end up hanging out with "white straight cis men" all the damn time regardless, so why should he actually want to hang out with them?
posted by sparklemotion at 11:18 AM on March 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Best answer: To approach this from another angle: there's a well-intentioned but ill-thought-out trope in social justice oriented circles in which people who are members of a group (or share many characteristics with it - white cis gay dudes share a lot with white cis straight dudes) strive to effectively convey their politics by saying negative-yet-general things about a group that they are part of. White queer people complaining about white straight people, for instance. It's a really different thing to say "as a queer person I don't want to spend all my time in straight social circles" and "as a white queer, I don't want to spend all my time in white social circles", because there's this slippage, like I'm disavowing my whiteness because of my queerness.
I'm not super into this, especially because there's a long and blecchy tradition of white people showing their progressiveness by complaining about white people. To me it spills over into not taking responsibility for your own white-person-behaviors, even though that is not how it is generally intended.
I think that the whole "it's okay to punch up" and "not wanting to hang out with privileged people exclusively" thing is true and useful. I also think that people who are coming from substantial positions of privilege need to be careful in how we frame our critiques of other privileged people, because it risks turning into "I'm not like all those boring people who are not only white and cis but also straight!!! Because I'm queer I'm less boring and retrograde than they are!!!"
So basically, while I get what the guy is trying to say and do, I think that the phrasing is a little less than ideal.
posted by Frowner at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm not super into this, especially because there's a long and blecchy tradition of white people showing their progressiveness by complaining about white people. To me it spills over into not taking responsibility for your own white-person-behaviors, even though that is not how it is generally intended.
I think that the whole "it's okay to punch up" and "not wanting to hang out with privileged people exclusively" thing is true and useful. I also think that people who are coming from substantial positions of privilege need to be careful in how we frame our critiques of other privileged people, because it risks turning into "I'm not like all those boring people who are not only white and cis but also straight!!! Because I'm queer I'm less boring and retrograde than they are!!!"
So basically, while I get what the guy is trying to say and do, I think that the phrasing is a little less than ideal.
posted by Frowner at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2015 [13 favorites]
Best answer: What I want to know is what makes that statement ("I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men") different from "I don't want to hang out with gay people" or "I don't want to hang out with black people" or "I don't want to hang out with people who listen to Nickelback." Surely it's discriminatory, no?
Sure. And a lot of people have private preferences about who they prefer to hang out with. And unless we become thought police, it's okay to have preferences in your head. It becomes less okay when these turn into people actively discriminating against certain people and denying them opportunities that are available to whoever the "dominant" class is.
And this is where things get complex because even in America where white straight cis men are considered the dominant class by the numbers (they own the most money, they run the most companies, they are in the most policy-setting decisions, they have control over things that affect all the other people, a level of power that no other group as a class has) there are many individual white, straight, cis men who do not have any particular individual power. And some other people who feel that they do in fact have lower-level power to share opportunity and advantage. So this musician is, in effect, saying that he is aware that he has power to change things up at a local level, hang out with more different kinds of people, just change his social setting in a way that may showcase his values more.
And I think this is why the statement he made reads weird because it's very closely positing who this guy hires with who this guy prefers to hang out with and it can make an implication that one is a lot like the other, but it doesn't have to be. In addition, if you're a person in any position of power (a person getting interviewed in this example), making a statement about disliking some other class of people is already a somewhat edgy thing to do, but doing it to try to, as others have said "punch up" is more tolerated because contextually the setting in which the statement is being given (in the US with the dominant classes that we have) is one in which you're basically saying that yu're maybe not in favor of the domainant paradigm. So like
"I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men" - expressed a feeling about a class of people who are historically not very discriminated against at a societal level
"I don't want to hang out with gay people" - reinforces some existing shitty beliefs people actually have about gay people that have been used to make terrible laws THIS WEEK
"I don't want to hang out with black people" - reinforces some existing shitty beliefs people actually have about black people that have been used to make terrible laws and other discriminatory behavior in recent memory
"I don't want to hang out with people who listen to Nickelback. - different, this is a preference about a personal choice someone has made
posted by jessamyn at 11:39 AM on March 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Sure. And a lot of people have private preferences about who they prefer to hang out with. And unless we become thought police, it's okay to have preferences in your head. It becomes less okay when these turn into people actively discriminating against certain people and denying them opportunities that are available to whoever the "dominant" class is.
And this is where things get complex because even in America where white straight cis men are considered the dominant class by the numbers (they own the most money, they run the most companies, they are in the most policy-setting decisions, they have control over things that affect all the other people, a level of power that no other group as a class has) there are many individual white, straight, cis men who do not have any particular individual power. And some other people who feel that they do in fact have lower-level power to share opportunity and advantage. So this musician is, in effect, saying that he is aware that he has power to change things up at a local level, hang out with more different kinds of people, just change his social setting in a way that may showcase his values more.
And I think this is why the statement he made reads weird because it's very closely positing who this guy hires with who this guy prefers to hang out with and it can make an implication that one is a lot like the other, but it doesn't have to be. In addition, if you're a person in any position of power (a person getting interviewed in this example), making a statement about disliking some other class of people is already a somewhat edgy thing to do, but doing it to try to, as others have said "punch up" is more tolerated because contextually the setting in which the statement is being given (in the US with the dominant classes that we have) is one in which you're basically saying that yu're maybe not in favor of the domainant paradigm. So like
"I don't want to hang out with white straight cis men" - expressed a feeling about a class of people who are historically not very discriminated against at a societal level
"I don't want to hang out with gay people" - reinforces some existing shitty beliefs people actually have about gay people that have been used to make terrible laws THIS WEEK
"I don't want to hang out with black people" - reinforces some existing shitty beliefs people actually have about black people that have been used to make terrible laws and other discriminatory behavior in recent memory
"I don't want to hang out with people who listen to Nickelback. - different, this is a preference about a personal choice someone has made
posted by jessamyn at 11:39 AM on March 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Best answer: If you're asking if e.g. a gay black man saying he doesn't want to include a straight white man in a group is equivalent to a straight white man saying he doesn't want to include a gay black man in a group, no, they're not equivalent. "All things being equal," they would be, but all things are not equal. This group (and the larger culture) already favor the straight white man.
Discrimination, by dictionary definition? Sure, but that's not what anybody is talking about. Equivalent? No way.
posted by kapers at 11:53 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Discrimination, by dictionary definition? Sure, but that's not what anybody is talking about. Equivalent? No way.
posted by kapers at 11:53 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Simple answer: it's not fun to hang out with people who knowingly or unknowingly insult you, ignore you, devalue your experience, or make you feel "othered" (like they're normal and you're a special case). Sometimes you can handle a little of it, sometimes you just... never want to hang out with a white/straight/cis/male ever again. Because when a group "accidentally" reinforces their supremacy over you (in a system that perpetually threatens you with consequences for your identity), it is a difficult thing to stomach. Exhausting.
posted by stoneandstar at 1:14 PM on March 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by stoneandstar at 1:14 PM on March 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
Best answer: On the other hand, there's no reason to say "ugh, gay people!" Unless you believe stupid stereotypes about gay people or hate everyone different from you. As a straight person, in a group of gay people, being reminded of my minority status within that limited group wouldn't be exhausting or disturbing whatsoever compared to vice versa.
posted by stoneandstar at 1:16 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by stoneandstar at 1:16 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: stoneandstar has a very good point. So I will add that this sentiment:
Because I don't even want to hang out with white straight cis men at... anywhere, most of the time.
may be rooted in how ugly some straight men can be to homosexuals. Some straight men feel really threatened by gay men and can be really hostile, to the point of violence and murder. So he may be saying , in essence,"I don't want to hang with folks socially just to relax that make me sort of afraid for my life." That's an incredibly reasonable position to take.
posted by Michele in California at 1:21 PM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Because I don't even want to hang out with white straight cis men at... anywhere, most of the time.
may be rooted in how ugly some straight men can be to homosexuals. Some straight men feel really threatened by gay men and can be really hostile, to the point of violence and murder. So he may be saying , in essence,"I don't want to hang with folks socially just to relax that make me sort of afraid for my life." That's an incredibly reasonable position to take.
posted by Michele in California at 1:21 PM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best answer: To boil this question down to its essence: you're basically asking about the fallacious concept of "reverse discrimination".
If you need more info on that, see:
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
Why Reverse Racism Isn’t Real
Another 101 Fact: There is no such thing as reverse sexism
Reverse Racism and Reverse Sexism Don’t Exist
If you could link to the interview, it would be helpful because it's unclear if your quotes are verbatim or if you're just paraphrasing and that can make a world of difference in answering this kind of question.
While it's not wrong to ask this question here, I do feel like you're looking at this through the wrong lens. By calling this "social justice rhetoric", you're assigning it pejorative connotations despite your claim of non-judgement. I also want to gently point out that it's fairly clear that you're taking this personally - there's a tinge of outrage in your words. You should be aware that there's A Thing that privileged (white/straight/cis/male) people do where they demand that others educate them - especially when they feel slighted, which I feel may be at play here.
If you were a minority or a woman, you would most likely already understand why this type of discrimination is not even remotely equivalent to the prejudice (and often violation or violence) women and minorities face for simply not being white/straight/cis/male. The fact of the matter is that while it's technically discrimination, it's not hurting any white/straight/cis/male person to any serious degree if they don't get these DJ gigs or hang out with this musician. The same cannot be said when women and minorities are discriminated against.
posted by i feel possessed at 1:31 PM on March 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
If you need more info on that, see:
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist
Why Reverse Racism Isn’t Real
Another 101 Fact: There is no such thing as reverse sexism
Reverse Racism and Reverse Sexism Don’t Exist
If you could link to the interview, it would be helpful because it's unclear if your quotes are verbatim or if you're just paraphrasing and that can make a world of difference in answering this kind of question.
While it's not wrong to ask this question here, I do feel like you're looking at this through the wrong lens. By calling this "social justice rhetoric", you're assigning it pejorative connotations despite your claim of non-judgement. I also want to gently point out that it's fairly clear that you're taking this personally - there's a tinge of outrage in your words. You should be aware that there's A Thing that privileged (white/straight/cis/male) people do where they demand that others educate them - especially when they feel slighted, which I feel may be at play here.
If you were a minority or a woman, you would most likely already understand why this type of discrimination is not even remotely equivalent to the prejudice (and often violation or violence) women and minorities face for simply not being white/straight/cis/male. The fact of the matter is that while it's technically discrimination, it's not hurting any white/straight/cis/male person to any serious degree if they don't get these DJ gigs or hang out with this musician. The same cannot be said when women and minorities are discriminated against.
posted by i feel possessed at 1:31 PM on March 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
Response by poster: i feel possessed:
Here's the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK3D0EUpY00
I originally didn't include it because I didn't want it to be seen as "help me justify why I think this specific person is wrong" but a couple of minutes after I submitted I realized that my exclusion of the actual interview was basically just me taking whatever I wanted from the interview and asking a question about it, instead of presenting the source material for people to judge for themselves. Incidentally, I think that everyone has basically focused on the salient parts of my question anyways.
Maybe I'm unclear on the context, but I thought "social justice" was basically just an umbrella term for non-normative theory and thought? I'm vaguely aware of the term "Social Justice Warrior" being used to decry (rightly or wrongly) people who are perceived to be outspoken about these issues, but I wasn't using it in that context.
You're right and wrong about me taking it personally. While I watched the interview, I felt frustrated that I didn't have any avenues through which to ask my question -- Twitter or FB would most likely result in people taking offense at my perceived intentions (rightly or wrongly). However I don't take the actual message ("I don't like hanging out with straight white cis men") personally at all because I spend a lot of time in club spaces much like the one he's describing.
Thank you for your thoughtful, informative, and well-written answer!
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 1:49 PM on March 30, 2015
Here's the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK3D0EUpY00
I originally didn't include it because I didn't want it to be seen as "help me justify why I think this specific person is wrong" but a couple of minutes after I submitted I realized that my exclusion of the actual interview was basically just me taking whatever I wanted from the interview and asking a question about it, instead of presenting the source material for people to judge for themselves. Incidentally, I think that everyone has basically focused on the salient parts of my question anyways.
Maybe I'm unclear on the context, but I thought "social justice" was basically just an umbrella term for non-normative theory and thought? I'm vaguely aware of the term "Social Justice Warrior" being used to decry (rightly or wrongly) people who are perceived to be outspoken about these issues, but I wasn't using it in that context.
You're right and wrong about me taking it personally. While I watched the interview, I felt frustrated that I didn't have any avenues through which to ask my question -- Twitter or FB would most likely result in people taking offense at my perceived intentions (rightly or wrongly). However I don't take the actual message ("I don't like hanging out with straight white cis men") personally at all because I spend a lot of time in club spaces much like the one he's describing.
Thank you for your thoughtful, informative, and well-written answer!
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 1:49 PM on March 30, 2015
Best answer: I thought "social justice" was basically just an umbrella term for non-normative theory and thought?
Different world view I know, but this seems so odd to me, as though social IN-justice were some kind of imperative. A little off-topic maybe, but here is a Swedish advertisment for a political party (by Roy Andersson) which does a good job suggesting an alternative 'norm.' The text says "Why should we care about each other?"
posted by glasseyes at 2:53 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Different world view I know, but this seems so odd to me, as though social IN-justice were some kind of imperative. A little off-topic maybe, but here is a Swedish advertisment for a political party (by Roy Andersson) which does a good job suggesting an alternative 'norm.' The text says "Why should we care about each other?"
posted by glasseyes at 2:53 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I think the difference is where the starting point/norm is. I mean, if everyone I know likes Nickelback, and I say "for fuck's sake, I want to hang out with someone who doesn't like Nickelback [for a change]," I'm actually being more inclusive overall and giving myself a wider perspective or experience.
On the other hand, if everyone I know hates Nickelback, and I decide I only want to hang out with people who, like me, hate Nickelback, well, that's not quite the same thing.
posted by ctmf at 8:44 PM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
On the other hand, if everyone I know hates Nickelback, and I decide I only want to hang out with people who, like me, hate Nickelback, well, that's not quite the same thing.
posted by ctmf at 8:44 PM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best answer: *A* difference, I should say. There are a lot of other explanations I like above as well.
posted by ctmf at 8:46 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 8:46 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Maybe I'm unclear on the context, but I thought "social justice" was basically just an umbrella term for non-normative theory and thought?
I don't want to speak for i feel possessed but I suspect the issue with "social justice rhetoric" is not the "social justice" part but the "rhetoric" part that makes it pejorative.
posted by DarlingBri at 12:00 AM on March 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't want to speak for i feel possessed but I suspect the issue with "social justice rhetoric" is not the "social justice" part but the "rhetoric" part that makes it pejorative.
posted by DarlingBri at 12:00 AM on March 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I'm a straight white cis man who hangs with a largely queer scene and I have often expressed similar feelings re: straight white cis men. I think for me — and likely for this musician — saying "I'm tired of straight white dudes" really means "I'm tired of spaces dominated by straight white dudes and also the people who want to hang out in those spaces." If I walk into a party and it's mostly straight white dudes there is a very low probability that I'll enjoy myself or feel connected to the scene. Conversely there are parties I go to where I walk in and immediately feel at home — a diverse crowd of people who want to hang with a diverse crowd of people. There are actually a bunch of straight cis white dudes at these parties, but we're all mixed in with all other kinds of people.
The culture is so dominated by straight white men that "fuck straight white men" is a totally reasonable response. But it's often not (in my experience) about the identity "straight white men", it's about the larger cultural phenomenon of straight white men and their over-representation in so many spaces.
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:58 AM on March 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
The culture is so dominated by straight white men that "fuck straight white men" is a totally reasonable response. But it's often not (in my experience) about the identity "straight white men", it's about the larger cultural phenomenon of straight white men and their over-representation in so many spaces.
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:58 AM on March 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
"we didn't want to just book white straight cis men at every fucking party... Because I don't even want to hang out with white straight cis men at... anywhere, most of the time.".
This musician is a supporter of minority groups. He's expressing who he thinks should be listening to his music. It is almost impossible for him to not discriminate.
There is no difference between those examples you gave. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects his right to freedom of speech and that includes discrimination. There will be people who look at his actions and speech and will not agree with it and stop listening to his music.
posted by doxsee at 5:44 AM on April 5, 2015
This musician is a supporter of minority groups. He's expressing who he thinks should be listening to his music. It is almost impossible for him to not discriminate.
There is no difference between those examples you gave. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects his right to freedom of speech and that includes discrimination. There will be people who look at his actions and speech and will not agree with it and stop listening to his music.
posted by doxsee at 5:44 AM on April 5, 2015
« Older Fixing credit without screwing creditors? | Book recommendations for raising chickens Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Our society has decided that discrimination in some areas is unacceptable. In particular, in instances of employment and business transactions, discrimination on the basis of certain "protected categories" (generally, but not always, race, sex, sometimes gender, and sometimes sexuality) is unacceptable and illegal.
Choosing who you want to "hang out with" is not covered under any discrimination law I'm aware of, nor is your popularity with DJs a protected category.
In other words, something can simultaneously be discrimination and completely acceptable.
posted by saeculorum at 10:16 AM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]