This is a scenario I've run into a few times. I feel that answer to the initial question is obvious, but I'm not as sure about the nuances
( Read more... )
It's my understanding that it is not an ally's job to argue with statements made by a person of a marginalized group about their own group, regardless of who else is in the room.
I'd drop it. Or (if the flow of the conversation allows and they seem to want to talk about it and you think you can keep nonjudgemental) maybe ask questions so they have a chance to explain where they're coming from, and listen to them. But no 'splaining and preferably no "I'm heroically refraining from 'splaining".
There's always someone on the internet you can argue with if you're in the mood for it...
I realize now my statement kind of came off like that, I apologize.
As I sort of mention below, arguing on the internet can be more problematic, from the standpoint that you don't know the identity of the person you're discussing an issue with. Whereas in real life you're more likely more aware of a person's identity (though I realize not always and the only way to know for sure is to be told).
Oh, no it wasn't really a reaction to your comment, more just speculating that when one's trying to avoid doing something sometimes one doesn't realise that one's making it really obvious that one is trying to avoid doing it. So just a precautionary note really.
It can sometimes be harder on the internet, but there's still enough by people who explicitly identify as white to keep one busy for as long as one has energy. (And for that matter in face to face situations there are plenty of PoC who pass, willingly or not, for white, so you can't take it for granted that you know there either.)
wait, i'm confused. the marginalized person makes a privileged statement? about the very same marginalized group? how is the statement privileged then?
To pull an example from my own group, I recently had a female friend inform me that I was imaging being harassed by men, that I was overly sensitive, and she firmly believed that we didn't live in a world "like that" (i.e, where sexism was prevalent). Her comments were all staple derailers. I'm not sure what word should be used to describe her statements.
Some of the problems I have been encountering are internet-based, when you don't know the identity of the people you're communicating with. I've had a few recent examples when a person makes a stereotypically derailer-type statement in a discussion, only to find out later that person belongs to the group they're making a statement about. It's making me really think about engaging in discussions at all and ally roles, even when talking to privileged groups.
I may be off base, in which case hopefully someone better informed here will correct me, but I find the answer in the word "ally". An ally is not a crusader. Ally is a support position, not a champion. And that occurs to me as one of the harder things for an ally, who is privileged, to recognize - that we're used to seeing ourselves in a central position, not a supporting one.
As a privileged person, you don't know where the person who is speaking is coming from. What you can be certain of is that it's not the same place you are coming from.
How can you be an ally and not engage in the fight? How is it supportive to sit on the sidelines and watch? Speaking up is not the same thing as taking the reigns.
The way I would handle the situation is to ask for clarification of the person's point, and then decide whether I had anything neutral and factual to bring into the discussion without being confrontational. Maybe a personal anecdote of my own, or a statistic, if I had one. Such situations can be instructive to all parties, I think.
Comments 15
Reply
Reply
There's always someone on the internet you can argue with if you're in the mood for it...
Reply
I realize now my statement kind of came off like that, I apologize.
As I sort of mention below, arguing on the internet can be more problematic, from the standpoint that you don't know the identity of the person you're discussing an issue with. Whereas in real life you're more likely more aware of a person's identity (though I realize not always and the only way to know for sure is to be told).
Reply
It can sometimes be harder on the internet, but there's still enough by people who explicitly identify as white to keep one busy for as long as one has energy. (And for that matter in face to face situations there are plenty of PoC who pass, willingly or not, for white, so you can't take it for granted that you know there either.)
Reply
Reply
To pull an example from my own group, I recently had a female friend inform me that I was imaging being harassed by men, that I was overly sensitive, and she firmly believed that we didn't live in a world "like that" (i.e, where sexism was prevalent). Her comments were all staple derailers. I'm not sure what word should be used to describe her statements.
Some of the problems I have been encountering are internet-based, when you don't know the identity of the people you're communicating with. I've had a few recent examples when a person makes a stereotypically derailer-type statement in a discussion, only to find out later that person belongs to the group they're making a statement about. It's making me really think about engaging in discussions at all and ally roles, even when talking to privileged groups.
Reply
As a privileged person, you don't know where the person who is speaking is coming from. What you can be certain of is that it's not the same place you are coming from.
Reply
How can you be an ally and not engage in the fight? How is it supportive to sit on the sidelines and watch? Speaking up is not the same thing as taking the reigns.
The way I would handle the situation is to ask for clarification of the person's point, and then decide whether I had anything neutral and factual to bring into the discussion without being confrontational. Maybe a personal anecdote of my own, or a statistic, if I had one. Such situations can be instructive to all parties, I think.
Reply
Leave a comment