Probably, but that doesn't make the intellectual project about squid bashing.
Although the bastards would certainly deserve it. A squid raped my mother, killed my father, and turned my brother into a gopher.
There is nothing biological that happens on midnight of the 21st anniversary of one's birth, but according to an arbitrary statute a created status is conferred upon 21 year olds that is not afforded to 20 year olds.
Now, now, let's not be so brash. Such conventions are not totally arbitrary. There is a degree of responsibility associated with such rights and privileges that does seem to mandate caution when granting them to persons. The number 21 might have been pulled out of someone's butt, but I'm not sure I'd want a ten year old to be allowed a driver's license, nor a four year old to vote. I mean, I love Big Bird as much as the next guy, but is he really presidential material?
We could change it if we choose.
And did once upon a time.
We deny that broader influences play any role in our understanding of the world by forcing the conversation to focus on "personal responsibility."
There is obviously personal responsibility involved, but there is something deeply important and influential here. What makes a sexist/racist person? How do we craft a society/culture that no longer encourages such thinking and behavior? This is an important part of what (I believe) feminism is trying to accomplish. There are those who are so set in their ways that they will not change. But those persons are lost causes, and so instead we focus on those who can be changed, and creating a new foundation from which persons will develop, evolve, and contribute to society in an unbiased or (at the least) less biased way.
Your Shorty, for instance, will in all likelihood not be part of the problem. Indeed, she may well be part of the solution. How do we make this the rule and not the exception? Now that's a worthwhile project.
God, I hope I doesn't read this. She'll never let me live it down.
Thank you for the link, and for the very thoughtful response.
First of all let me say that I did not intend to deny that there is real injustice in the world, and that there aren't things wrong with our society that should be addressed. I absolutely don't want sociological facts or personal experiences swept under the rug. I wasn't writing just about feminism, but also what I consider other ideologies that slot people into moral categories.
Note that I just said moral categories, and not just "categories" as I stated in my original post. I think that lack of care in my words made me seem more extreme than I really am, and I will revise it accordingly.
I believe that many people - not just feminists - that have an ideology that is designed to help clarify oppression and overcome it confuse power with ethics. I think there is an implicit bias that sees powerful groups as less ethical, less compassionate, and less informed about society - this is a view that I sense a lot when I read discussions about Standpoint Theory. I think this bias is why that there is often an insistence that a member of one group "admit privilege" as a precondition of dialog, and I object to that.
I completely agree with you that many of our social structures are constructed, and some seem to have a very deep history. Yes, the study of sociological facts is important - I just want to be free to join the discussion and analysis as an equal participant. The way the discussion gets framed, those with privilege have to acknowledge bias, but not victims. I think both victimization and privilege lead to bias.
Thanks again, and I'll probably revise what I wrote to make my points a bit clearer.
The Rules of Male Privilege were actually written by Ampersand using the same device as an article by McIntosh about white privilege.
Commenting by HaloScan
