"How many people have heard 'You have a responsibility to educate?' Or prompted a defensive response when saying 'It is not my responsibility to educate you?'
"It is my duty to constantly deconstruct other people's privilege, to explain to them what they're doing wrong, that I am required to either give a full 101 course right there on the spot or just walk away. I'm not allowed to say "You know, I found that offensive" and leave it at that. If I don't do the education, how will anyone learn? Right?
"Except what this means is that my energy and effort are available on demand. I have to be ready at a moment's notice to provide an exhaustive and exhausting rundown on all of the reasons why something someone said or did is oppressive and offensive. [...]
[...]
"So, this is why it is never any marginalized person's responsibility to educate you: Because no one owes you free labor, least of all when you've just made it abundantly clear that you hold institutional privilege over that marginalized person by fucking up."
-- Lisa Harney, 2010-08-05
(no subject)
While it's not the responsibility of any person to educate any other person about their experience, it's also unrealistic to expect an understanding of the experience without communication.
I understand not feeling obliged to provide labor for free; nevertheless, if you don't speak up, or out, don't expect people not in your situation to grok why you feel oppressed, or hurt.
I know I've just defined a fine line threading the boundaries between communicating, educating, and bitching. Where it falls is the case-by-case basis.
(no subject)
--Browngirl from LJ
(no subject)
Maybe she has better things to do.
Now usually, a privileged person who actually wants to understand can find someone who's willing to take on a job that's not her responsibility. But let's not dump yet more responsibilities on the shoulders of people who are already struggling.
(no subject)
I would change that to "regardless of whether you speak up, or out, don't expect..." Because in my experience, education does not confer immediate grokking. When a person discovers they've caused offense, they are more likely to get defensive than to be enlightened right away. They might be enlightened in the future, once they've had a chance to think about it, or once they've heard the same thing enough times, or once they experience a similar situation.
So when I choose to educate someone about my situation, I think of it as a favor to the other people in my situation. And I'm less likely to do it when I am personally upset, because I don't want the fallout to increase my upset.
(no subject)
In many cases. I am spoiled in that so many of the people I associate with (most of whom do enjoy privilege of one sort or another) have gotten past that. (I know that it's not an easy lesson; in my case, it took hurting several people I cared about several times too many, with predictably bad results.)
Expecting someone who's caused injury to understand why, even with an explanation, is probably too much. I'll stand by the statement that it's unreasonable to expect understanding without explanation. It's the middle ground between those two, where some people will get it, and more won't, that gives me both hope and frustration.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I saw a fascinating thing last night. I was at a subway station around midnight, waiting for my train, and a station official was having a heated conversation with a passenger who was departing the station. The passenger was complaining bitterly that a woman had taken his picture; the station official was explaining that when you leer at women's legs, "it offends them", and they do things like take your picture to submit to the police. The official was actually doing a very nice job at ripping this extremely entitled creep a needed new orifice, explaining in high volume that no, it DOESN'T matter how they're dressed and so forth.
At it really illustrated nicely how, this creep did not need to understand why women might object to a skeezy guy leering at them in a subway car. He didn't particularly need a copy of Shrodinger's Rapist nailed to any of his body parts; it clearly would have done him no good. What he needed to "understand" is that bad consequences would ensue for him if he didn't desist in the behavior.
When someone else says, "Hey, that was hurtful," what you need is to give a good god damn that you're hurting someone else -- or at least fake it convincingly so witnesses don't think you're a complete sociopath. What you need is for other people's feelings to count. The demand that someone justify why it's hurtful by explaining to how and why it is, is the opposite of that. It's saying, "Well, I don't think I should have to care about this, but I'm so broad minded, I'll allow you the opportunity of petitioning me to. Go on: beg me to care."
To which the only reasonable response is, "You know what? Fuck you."
(no subject)
I didn't say that no one should ever choose to educate. What I said was that the expectation of marginalized people to educate was unreasonable and a demand for free labor. Of course any marginalized person can educate.
That blog's my education effort. I started it nearly three years ago and I intend to keep it going as long as I can. I do see the value of education. And the value in choosing to educate.
From flaviarassen