“Privilege” and the Reduction of Political Debate to Identity. In comments to my statistical proof that Game of Thrones is misogynist, Jamie tells me that I am viewing the world through the lens of “privilege,” and thus unable to properly understand the seriousness of certain issues.
There is of course a grain of truth to this idea, that living in a certain privileged environment can make one blind to the full nuances of life as someone else, and to the extent that the word “privilege” or phrases like “blinded by privilege” can be used to describe this situation, I think they are useful rhetorical devices. But scan any feminist blog today – Feministing, or Pandagon, or Shakesville, for example – and you’ll see lots of examples of arguments being shut down and opposing opinions invalidated through the invocation of “privilege.” For example, at the “feminism 101″ page on Shakesville, itself a loathsomely sexist blog (though the authors can’t see it) we get lots of invocation of privilege in quite negative and almost mystical terms.
Conclusion. Feminists and Sexual Harassment. “Sexual harassment” in streets, transportation and places of work seems to be endemic to many societies, including London – 43% of female Londoners say they have been sexually harassed in London’s public spaces (YouGov).
The legal recognition of sexual harassment in the work place in the 1970’s was considered to be a success of feminism, and ongoing feminist campaigns now seek to legislate against “street harassment” in the same way. However, the feminist drive to legislate against “unwanted” sexual attention from men hypocritically ignores two fundamental realities of sexual dynamics in Western societies.
Firstly, feminists ignore that women too engage in sexual advances upon men, so they do not rail against sexual attention in general but only against sexual attention from men they dislike. In other words, sexual harassment seems to be less about what the man does, and more about who the man is. (Updated – Apr 9, 2013 @ 16:00) Why no one should use that word: Kyriarchy instead of Patriarchy.
As more and more bloggers adopt the term “kyriarchy”, I have to state that I’m deeply skeptical of “kyriarchy” as a coherent and novel concept and also for its likely use as reactionary propaganda.
Admittedly I haven’t read the original book where the christian feminist theologian Schüssler Fiorenza coined the term, but it seems that no one else on the internet has either, so I won’t let that stop me. [Edit: We've since read the original, and it's worse than we thought, so we're leaving this post as is] The first problem is that there are already well-defined “umbrella” concepts for ‘intersecting structures of domination’; “intersectionality” being exactly that, but anarcho-feminism, the materialist-derived ‘complementary holism’ and even ‘radical feminism’ already describe the ‘simultaneity of multiple coercive hierarchies’ in detail. This is very well covered territory. Kyriarchy brings nothing new to the table. This kyriarchy-as-propaganda rationale is rotten for several reasons. Accepting Kyriarchy, Not Apologies.
In my last post, I actually used the word patriarchy.
[spit] Ok, now I feel better. Let me introduce what I really mean when I talk oppression: kyriarchy. Kyr-whhaaaa? A few years ago, I studied under a radical feminist theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza who does pretty amazing pioneering week in feminist theology. Patriarchy, for me, doesn't cut it. How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement. UPDATE: Welcome readers from facebook and elsewhere!
Please subscribe through the buttons at the right if you enjoy this post. The spring of my sophomore year of college I was president of my university’s Students for Life chapter. The fall of my junior year of college I cut my ties with the pro-life movement. Five years later I have lost the last shred of faith I had in that movement. This is my story. I was raised in the sort of evangelical family where abortion is the number one political issue. My views on fetal personhood and women’s bodily autonomy have shifted since that day, but when I first started blogging a year and a half ago I was nevertheless very insistent that the pro-life movement should be taken at its word when it came to rhetoric about saving “unborn babies” from being “murdered.” I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong.
Nearly half of child soldiers are girls. Deeply Problematic: Why I use that word that I use: Kyriarchy, kyriarchal, and why not patriarchy. Kyriarchy and kyriarchal are handy words in intersectional feminist and social justice language.
They define the uneven distribution of basic rights broadly; they show that privilege and power injustices do not only exist in the case of men benefiting at the expense of women. Kyriarchy goes beyond patriarchy to recognize the way systems of inequality work together to hurt everyone. Kyriarchy are the structures of domination working together as a network - not just one group dominating another. Its branches include but are not limited to racism, sexism, cissexism, heterosexism, ageism, and ableism.