March 20, 2006

"Their mistakes become magnified and their successes minimized"

Steve Gilliard comments on the article in Sunday's New York Times about why women still don't make partner at big law firms, even though there have been equal numbers of women in law school since the 1970s:

The answer I came up with? They hire and fund the people who are like them.

This is all talk.

They don't want women as partners and women quickly realize that unless they swallow shit or find a mentor, they are never gonna make it. Their mistakes become magnified and their successes minimized.

I remember an old WaPo article about minority lawyers in big law firms who quit after a few years, realizing they aren't ever going to get the brass ring. So they strike out on their own.

What most women realize, like most minorities, is that the only way for them to become a star is either to become a prosecutor or go out on their own. Johnnie Cochran and Willie Gary weren't going to be head of any firm they didn't build on their own.

This could just as easily be the case for minorities, or women, in much of academia.

Or science. It reminded me of this post from the Eight Carnival of the Feminists, which I linked to a while ago.

being a women in physics, statistics, and computer science often requires that one be either a bit heroic - or one of the guys.

Time and generational shifts help to a degree, but it takes self- awareness and a commitment to action to reduce persistent structures and patterns. Some of the law firms in the article have it. Some academic departments have it. Unfortunately, it's an uncomfortable process, which means that it is all too easy to slide lazily into ignoring the evidence right in front of us, and coming up with coping strategies to ease the cognitive dissonance. As Echidne says:

When something happens that clashes with a person's worldview it's usually the evidence that will be reinterpreted so that the worldview can stay. Fixing worldviews is a major psychological undertaking, and few of us want to do it.

We're all so invested in believing things about ourselves, that we're smart, rational, fair, that considering the possibility that we're not causes great anguish. Changing thinking, changing the feelings about these challenges, is hard work, and most people don't want to do it.

There's been a bunch of discussions lately about disagreements within the feminist community, and over the notion of privilege (I'd link to the ones at Feministe, but alas, they seem to be down). One of the most insightful, and critical, was from Dark Daughta (for some of you, NSFW due to images aimed at radical reclaiming of female beauty, i.e. the amazing nude background image of DD's voluptuous pregnant female form). In this post she challenges the "feminist cred" of some in the blogosphere by asking us all (riffing on a post by Kevin) to question our classism and elitism. She does a neat job of showing where the weak spots lie, and how many of us probably realize it, and and how quickly defensiveness sets in when we are confronted with our insularity and unwillingness to really challenge ourselves. While she is talking about another issue, her comments are illustrative of why, as Steve Gilliard points out, "this is all talk" about the reasons why more women don't make partner. For women (in this case) to "make it," serious, painful and consistent work will have to be done. As Dark Daughta says:

This work isn't fun. This work isn't popular. ... This work may very well be completely invisible and go unnoted. They will be feared and gossiped about and avoided by other men who are not doing this work. They will feel the sting of isolation and ostracism doing this work. They won't be perceived as so gentle or likeable while doing this work. They will have to watch their backs doing this work. They will have to wear armour doing this work.

She also turns to the perpetual cry of "courtesy" in the blogsphere, and political debate, and reveals it as the tool of oppression it can be. This goes to the point Gilliard makes as well, about swallowing shit. What he doesn't say, but what Dark Daughta recognizes, is the there is a consistent message that you (the oppressed) have to swallow shit. And that message is to not challenge, to not be rude, to be courteous and play along.

But what does playing along and swallowing shit get you, if you are, in the case of the article, a woman seeking to become partner? Is it really an effective strategy? By the numbers of women partners, it is not.

I can hear it already. Angry gasps and defensive comments being hatched in brains right now. I hear the defensive armor clanking as you start to put on your "don't condemn me with the rest" and "I'm not one of those sex(rac)ists" and "It's not fair to be aggressive with your friends." As Dark Daughta says - though she is not alone - are we really doing anyone favors by not speaking truth?

It reminds me of the discussion I had with a regular commenter, that ended with his comment that "allies are allies are allies." What I wanted to discuss, and ended up not being able to because of real world intrusion into blogging, was that allies are not always equal. In the arena of democratic politics and women's reproductive autonomy (the issue we were discussing that day) that some "allies" are more like fair weather friends. That when it's rainy, and muddy, and shitty, and there is hard, nasty filthy work to be done, those "allies" aren't willing to do the work. Because the work involves looking inside. It involves asking oneself hard questions. It involves admitting that we don't always act in accordance with the enlightened picture we like to paint of ourselves. It involves accepting ourselves as flawed human beings, and admitting that we aren't really better than those other flawed human beings.

And getting upset when people call you on your shit is most definitely human. But that doesn't mean the next thing to do is eliminate the calling, shout it down or silence it with calls to decorum. Maybe that means it's time to reflect and think, why am I so angry and defensive about the implications of that criticism? Is there a possibility that I am not all that I present myself to be? Am I willing to do the work to consider the consequences of my (in)actions, and make changes?

The call to courtesy stifles the probably painful, but important opportunity for growth. Dark Daughta again (emphasis mine):

Courtesy is different than affection and nurturing. Courtesy is invites equivocation and avoidance. Courtesy isn't something you request of those you stand in solidarity with. Better to request truth and forthrightness. Courtesy covers rage, suppressed, leading to (passive) aggression. Courtesy stunts insight gleaned through accessing emotion. Courtesy forces the oppressed to forever engage with those who will not do their own work. Courtesy is a tool utilized by those who harm and oppress to maintain the status quo. Courtesy is a ring around the neck and shackles around the arms and feet of those who need to move vigorously and powerfully and quickly in order to shake themselves awake enough to resist their own oppression.

The lack of courtesy, the rudeness, and failure to play nice... these are the qualities that are used to justify the "hysterical feminist" label. Reading Dark Daughta (and I recommend probing more deeply into her writings, but be warned, you'll get sucked in so block off some time!) gave me some of those uncomfortable itchy feelings that we are trained to deflect with defensive affirmations. So why is our blogroll full of privileged voices?

Again, I hear the defenses coming up. Mine did. When she asked the question I immediately started thinking, "but but...the blogosphere is anonymous..." The I started turning it over in my head. It is anonymous, but it isn't. As Kevin pointed out, there are open representations of alternative worldviews. Now, to some degree, I accept that we limit our blogroll for disciplinary reason, as we are (sometimes more, sometimes less) a political science blog. That means we have links to other scientists, and "laypeople" whose interests overlap our scientific interest. Not all of the links fall into this category. Why don't we? We aren't interested? Okay, that's one answer. But why not? Do we not care? Do we not have the time? Okay. What factors lead us to prioritize the way we do?

I'm not suggested that overnight Bloodless Coup is going to transform itself into a radical feminist queer studies blog. That's not what I mean. What I'm trying to get at is that few of us really pay attention to why we do the things we do. We accept as "is" things that we are absently choosing by default. And we don't stop to think about how our actions and words either contribute to perpetuating certain patterns, or fail to check or turn them back.

Back to Steve Gilliard. He is indirectly (because he doesn't identify it explicitly) talking about privilege, and how women and minorities in law firms recognize, painfully, certain things that those in privileged positions don't have to realize. And often don't want to realize.

Who wants to have to be a superhero every day? It seems like that is what it will take, to give people the shove that unbalances their complacency, and allows them to see. The shove hurts, and it's not going to be the only one coming. Once you start seeing, it's hard to turn it off.

This is what I think is the most scary. That staying in the protective bubble of ignorance - not even ignorance, of not understanding what we seem to know intellectually - is so important because it's the defense against the first step, which will lead to a longer path of discomfort. Self-doubt. Change.

In the end though, is not this the only way to be fully human?

Posted by binky at March 20, 2006 02:56 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Random Thoughts


Comments

At least part of the time, one "eats shit" in order to avoid the confrontation one would lose. People need to eat; that requires money, which necessitates a job. People with neanderthal world-views can sometimes (often) have positions of power over you. Challenging their world-view, however much this helps the underpriviledged/underrepresented, also means you get fired. Without a job, you have no food, etc. Thus, "eating shit" is often necessary.

There is an inequality of power in the world. That is a reality. If you challenge those with more power than you, you must be prepared to pay a price (them, too, perhaps, but that's another issue). Not everyone is able (food, job, money) or willing (psychologically) to pay the price.

Posted by: baltar at March 20, 2006 02:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yet from that perspective, "the oppressed" (and I have my conflcits with using a huge category like that) never get out of oppression.

How about this, as individuals, we have choices about which shit we will eat, no? There are alternatives. Not euqally lucrative necessarily (as you suggest). What I'm trying to get at is the collective imposition of shit eating. Not "my particular boss at McDonalds is a jerk but I need the money." In that case, there is even a reasonable payoff for the shit eating. It gains you a paycheck.

However in the case of the structural inequality, the shit eating doesn't get you something. I would guess that the women in the article about making partner, for example, are a tiny minority of the women who in fact, do eat lots of shit. But they don't get the partner payoff. That is, shit eating doesn't get you anywhere with entrenched inequality.

So, would I like for the angry bos t McDonald's to do some work and challenge himeself or herself about hir interpersonal behavior? Sure. But I'm thinking - and believe that Gilliard and Dark Daughta were thinking - more along the lines of what groups (or classes) of people need to do to reduce structural inequality.

So, it's a structural problem, that also requires individual behavior.

Does that make sense?

One of the things I think about is one I was the only white person in a community I belonged to. It was a relationship that lasted for several years, and was interrupted - though not totally - by my move to another state. And something that I talked about with some of my closer friends in the group - which included several racial and religious and class groups - what that we needed tough skins and forgiveness to really learn. People in the group said "dumb" or hurtful things to me. I guarantee you that I said dumb and hurtful things to them. But we were committed to a mutual love of an activity that brought us together (the capoeira) and in "turning the other cheek" we were investing in something bigger than our egos. Was I young and ignorant and brash? Yes. But the friendships taught me to recognize when I was being that way, and how it kept me from learning from and about other people. And my life got much richer.

Again, that's a personal example, far from what you ae talking about. But it gets to what I meant about the hard work of self-relfection. You have to be simultaneously vulnerable and tough. You have to be vulnerable enough to hear, and tough enough to undertake change (if upon real reflection, you choose it...I'm not arguing for force or indoctrination).

Posted by: binky at March 20, 2006 03:17 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure it is accurate to say "never get out of oppression". I can think of some instrumentally-rational shit-eaters (putting up with a racist/sexist/abusive boss to pay your tuition to go to school to get a better job).

That being said, you seem to be firmly convinced that "accomidationist" (or what, in international relations, is called "appeasment") strategies get you nothing; that all change happens through confrontation. While there are many examples of this (both King and Gandhi were confrontationalist in their own way), I'm not convinced that all change happens that way. (Sometimes the boss is replaced by a more enlightened being; sometimes the boss has an epiphany and just gets better.) One, I think, could come up with several plausible scenarios where accomidation seems better than confrontation.

If you are arguing that confrontation always is the way to change (note: not all confrontations will succeed, but success only happens through confrontation), I'm not sure I agree. If you are arguing that change can happen through paths other than confrontation, then I would wonder "under what conditions does one choose confrontation versus accomidation?"

Posted by: baltar at March 20, 2006 03:30 PM | PERMALINK

I think you are putting words in my mouth.

What the post was trying to get at, is that in trying to understand why women don't make partner (or any other similar scenario) you can come up with all kinds of variables. And you can prescribe all kinds of requirements for new kinds of people to make partner. But they still don't make partner. And part of that reason is that those who have already reached the place of power have a kind of privilege that leads them to a blind spot. Even if they are not "directly oppressing" anybody. Reaching that conclusion is difficult, because it makes people think "how am i part of the problem" when no one wants to believe him or herself to be part of the problem.

That was the link to the feminist debate. Where everyone was so busy fighting their perceived battle, that they didn't pause to see that someone else might be fighting a similar battle with them.

I'm not advocating that the way to get ahead in life is with molotov cocktails. And I think you are overblowing what I mean by confrontation. I don't mean yelling, screaming quitting alone. Though, I would note, that demeaning confrontation as a strategy is a common way to dismiss the challenge of power by the "weak"...Remember James Scott? resistance isn't always violent. This is precisely what Dark Daughta and Kevin draw attention to, that every time someone gets "confrontational" they are dismissed. Yet, who made the rule that you have to always play nice? Why play nice if it doesn't help what you are trying to chenge? And in that situation, is it merely a way to silence angry voices, who havea damn good reason to be angry?

This is one of the things that comes up in the feminist debates (and race, though I am not as familiar). Women get dismissed for not being "reasonable and rational." If you look at some of the posts that get dismissed, they are quite rational. They are also angry. Dismissing the anger is a way to dismiss the claim. There's been an effort to validate the emotions that back up these arguments. Think about some of the names of websites: Bitch PhD, Angry Black Bitch, Pinko Feminist Hellcat.

And as to the discomfort of challenge, I'll give you a little dead white guy (oh, stop already): The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

Posted by: binky at March 20, 2006 03:49 PM | PERMALINK

I'm neither dismissing the anger or the claim. (I might be trying to argue that it's not rational, but only in the sense that I'm trying to find the rational argument here.) I'm certainly not arguing that the argument can be dismissed because you are not being "reasonable".

Nor, just to correct the record, am I demeaning confrontation as a strategy; as I note, both King and Gandhi choose confrontation (and sucessfully).

Under what conditions does one choose confrontation (making people uncomfortable/avoiding courtesy) over accomodation (shit-eating)?

Posted by: baltar at March 20, 2006 04:10 PM | PERMALINK

To answer your question, I have no idea. I was coming at it from the post-confrontation moment. Obviously a whole other line of reasoning to consider.

Posted by: binky at March 20, 2006 04:13 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the mention and for the praise of my post. I'm being forced to stretch and develop new analysis and new bits of courage to write what I see, since my entry into the blogosphere not three months ago. So thanks for the supportive words.

I posted something that I'd be curious to see your response to. Please come and have a gander at your leisure.

(http://darkdaughta.blogspot.com/2006/03/anti-
patriarchal-movement-yet-to-find.html)

Posted by: darkdaughta at March 21, 2006 03:56 PM | PERMALINK

My schedule is hammered the next couple of days, but I will check it out!

Posted by: binky at March 22, 2006 01:17 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?