An open letter to privileged people who play devil’s advocate

Thank you Juliana for your extremely interesting article.

I would like to share the point of view of a french white male supporting feminism at its finest. And I will go forward saying that I truly think that a matriarchal society would be way much healthier for everyone. It has been this way in many societies through mankind's history and still is in some part of the world.
But why would I start off with this statement and want to add a comment then ? Because I feel like awaking consciousness with a continuous balance of power is just some kind of patriarchal feminism. I'm not defending, denying nor encouraging the fact that white males are highly advantaged in this society. I'm just emphasizing the fact that most of us would rather, instead of facing this balance of power, contribute for a consistent and relevant shift in society, for our daughters, our sisters, our mothers, and truly for ourselves. Women shouldn't need men to be safe, to be considered as equals etc., but playing the misogynist game with such dichotomies is no solution. It's a shortcut for communitism. I would suggest another perspective and blame capitalism (would be quite long to explain but I'm willing to do it if you want to).

In other words, there is no fun for a white male like me to see that women still have to fight to justify something that is a simple and verified fact. But think of the way you want to change things, isn't it through the scope of this unfair society that you're doing it, opposing your eternal allies and equals : men.

Thinking that we could just walk away is the problem. On a more practical statement, just because you wrongly think that we're not affected by this inequality because we "don't live it", is simply wrong. We don't live it as you do, it's true, by definition, we're different. But we live it. I have a girlfriend and want her to be just as happy as anyone else could be,
without struggling between the social pressure of having a successful career and the natural clock ticking, rushing her to be a mother (This situation pushing lot of couples to the edge of their own condition, and eventually not having the time for both and finally entering in another dimension of this consumerist society forcing a couple to "buy" a baby or to raise your own by another person etc.). I also have a mother and I want her to feel accomplished because she raised my brother my sister and I so well. I want my sister to have the choice of her life, of her happiness with equal chances. We get involved in this every single day, and participate to this shift. It is our fight. We're not walking away. This is our problem and we're here to face it with you.

Hope this is not too simplistic, I tried to use my personal example, not to make a general statement but as a sincere and true analogy in order to readdress the problematic.

Sorry for the english mistakes, hope it makes sense.

Thank you to Juliana for her challenging article. I hope it has the ends she's looking for.

I agree with her that casual arguing can become a game of oversimplification, the result of which distances the arguer from the subject. Devil's Advocate becomes more of a coping mechanism to deal with difficult topics. Rather than deepening an understanding of misogyny and race, those issues are only salved and become increasingly abstract.

My concern isn't whether or not Juliana and people like her will close herself to new ideas and constructive feedback (though they probably will) but whether privileged groups will have a way to understand these issues on a more palpable level.

I usually do not play Devil’s Advocate in gender discussion because it’s a waste of time and it distracts from more important issues like sexual assault and rape. However, since you raised the point...

When I was nineteen, I was beaten and kick on my front doorstep by some guys who thought I looked gay. Between the ages of six and twenty I was stopped by the police–for no apparent reason--about a half dozen times. Still, I’m told this doesn’t happen to white people.

However, when I have objected that social policies should not be driven by sweeping generalizations or simplistic dichotomies, I have been shouted down–literally shouted down–and called racist, sexist and other vile terms.

If I object to your sweeping generalizations, it is not because I’m “playing” or because you’re threatening my sense of privilege. It’s because sweeping generalizations are another term for prejudice, and simplistic dichotomies are not conducive to open, progressive discussions.

I agree with all of your points, but worry that framing Rodger's acts in particular as products of societal shortcomings relieves him from a degree of personal responsibility and suggests a veil of victimhood, however sheer, might lay over his crimes--do not discount the fact that this guy was a maladjusted asshole and supreme coward.

Yes! Also known as JAQing off. It's incredibly irritation.

I've been reading Feministing for a while, but finally signed up today because this article describes so many men that I know. Perhaps it's because I work in tech, where unempathetic argumentativeness is endemic trait, but I feel like I'm surrounded by these people. Every topic, no matter how serious, is an opportunity for a game. Women exaggerate rape. Women choose not to get paid as much. You can't prove that Specific Scenario X is directly caused by sexism, there for sexism does not exist. Etc...etc...etc...ultimately, it can be helpful to educate people who are just confused, or don't have the facts, but it's also important to understand when you're being played, and when the privileged individual in question is in fact continuing the problem by engaging in deliberate obfuscation. We need to spend our precious electrons engaging productively, not as foils for those with ill intent.