Girly Thoughts

May 7, 2008

Why the vice-versa test isn’t enough

Filed under: bias,privilege — judgesnineteen @ 12:18 pm

1. If an employer makes sexual advances towards an employee, is it the same, ethically speaking, as if an employee makes sexual advances towards his or her employer?

2. If one person hits another several times and then the second person hits the first back, are they equally guilty?

Question 1 shows how a power differential in a relationship means that things that go one way aren’t the same as things that go the other way. If the employer asks the employee out, the employee may feel pressured to say yes to avoid being fired. If the employee asks the employer out, there is no threat of firing. Therefore, it is more unethical for an employer to make advances on an employee than vice versa (although it may be unwise in both cases). In some situations, the employee may be irreplaceable and so may back up sexual advances with the threat of quitting, so this doesn’t necessarily apply to all employer-employee relationships, but the unbalanced power is still present in this second scenario, so the overall principle remains: if there is a difference in the amount of power people have over each other, their actions, even the same actions, may not have the same ethical quality.

Question 2 shows how the past can impact the ethics of situations in the same way: the same action may be worse in one case than in another due to what has happened in the past. Hitting out of self-defense is not as bad as hitting on the offensive. Hitting after being provoked over a period of time is not as bad as hitting unprovoked.

Power and the past are two parts of the context of these ethically charged actions. We have to keep in mind when discussing politics that the actions we discuss and the policies we debate do not exist in a vacuum, but rather in a context full of people with differing amounts and kinds of power, a context that includes a long past of different types of injustices.

That’s why when someone says “How come they can say n—– and I can’t? That’s racist!” or “You wouldn’t get so angry if a woman said that about a man instead of vice versa” and so on and so forth for a very, very long time, you have to stop and look at the context rather than just accepting the vice versa test as a universally valid tool of logic. They can say n- and you can’t because you (white people) have racial power and they don’t, and because the past of that word involves a lot of white people using it to hurt black people. I don’t condone any sexist remarks, any stereotypes based on gender, but I acknowledge that there’s more power behind sexist remarks from men to women, and a past of oppression of women that there isn’t for men. It’s unlikely that these remarks will make men suddenly start to be treated as property, but it’s not unlikely that they will reinforce long-standing beliefs that women should be treated as property. This principle applies to affirmative action, too – in the past, people of color were strategically kept poor and uneducated. Now, we’re trying to undo that. That’s more like self-defense than offense.

But people tend to get confused about where the line of scrimmage is, if you’ll let me take that defense/offense talk a little further. Because they don’t know the past, in which their “team” bullied its way far into the other team’s territory, or because they know that happened but think that the other team has already regained its lost territory, they assume that where they’re standing right now is the line where things are fair, the rightful border between their space (their rights) and the other team’s space (other team’s rights). So when the other team pushes back, the bully team thinks the bullied team is on the offense, when really they’re on defense. (For instance, Bully team: “I mean, fine, they’re gay, I can deal with that, but why do they have to be PROUD about it and shove it in my face?” Or, Bully Team: “They won’t let us have [teachers lead official] prayers in [public] schools! Christians are being persecuted in America!” Or, Bully Team: “They made me press 1 for English! Can you imagine?”) The bully team reacts with what it thinks is defense, but is actually even more offense. And since this isn’t an actual sports game (of some weird derivation of American football or something), offense is not a sign of being a good player, it’s a sign of limiting people’s rights. This is an illustration of how privileged people who are genuinely or willfully ignorant of their privilege play politics. (Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. Ok, now I’m done with the p alliteration. And the extended metaphor. My English teacher would be almost proud. Actually, my English teacher who had us debate affirmative action and was in favor of it while I was against at the time, probably would be pleased. And it appears that I really do have a penchant for p’s.)

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. Ha, my high school philosophy teacher kind of tried to explain this to us. How the people with less power can joke about the people with more power and it’s acceptable because they don’t have as much power and that joking is the way they have of trying to bring the people in power lower. While if the people in power joke about the others, that’s just mean because they have no reason to. Something like that. Great teacher.

    Comment by Lyndsay — May 7, 2008 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  2. Very insightful. I like the logical train of thought–the basic dilemma of “no, it’s not the same when you do it” is tough to comprehend, and tough to verbalize, but these are excellent examples.

    I’d like to note that this *is* a hard concept–so it’s not unusual to have to explain this several times to someone. Even intelligent people, even liberals, even feminists. Sometimes, it’s just not the same. Power and history matter.

    Comment by Dave — May 7, 2008 @ 4:12 pm | Reply

  3. Thanks Dave! And good point.

    Comment by judgesnineteen — May 7, 2008 @ 4:53 pm | Reply

  4. Hey, this is the best break down of the ‘but they do it too’ logic I’ve seen. I’ll have to remember this as a place to send the oblivious when I run across them. Don’t worry, I’ll try not to swamp you with any real trolls.

    A closely related difficult concept to get across though is ‘just because there are minorities out there that are disparaging of their own group doesn’t mean that it’s okay for you to join in.’ I had a coworker tell me that I couldn’t complain about images of femininity presented in Cosmo because it is written by women. He went on to inform me that because women objectified women, everyone could.

    Comment by la pobre habladora — May 7, 2008 @ 6:10 pm | Reply

  5. Hey, I’m glad you liked it and think it’ll help. That is a really annoying argument about Cosmo. I feel like this kind of applies, but the women in Cosmo aren’t saying “hey, you can’t objectify us”, the way a lot of black people who reclaim the n word say white people can’t start using it. So yeah…I’ve always just said that women can be sexist too, and that doesn’t make sexism right. I also see women who do stuff like that as trying to do the best they can for themselves inside patriarchy, as opposed to feminists, who are trying to step outside of patriarchy. Since fighting patriarchy doesn’t guarantee you your rights, because it hasn’t been beaten yet, sometimes it’s rational to play along with patriarchy and be the woman it wants you to be so you can at least make money, be popular, etc. I don’t mean to present those as shallow things, they’re very important. So the fact that some women do this doesn’t disprove the idea that patriarchy exists and that women would be better off if it didn’t exist. And if women would be better off with patriarchy not existing, then men who play into patriarchy are helping oppress them. I don’t know if that really addresses what you said, I’m kind of just thinking.

    Comment by judgesnineteen — May 7, 2008 @ 6:30 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: