Fauxminism and Men
Look, Kitten, I Am Too A Feminist!
Fauxminism and Men
Written by Megan Milanese. Megan is a recent graduate of the University of South Florida where she received her BA in women’s studies. She is a fan of feminism, pop culture, and reproductive rights. Megan is not a fan of fake feminism, however, and currently blogs at STFU Fauxminists on Tumblr and tweets under the same handle.
It’s great when men identify as feminists. Really, it is. It’s great when anyone identifies as a feminist. What’s more important, however, is actually sticking to the tenets of that identity and philosophy. This is important for feminists from all walks of life, but it becomes particularly paramount when men claim the title of feminist. Many a woman-identified feminist is unwilling to speak out against men who self-ID with the movement for fear of alienating them from the cause all together - or worse - becoming the man-hating stereotype. However, it’s time to speak the unspeakable. I am totally ok with being labeled a man-hater if it means that feminism can better serve those it is meant for. So here goes: fauxminism in male, masculine-identified allies is a problem, and it needs addressing.
There, I said it.
So how do you tell if a man you are conversing with (or perhaps know, love, and/or are friends with) is, in fact, a fauxminist?
He interrupts women that he speaks with.
Listening problems include six types of obstacles associated with effective listening practices: Shift Response, Competitive Interrupting, Glazing Over, Pseudolistening, Ambushing, and Content only response.
Some people don’t understand the politics of simple conversation. However, it’s important to note that talking over people or interrupting them is considered rude for a reason. It’s exerting power over them. It is a way of conveying that what one person has to say is more important - more worthy of consideration and therefore more imperative to be stated sooner - than what another has to speak about.
These politics have historically played across gender lines, and they continue to have attachments to gender to this day. Many studies have been conducted on gender and communication, and in each one men interrupted women more than they interrupted men. Due to their general societal privilege, what men say is generally considered more important than what a woman has to say. This can also be seen in cases in which a man giving a lecture receives applause for saying something that a woman or women in general have said for quite a bit of time.
Legitimate male feminists make a concerted effort not to interrupt the women they’re speaking with. They understand the politics of conversation and they work to limit their male privilege within the confines of spoken communication. It places real value on the words, thoughts, and ideas put forth by women and can be a great learning experience for these men.
He expects to be given leadership roles far before he’s ready for them.
In some cases, this can manifest itself as simply taking on the position of director of a particular project or group. In others, men in feminist groups just tend to become leaders - many before they’re ready. It’s a feminist activist group glass escalator, and on some level it makes sense. It makes sense to fight back against stereotypes by having men at the forefront of feminist groups. It’s a great PR strategy. That is, until it completely backfires.
By placing men in leadership positions just to give off the impression that men are active and involved in feminist politics and organizing, some groups are also giving off the impression that feminism is only relevant if men are in charge of it. This is the antithesis of what feminism should be about, and it only seeks to serve a patriarchal definition of importance in the first place. You can’t smash the patriarchy by adhering to its demands for the privileged to always be calling the shots.
Men need to realize that as a person with privilege, odds are they have a lot to learn about unpacking that privilege before they can lead the march to liberation. Those who demand to be put at the forefront from the get-go are simply attention seekers, and they make it obvious that they have not done the work necessary to be a leader in the fight for equality.
He mansplains.
Mansplaining is such a fantastically accurate term for an all-too-common phenomenon. However, it is often controversial. This is mostly because it calls out men for a behavior they often don’t know they’re doing, and this in turn raises the defensive hackles. Mansplaining is generally defined as any instance in which a man explains a subject to a woman despite that woman’s personal experience with said subject or proven expertise in that subject.
It’s my favorite thing when men wax poetic to me about feminism - especially about how much I’m hurting my own cause. Really, I don’t know what feminism would do without men. Without men to lead the way, it’s amazing how feminists ever got to vote, Title IX, Roe v Wade, legal access to contraceptives, a single woman elected to office, the small narrowing of the wage gap that has occurred, etc. I’m sure if a man was in charge, feminism would be over and done with and we’d all be living in post-patriarchal utopia by now. The only thing in our way is our very existence, and “feminist” mansplainers are here to make us understand that.
A feminist man should be able to understand the difference between mansplaining and simply explaining something while simultaneously being a man. The difference is the invalidation of the marginalized person’s expertise and experience as well as the general patronizing or condescending tone. The argument that the word “mansplain” is divisive is ridiculous. The only thing that’s divisive is the propensity for men to mansplain in the first place. Marginalized people should not have to suffer communicative indignities just to keep privileged people around. If those marginalized communities must be silenced or spoken down to in order for the privileged to stay, I would be just fine with showing those with unexamined privilege the door.
He insists that feminism must make equal time for men and men’s issues.
It is a systemic devaluation of femininity that creates the rigidly defined masculinity by which men must abide.This can also be described as the “Dear God, what about the men?” syndrome, and unfortunately it’s not just male feminists that are prone to it. To make matters worse, there seems to be an ever-increasing attitude that in order for feminism to be relevant, it must become less about women and more about men. This is as offensive as it is detrimental. While it is true the Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too™, the fact of the matter is that the problems that men face that don’t stem from class, race, sexuality, or able-bodiedness issues tend to stem from socially ingrained misogyny. It is a systemic devaluation of femininity that creates the rigidly defined masculinity by which men must abide. If men have a problem with masculinity as it currently exists, perhaps they should consider increasing the social status and viability of femininity in all people. They could also address the notion that femininity and masculinity are not mutually exclusive.
Feminist men need to understand that their liberation from standards of masculinity goes hand in hand with smashing patriarchal misogynistic social structures. Instead of listing off the problems that he feels feminists aren’t addressing (and thus expecting women to drop everything and mommy him - a sexist expectation in the first place), he can either begin to address them himself or try to recognize how intersectionality affects oppression. The fact of the matter is that feminists should not have to dedicate 50% of time and resources to men’s issues.
So yes, men have issues. However, in no way, shape, or form are they of the same caliber as the problems and oppression facing women. If he is intent on making feminism about men, or inflating the issues that men face in order to play Oppression Olympics with the women he is conversing and organizing with, he is a fauxminist. Seriously: the minute he mentions the draft just stop listening.
He continues to partake in media or activities that objectify/degrade women.
So I once knew a guy who would come to all of the feminist rallies. He would hold signs and do the chanting. He would denounce anti-choice policies and support all of the awareness events is support of ending violence against women. But every time he’d open his damn laptop there would be a new desktop background of some conventionally attractive, usually white, thin, barely-clothed woman. Sometimes she was lucky enough to pose near a car, other times she was just lying seductively on a black void of a background - come hither, vessel of male-projected desire expression planted firmly on her airbrushed face.
When men have stated a commitment to feminism, they need to go all in. This means thinking critically about themselves, their interests, and the media they consume.This is what I like to call the “Sure I’m a feminist, I love women” mentality - and a lot of progressive men have it. What these men don’t understand is that a love of women is not always the same thing as a dedication to their equal social status. It is similar to the “I’m not racist, I have a black friend” mantra. When men have stated a commitment to feminism, they need to go all in. This means thinking critically about themselves, their interests, and the media they consume. How does the media that they consume portray marginalized people? If it’s the same patriarchal narrative over and over again, men need to consider addressing that. At the very least, they must come to terms with their interest in possibly harmful media, and if another feminist calls them out on it they need to be willing and able to defend themselves without demeaning that person. He calls women he doesn’t agree with “bitches”, “whores” or other gender-based slurs.
This is something that a lot of men who vote democrat but also ID as feminist tend to do. For some reason, they often think that the women that are organizing with them will think it’s clever or awesome that they don’t like anti-feminist women. Well yes, it is okay to not throw political support behind women who are anti-feminist, but to degrade them with gendered epithets is never acceptable. That is doing feminism wrong no matter whom it comes from, but the offense is especially egregious when it comes from men since these words cannot be used against them in the same silencing and degrading way. Basically, “Sarah Palin is a cunt” is not a feminist statement, and in no way will it ever propel the movement of women in to the political sphere no matter what policies they support.
He feels entitled to the trust of the women he works with in feminist activism circles.
The thing about feminists that guys like this don’t seem to get is that a lot of time men have done really awful things to us or other women we know. It could be rape, it could be domestic violence, it could be emotional abuse. It could just be the daily normality of cat-calling and slut-shaming that women endure. Whatever it is - it’s probably valid. Even if a man doesn’t think it’s valid, he has no right to tell a woman that her distrusting attitude toward men irrational.
The problem with men being offended by women not automatically trusting them is an issue of entitlement as well as an issue of who gets to define reality and for whom. No one is entitled to another’s trust. This is especially true when the person who is distrustful is a member of a class that is disproportionately affected by harassment, violence and degradation and the person who is not being trusted is a member of the class that most often perpetrates that degradation. In addition, when men claim that feminists have no reason not to trust them, they are erasing lived experiences and realities as well as the fact that in some regard they benefit from the privilege that this systematic degradation perpetuates.
So what men who are feminists should do is be understanding. Know that feminists or any members of a marginalized group do not have to immediately trust you. Again, it’s not personal, so taking it that way is ridiculous and privilege-denying. Men that are legitimately interested and dedicated to the cause should have no problem earning the trust of those already within it and who have been negatively affected by their marginalization anyway.
He will not hold other self-proclaimed male-identified feminists accountable.
…it is extremely important that feminist men speak out against sexism whenever they possibly canOf course, this only applies to relatively safe spaces. A feminist man shouldn’t have to risk life and limb to tell another dude that his rape joke wasn’t funny, but if all he’s got to risk is his pride or social status then he needs to go for it. If his bros are giggling and cat-calling a woman and he’s just standing there - he’s not ready for the label yet. General shyness may be a mitigating factor, but it is extremely important that feminist men speak out against sexism whenever they possibly can. Any commitment he’s made to ending sexism must hold up to being called a “mangina”. If a man cannot be expected to do this much while women are enduring sexual assault, violence, and verbal abuse for standing up for their rights, the mantle of feminism has been proven to be too much to bear for him and he is undeserving of the title. He uses the tone argument on you.
The tone argument - essentially “I’m more right because you weren’t nice about my being wrong” - is absurd and a means of derailing in the first place. However, when men use it against women it is especially pernicious. Women are expected, socially, to not get angry. They are expected to remain calm and emotionally available at all times. Thus, when men use the tone argument on women they are essentially relying on patriarchal gender constructs to help them win an argument and to undermine that woman’s message. They are using their privilege to their advantage to silence women, and there will never ever be anything feminist about that.
He is pissed off by this article.
Supposed male feminists who cannot handle shrewd questioning by women are not as feminist as they think they are, and that’s just the truth. One of the main tenets of legitimate male feminism is the ability and willingness to take a long, hard look at yourself and the way you interact with the world and with folks who are marginalized within it. That requires a lot of listening - most often a lot of listening to how much people like you suck. Dudes who take all of that personally will never make the grade when it comes to feminism.
Here’s the thing: men that are feminists can renounce the label at any time and it generally will not harm their place in society. That is the advantage of male privilege. Men that take on the label need to understand that privilege and work to limit it when entering into conversations in feminist spaces. There are no cookies and no pats on the head given - and for men to expect it is also to remain content in a privilege afforded to them in every other social space. So what do I say to proclaimed male feminists that are offended by my unwillingness to take their ultra-admirable dedication to decent human being-hood? I’m sure your heralded entrance to every other space will comfort you when you’re kicked out of the feminist conversation. Remember: the goal is quality, not quantity.
While it is important for the feminist movement to be large, powerful, and diverse, if the commitment of any particular person is not up to par there should be a total of zero tears shed over their exodus from the movement. While men certainly have a place in feminism, they need to understand that this place will be radically different from the place they currently enjoy in the current social climate. If they can’t come to grips with that, then they won’t be any help anyway.
Long story short - if you are a feminist that is predisposed to baking, don’t be so willing to hand over the cookies to any man who claims the label. The best way to determine whether or not a man is actually dedicated to social justice and equality is to press him on it. It’s easy to be involved in social justice activism if you are getting your ego stroked because of it. If the people who you are standing in solidarity with actually start flexing the muscle of equal representation and treatment, however - well, that might cause some ripples. Assessing how much of a rupture that causes in any particular self-proclaimed “ally” is important, and it should not be avoided for fear of “alienating” men who claim feminism. If they claim it, they need to live it, and if they don’t live it, all they’re doing is perpetuating fauxminism and privilege.
So, male feminists, don’t be that guy. Okay?
Source
What do you think about this article? Do we hurt the cause by excluding less-than-perfect allies, or by stroking the ego of people that want to help but only until they'd have to actually confront their own privilege?
Fauxminism and Men
Written by Megan Milanese. Megan is a recent graduate of the University of South Florida where she received her BA in women’s studies. She is a fan of feminism, pop culture, and reproductive rights. Megan is not a fan of fake feminism, however, and currently blogs at STFU Fauxminists on Tumblr and tweets under the same handle.
It’s great when men identify as feminists. Really, it is. It’s great when anyone identifies as a feminist. What’s more important, however, is actually sticking to the tenets of that identity and philosophy. This is important for feminists from all walks of life, but it becomes particularly paramount when men claim the title of feminist. Many a woman-identified feminist is unwilling to speak out against men who self-ID with the movement for fear of alienating them from the cause all together - or worse - becoming the man-hating stereotype. However, it’s time to speak the unspeakable. I am totally ok with being labeled a man-hater if it means that feminism can better serve those it is meant for. So here goes: fauxminism in male, masculine-identified allies is a problem, and it needs addressing.
There, I said it.
So how do you tell if a man you are conversing with (or perhaps know, love, and/or are friends with) is, in fact, a fauxminist?
He interrupts women that he speaks with.
Listening problems include six types of obstacles associated with effective listening practices: Shift Response, Competitive Interrupting, Glazing Over, Pseudolistening, Ambushing, and Content only response.
Some people don’t understand the politics of simple conversation. However, it’s important to note that talking over people or interrupting them is considered rude for a reason. It’s exerting power over them. It is a way of conveying that what one person has to say is more important - more worthy of consideration and therefore more imperative to be stated sooner - than what another has to speak about.
These politics have historically played across gender lines, and they continue to have attachments to gender to this day. Many studies have been conducted on gender and communication, and in each one men interrupted women more than they interrupted men. Due to their general societal privilege, what men say is generally considered more important than what a woman has to say. This can also be seen in cases in which a man giving a lecture receives applause for saying something that a woman or women in general have said for quite a bit of time.
Legitimate male feminists make a concerted effort not to interrupt the women they’re speaking with. They understand the politics of conversation and they work to limit their male privilege within the confines of spoken communication. It places real value on the words, thoughts, and ideas put forth by women and can be a great learning experience for these men.
He expects to be given leadership roles far before he’s ready for them.
In some cases, this can manifest itself as simply taking on the position of director of a particular project or group. In others, men in feminist groups just tend to become leaders - many before they’re ready. It’s a feminist activist group glass escalator, and on some level it makes sense. It makes sense to fight back against stereotypes by having men at the forefront of feminist groups. It’s a great PR strategy. That is, until it completely backfires.
By placing men in leadership positions just to give off the impression that men are active and involved in feminist politics and organizing, some groups are also giving off the impression that feminism is only relevant if men are in charge of it. This is the antithesis of what feminism should be about, and it only seeks to serve a patriarchal definition of importance in the first place. You can’t smash the patriarchy by adhering to its demands for the privileged to always be calling the shots.
Men need to realize that as a person with privilege, odds are they have a lot to learn about unpacking that privilege before they can lead the march to liberation. Those who demand to be put at the forefront from the get-go are simply attention seekers, and they make it obvious that they have not done the work necessary to be a leader in the fight for equality.
He mansplains.
Mansplaining is such a fantastically accurate term for an all-too-common phenomenon. However, it is often controversial. This is mostly because it calls out men for a behavior they often don’t know they’re doing, and this in turn raises the defensive hackles. Mansplaining is generally defined as any instance in which a man explains a subject to a woman despite that woman’s personal experience with said subject or proven expertise in that subject.
It’s my favorite thing when men wax poetic to me about feminism - especially about how much I’m hurting my own cause. Really, I don’t know what feminism would do without men. Without men to lead the way, it’s amazing how feminists ever got to vote, Title IX, Roe v Wade, legal access to contraceptives, a single woman elected to office, the small narrowing of the wage gap that has occurred, etc. I’m sure if a man was in charge, feminism would be over and done with and we’d all be living in post-patriarchal utopia by now. The only thing in our way is our very existence, and “feminist” mansplainers are here to make us understand that.
A feminist man should be able to understand the difference between mansplaining and simply explaining something while simultaneously being a man. The difference is the invalidation of the marginalized person’s expertise and experience as well as the general patronizing or condescending tone. The argument that the word “mansplain” is divisive is ridiculous. The only thing that’s divisive is the propensity for men to mansplain in the first place. Marginalized people should not have to suffer communicative indignities just to keep privileged people around. If those marginalized communities must be silenced or spoken down to in order for the privileged to stay, I would be just fine with showing those with unexamined privilege the door.
He insists that feminism must make equal time for men and men’s issues.
It is a systemic devaluation of femininity that creates the rigidly defined masculinity by which men must abide.This can also be described as the “Dear God, what about the men?” syndrome, and unfortunately it’s not just male feminists that are prone to it. To make matters worse, there seems to be an ever-increasing attitude that in order for feminism to be relevant, it must become less about women and more about men. This is as offensive as it is detrimental. While it is true the Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too™, the fact of the matter is that the problems that men face that don’t stem from class, race, sexuality, or able-bodiedness issues tend to stem from socially ingrained misogyny. It is a systemic devaluation of femininity that creates the rigidly defined masculinity by which men must abide. If men have a problem with masculinity as it currently exists, perhaps they should consider increasing the social status and viability of femininity in all people. They could also address the notion that femininity and masculinity are not mutually exclusive.
Feminist men need to understand that their liberation from standards of masculinity goes hand in hand with smashing patriarchal misogynistic social structures. Instead of listing off the problems that he feels feminists aren’t addressing (and thus expecting women to drop everything and mommy him - a sexist expectation in the first place), he can either begin to address them himself or try to recognize how intersectionality affects oppression. The fact of the matter is that feminists should not have to dedicate 50% of time and resources to men’s issues.
So yes, men have issues. However, in no way, shape, or form are they of the same caliber as the problems and oppression facing women. If he is intent on making feminism about men, or inflating the issues that men face in order to play Oppression Olympics with the women he is conversing and organizing with, he is a fauxminist. Seriously: the minute he mentions the draft just stop listening.
He continues to partake in media or activities that objectify/degrade women.
So I once knew a guy who would come to all of the feminist rallies. He would hold signs and do the chanting. He would denounce anti-choice policies and support all of the awareness events is support of ending violence against women. But every time he’d open his damn laptop there would be a new desktop background of some conventionally attractive, usually white, thin, barely-clothed woman. Sometimes she was lucky enough to pose near a car, other times she was just lying seductively on a black void of a background - come hither, vessel of male-projected desire expression planted firmly on her airbrushed face.
When men have stated a commitment to feminism, they need to go all in. This means thinking critically about themselves, their interests, and the media they consume.This is what I like to call the “Sure I’m a feminist, I love women” mentality - and a lot of progressive men have it. What these men don’t understand is that a love of women is not always the same thing as a dedication to their equal social status. It is similar to the “I’m not racist, I have a black friend” mantra. When men have stated a commitment to feminism, they need to go all in. This means thinking critically about themselves, their interests, and the media they consume. How does the media that they consume portray marginalized people? If it’s the same patriarchal narrative over and over again, men need to consider addressing that. At the very least, they must come to terms with their interest in possibly harmful media, and if another feminist calls them out on it they need to be willing and able to defend themselves without demeaning that person. He calls women he doesn’t agree with “bitches”, “whores” or other gender-based slurs.
This is something that a lot of men who vote democrat but also ID as feminist tend to do. For some reason, they often think that the women that are organizing with them will think it’s clever or awesome that they don’t like anti-feminist women. Well yes, it is okay to not throw political support behind women who are anti-feminist, but to degrade them with gendered epithets is never acceptable. That is doing feminism wrong no matter whom it comes from, but the offense is especially egregious when it comes from men since these words cannot be used against them in the same silencing and degrading way. Basically, “Sarah Palin is a cunt” is not a feminist statement, and in no way will it ever propel the movement of women in to the political sphere no matter what policies they support.
He feels entitled to the trust of the women he works with in feminist activism circles.
The thing about feminists that guys like this don’t seem to get is that a lot of time men have done really awful things to us or other women we know. It could be rape, it could be domestic violence, it could be emotional abuse. It could just be the daily normality of cat-calling and slut-shaming that women endure. Whatever it is - it’s probably valid. Even if a man doesn’t think it’s valid, he has no right to tell a woman that her distrusting attitude toward men irrational.
The problem with men being offended by women not automatically trusting them is an issue of entitlement as well as an issue of who gets to define reality and for whom. No one is entitled to another’s trust. This is especially true when the person who is distrustful is a member of a class that is disproportionately affected by harassment, violence and degradation and the person who is not being trusted is a member of the class that most often perpetrates that degradation. In addition, when men claim that feminists have no reason not to trust them, they are erasing lived experiences and realities as well as the fact that in some regard they benefit from the privilege that this systematic degradation perpetuates.
So what men who are feminists should do is be understanding. Know that feminists or any members of a marginalized group do not have to immediately trust you. Again, it’s not personal, so taking it that way is ridiculous and privilege-denying. Men that are legitimately interested and dedicated to the cause should have no problem earning the trust of those already within it and who have been negatively affected by their marginalization anyway.
He will not hold other self-proclaimed male-identified feminists accountable.
…it is extremely important that feminist men speak out against sexism whenever they possibly canOf course, this only applies to relatively safe spaces. A feminist man shouldn’t have to risk life and limb to tell another dude that his rape joke wasn’t funny, but if all he’s got to risk is his pride or social status then he needs to go for it. If his bros are giggling and cat-calling a woman and he’s just standing there - he’s not ready for the label yet. General shyness may be a mitigating factor, but it is extremely important that feminist men speak out against sexism whenever they possibly can. Any commitment he’s made to ending sexism must hold up to being called a “mangina”. If a man cannot be expected to do this much while women are enduring sexual assault, violence, and verbal abuse for standing up for their rights, the mantle of feminism has been proven to be too much to bear for him and he is undeserving of the title. He uses the tone argument on you.
The tone argument - essentially “I’m more right because you weren’t nice about my being wrong” - is absurd and a means of derailing in the first place. However, when men use it against women it is especially pernicious. Women are expected, socially, to not get angry. They are expected to remain calm and emotionally available at all times. Thus, when men use the tone argument on women they are essentially relying on patriarchal gender constructs to help them win an argument and to undermine that woman’s message. They are using their privilege to their advantage to silence women, and there will never ever be anything feminist about that.
He is pissed off by this article.
Supposed male feminists who cannot handle shrewd questioning by women are not as feminist as they think they are, and that’s just the truth. One of the main tenets of legitimate male feminism is the ability and willingness to take a long, hard look at yourself and the way you interact with the world and with folks who are marginalized within it. That requires a lot of listening - most often a lot of listening to how much people like you suck. Dudes who take all of that personally will never make the grade when it comes to feminism.
Here’s the thing: men that are feminists can renounce the label at any time and it generally will not harm their place in society. That is the advantage of male privilege. Men that take on the label need to understand that privilege and work to limit it when entering into conversations in feminist spaces. There are no cookies and no pats on the head given - and for men to expect it is also to remain content in a privilege afforded to them in every other social space. So what do I say to proclaimed male feminists that are offended by my unwillingness to take their ultra-admirable dedication to decent human being-hood? I’m sure your heralded entrance to every other space will comfort you when you’re kicked out of the feminist conversation. Remember: the goal is quality, not quantity.
While it is important for the feminist movement to be large, powerful, and diverse, if the commitment of any particular person is not up to par there should be a total of zero tears shed over their exodus from the movement. While men certainly have a place in feminism, they need to understand that this place will be radically different from the place they currently enjoy in the current social climate. If they can’t come to grips with that, then they won’t be any help anyway.
Long story short - if you are a feminist that is predisposed to baking, don’t be so willing to hand over the cookies to any man who claims the label. The best way to determine whether or not a man is actually dedicated to social justice and equality is to press him on it. It’s easy to be involved in social justice activism if you are getting your ego stroked because of it. If the people who you are standing in solidarity with actually start flexing the muscle of equal representation and treatment, however - well, that might cause some ripples. Assessing how much of a rupture that causes in any particular self-proclaimed “ally” is important, and it should not be avoided for fear of “alienating” men who claim feminism. If they claim it, they need to live it, and if they don’t live it, all they’re doing is perpetuating fauxminism and privilege.
So, male feminists, don’t be that guy. Okay?
Source
What do you think about this article? Do we hurt the cause by excluding less-than-perfect allies, or by stroking the ego of people that want to help but only until they'd have to actually confront their own privilege?