TL;DR: affinity groups for cis/het white males might be a good idea if implemented well, or maybe they'd do more harm than good. Feel free to start one and tell me how it goes.
I just saw the 2nd reference (IDK how serious) to the idea of a "diversity group" for cis/het white men. (h/t @janisf ). I've been thinking about this for a while.
Wait, wait, maybe it's not as bad as you think. Or maybe it is, IDK. I'm going to lay out an argument, in any case.
CHWMS
Cis/het white men (CHWMs?) are a distinct social group, and the world in general reacts to them in different ways than to other groups. As with many other kinds of social groups, their "distinct social group" status is not due to biology or other intrinsic stuff; they're a group because our society has decided, collectively, to respond to them in distinct ways.
(Note: Many of these thoughts might apply to other non-marginalized or dominant identities, too, because hello, inersectionality)
CHWMs in liberal spaces
Even if you believe that CHWMs are The Problem[TM], what is the best way to ameliorate or solve that problem? By criticizing them as a collective group in popular social media posts? By treating every apparently straight white guy as an embodiment of broad stereotypes instead of as an individual? By making it clear they are not welcome in progressive spaces/groups, or only welcome on a probationary basis?
Liberal/progressive CHWMs are in an interesting situation: allowed to be part of liberal/progressive groups but often with extra rules on participation and (depending on the group) with repeated challenges, criticisms, or even verbal attacks because of one's apparent identity. In many progressive groups CHWMs are always on thin ice.
Not-so-liberal Spaces
Everyone knows that there is always a space that will welcome CHWMs with open arms: MAGA (in the USA; sorry this is so USA-centric). Of course, drifting MAGA-ward means compromising important moral values, so most grown-up liberals won't do that. However, I suspect many CHWMs just starting to have their own political ideas are drawn to MAGA partly because it feels welcoming to them and partly because the progressive left doesn't.
Groups?
Affinity groups for CHWMs might be one way to address the issues above. Maybe. It's a thought, anyway. I'm not committed to it.
Being a cis/het white man does, I think, imply some fairly unique experiences, many of them not particularly pleasant (the systemic privileges don't always trickle down), especially if one has liberal/progressive values. As with any other group identity, people outside the group can sympathize and even empathize but not fully understand. Talking to others with the identity might help.
This idea comes with some significant built-in problems. One is that CHWMs as a group have systemic power and privilege that other groups do not, so groups formed around that identity run the risk of becoming old-boy echo chambers, with predictable and bad consequences. Another problem: the reactions of people around the group are likely to include a lot of suspicion and plenty of assumptions that the group is nothing but an old-boy echo chamber no matter what actually happens there.
/r/MensLib
One reason I've never taken action on this is that I don't know how to prevent the problems I mentioned above (and maybe others). However, at least one online space seems to have been doing a pretty good job for over a decade:
https://reddit.com/r/MensLib
/r/MensLib is about men, not specifically cis/het white men, but I think it has lessons to offer. I think it is a solid (and successful) experiment in an affinity group for members of a structurally dominant social group dedicated to reducing inequality rather than deepening it. There is recognition both of the structural inequalities that benefit the titular members of the group and the reality that being a member of a structurally-dominant group doesn't mean your life is amazing or even pleasant.
The way the mods have created--and continue to maintain--this space is an interesting study. It's also impressive as hell. I've watched, here and there, as they've built a positive group culture that largely resists attempts by bad-faith actors to co-opt the forum for white nationalist or misogynist goals. It's a cool place, and it continues to give me hope.
Of Boys and Men
A movement (?) that I don't have as much faith in is Richard V. Reeves' "boys and men" thing. I think he wants it to be a movement. I was excited about this 2 years ago and read his book, which tempered the excitement. His comments on social media have further mellowed the enthusiasm. Maybe it's because he is focused so specifically on men and boys (not, say, improving the world at large while not sacrificing the experiences of boys and men) that he seems to regularly make feints toward the manosphere--despite also criticizing it--and gender-conservative ideas like gender essentialism and even some old-school gender stereotypes. He hasn't gone all the way there, as far as I can tell, but I'd bet $20 that within 10 years his publications and other statements look a lot more Joe Rogan-y than they do today.
Contrasting /r/MensLib with Reeves' work I notice one important difference: the former has built in explicit, actively discussed/defended guiding priorities about equality and justice for everyone; the latter has not; it's just about men and boys.
Conclusion
Anyway, that's why I think (a) affinity groups for people dominant-culture identities (e.g., CHWMs) could be helpful and also (b) why maybe not, and I'm not in any hurry to start one.
#gender #men #boys #MaybeNot