Lucky White Girl's FAQs

Basic questions first:

Q.  Why is your blog called "Lucky White Girl"?
A.  See this post.

Q. Is there anything here for me if I'm looking for the following search terms or any variation(s) therof: "white girl sucks" "black man does white girl" "luxemborg sex movies" or "19th century girl cunt photos"*? 
A. No.

Q.  Are you a Marxist?
A.  Yes.  Marx was a 19th century social theorist/philosopher who developed certain theories of economics, history and sociology.  But, unlike a lot of eggheads, instead of just talking big ideas he felt it was important that people use those big ideas to make real change in the world around them. Remember what 19th century Europe looked like?  To get a better idea pick up any Charles Dickens novel.  That's what Marx saw and that's what he was trying to change.  So in short, Marx was not only a pretty smart dude, he was a smart dude with a big heart. 

Now the thing about Marx's theories is that they are really complex and nuanced (sorta like reality!) and like all good theories there's all sorts of juicey stuff in them that people can tease out and emphasize or de-emphasize.  The result is a whole load of Marxists who might not seem to agree on very much but are all indeed "Marxists".  To call oneself a Marxist is not to say that you subscribe to a singluar vision of Marxism (embodied perhaps in some dusty tome entitled The Official Approved Version of Marx's Theories of Everything).  It just means that Marx's ideas are sufficiently influencial and important in your own worldview that you feel the need to give him a nod.  Also, it lets others know where you're coming from.  Although in the case of a school of thought that has been so maligned as Marxism (in other words about which so much confusion and misinterpretation exists), that might be easier in theory than in practice but in the end I feel it's more helpful and accurate to say that I'm a Marxist.

Q. Are you a feminist?
A. Duh!

Q. Why?
A. I think women should be included in the category of people.  Some of us are even competent adults!

Q. What kind of feminist are you?
A. I have found useful analysis in many different kinds of feminist theory but the one that most consistently gives me the "best results" (in other words the one that does what a theory should do, which is to explain the world or some aspect of it in a comprehensible way) is Marxist-Feminism.  It's just what works for me based on my own life experience.  I don't insist that everyone feel the same way about it.  Like religion, I think it's mostly a matter of personal preference.

Q. Okay, so what's a Marxist-feminist?
A. A Marxist-feminist is someone whose outlook on the world is characterized by a Marxist-influenced theory of feminism.  Marxist-feminism is not the same as Marxism though; it's its own animal.  (Like a mule is not a horse or a donkey but is derived from both).  Standpoint Theory is a kind of Marxist-feminism which I use a lot in every day life (here's an example in this post) but before you get to Standpoint (which privileges certain knowledges --such as the knowledge of the oppressed-- over others) first you have to understand some non-positivist epistemologies [epistemology, by the way, is a big word but a really simple concept, it just means "theory of knowledge" or how we know what we know (e.g. what is truth?)].  For more on feminist epistemology read this post. 

Non-positivist or post-positivist theories of epistemology challenge the positivists' idea that there is One Universal Absolute Truth that is measurable and quantifiable.  (Positivists are the people who are very into the scientific method for example).  Think Enlightenment folks with their calibers measuring and studying the world.  The non-positivist alternative idea that there exists multiple truths that are relative rather than a singular truth that is absolute, is a general characteristic of post-modern theory.  If you've encountered post-modernism before you're well positioned to understand Standpoint.  If realty is a social construct, then there are multiple realities and multiple truths. 

But if everyone has a different grasp on the idea of truth, what does that mean for how we manage the world and organize all the information around us into a coherent manner?  And what does that mean for our notions of justice and fairness?  This is where Standpoint comes in.  Standpoint theory says that those who most directly experience the underside of the system, --those whose lives are most affected by its cruelties and abuses-- have special insight into the realities of that system and therefore we can privilege their knowledge (at least on that particular subject) over the knowledges of others who are benefitted by the system.  It comes from the slave-master analogy of Marx (that the slave is in a better position to understand the institution of slavery than the master is because of his/her lived experience.  In short, standpoint theory is a way of avoiding the nihilism and dead-end-ness of post-modern epistemologies.  I promise to write a longer post about this in the future to explain this better.

Q. Do you think there's a role for the uber-wealthy in an economic ecosystem?
A.  Well I think the use of the term "ecosystem" in that question is a bit problematic.  "Ecosystem" implies not only a complicated web of finely balanced relationships but also one that is "natural" and even sacred.  There's nothing sacred about any economic system.  And there's nothing natural about it either.  An economic system is something devised by human beings in order to regulate the production and distribution of goods and services amongst them.  It may be just or injust but it's never natural.  It's not something that just happens.  That doesn't mean it's bad; it just means every economic system was created by humans and therefore can be changed by humans.  If you don't like the one you got, advocate for alternatives. 

Q. You didn't answer the question.
A.  Sorry.  Is there (or more accurately should there be) a role for the uber-wealthy in an economic system?   In my opinion, no.  Until goods and services are non-exhaustable and infinite (thereby making them un-valuable), if some people have more than their fair share that means others are having to get by with less.  It's a zero-sum game.  Remember kindergarten?  Share your toys! ;-)

Q. Are you always such a literalist?
A. Yes.  Sorry.  It's very annoying, I know, but I take language very, very seriously because I feel it's so crucial to us all understanding each other.  I don't use words lightly.  I say what I mean and I mean what I say.  Always.

Q. I noticed you used to have a tagline that said "because it's all about race, class and gender"... which one of these do you think is most important and why?
A.  There's not a "most important" in that equation, it's an interlocking matrix. Now you could --and a lot of social scientists do-- try to isolate any one of them for the purposes of the scientific method (see above) but I fundamentally disagree with this approach.  Even if such things could be operationalizable (made measurable) it wouldn't be "real" to study them in isolation; it'd just be a game, an abstraction that doesn't reflect reality and is therefore relatively worthless for the purposes of explaining the world.  And if that's not the whole point of the social sciences I don't know what is.

Q. Are you saying you don't believe in the scientific method?
A.  Bingo!  I'm saying that I don't believe in the scientific method for the social sciences.  The scientific method works great for the physical world but not for the social.  Social facts are not the same as physical facts.

Q. Are you accepting more questions?

A.  Yes, please use the comments section below to ask away!

---
*Actual search terms used within the past 24 hours by which visitors have found this site.

Comments

[angry brown girl]

"I take language very, very seriously because I feel it's so crucial to us all understanding each other. I don't use words lightly. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Always."

It's funny that you should write this. There is a lunatic on livejournal ("rpeate") who claims the same thing. He wrote that he should be able to identify as a "person of color" because he was, in fact, beige-- and beige is a color. He called me a racist for referring to him as "white." Apparantly, "white"-- because it is an inaccurate description of his actual color-- is a racial slur in his world.

He also told me that I had "no respect for the english language."

I am starting to understand why serious bloggers think livejournal=kindergarten.

[prof black woman]

I just wanted to say thanks. Its been a while since I have stopped in to read your stuff but it still makes me glad to be in the world every time I do.

[barbh]

oh wow, thanks so much, prof! I wish I could send you a note personally but I don't have your email. Anyway I hope you see this. Thanks for your notes. They made my day. You're very kind! :-)

[Rachel S.]

Hey Barb, I've been derelict in my blog reading duties--first time here in months.

You're really an old school blogger--three blog years is like 90 in human years. That's great.

[Wynand Winterbach]

Scientific method + Social Science = Scientism. Science is wonderful, but Scientism is just evil. It's really interesting that you mention this, because capitalist economists are deluded enough to think they're practising a "science". I'm not deriding Economics as a line of inquiry - but it is simply silly for economists to think that there are any universal truths in economics the way there are in Physics. I am also worried that the few in the upper rungs of society are making more at the expense of everyone else. It's becoming harder for the middle class to survive now. We can start by insisting that CEOs (especially American CEOs) have their salaries seriously reduced. If the stock holders were all normal people, their salaries would probably never have reached such ridiculous proportions. But the majority stock holders are often large institutions. The managers of the large institutions are self-selecting. Isn't it crazy that we read things like "Directors should be enticed by more stock options"? People look at someone like Jack Welch and erroneously say: "But look, Jack has lead GE through many years of success. He deserves so much money". But this is survivorship bias. There are so many CE0s which fail. Of course, a CEO's impact on a company is just about nil. There are exceptions, like Steve Jobs (but even Steve Jobs is more important as a faith article in Apple - people believe Apple is successful because of him and therefore Apple will suffer if he leaves because morale will suffer). When a company does well (because those doing the actual work do well), the CEO gets (unfairly) rewarded and when it does badly, the CEO is (unfairly) punished. It is an error to think that there should be a hierarchy with one person at the top - but then, those in management theory are not exactly philosophers. If Jack Welch takes over a failing company, without being allowed to use any GE staff in the company, it won't become excellent. The truth of the matter is that no single person can make such a change. No single person should then get the compensation of 500.