208 ACCAPADI
When White Women Cry: How White Women's Tears
Oppress Women of Color
Mamta Motwani Accapadi*
This article focuses on the tension that arises as the result of the intersection of social
identities, namely gender and race. Through examination of a case study, I consider the
ways in which White women benefit from White privilege through their interactions
with Women of Color using the Privileged Identity Exploration Model as the tool for
analysis.
Insdtudons of higher educadon in the United States emblemadcally represent
privilege. Whether it be race, gender, sexual orientadon, class, abilides, religion,
and so on, universides have historically served White, Chrisdan, heterosexual,
middle-class, able-bodied, male-dominated idenddes (Anzaldua & Moraga,
2002; Anzaldua & Keadng, 2002; Lorde, 1984; hooks, 1981). If our institudons
are rivers fiowing in a specific direcdon, then the current of the river shaped by
geography which enables the flow of the river and it represent the system of
privilege. Consider a fish that must swim upstream versus a fish that swims
with the current, arguably both fish could survive, but under what
circumstances? Would one fish benefit from the fiow of the current? As
student affairs pracddoners, it is our job to understand not only context for
survival, but also the circumstances.
The nodon of privilege is complex, especially whether we have privileged or we
do not have privilege posidons us to act in conflicdng manners regarding
oppression. This phenomenon is nodceable when Women of Color and White
women dialogue about race and racism. While White women are members of
an oppressed group based on gender, they sdll experience privilege based on
race. This dual oppressor/oppressed idendty often becomes a root of tension
when White women are challenged to consider their White privilege by
Women of Color.
The goal of this ardcle is to highlight complexides that arise with the
intersecdon of race and gender, using the Privilege Idendty Exploration (PIE)
Model (Watt, 2007). I begin the ardcle by contextualizing how race and gender
idendties interact with one another and how these interacdons shape our
Mamta Motwani Accapadi is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Houston Women's
Studies Program. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to
mamta@alumni. utexas. net.
When White Women Cry 209
societal norms. Next, I offer a case study which idendfies how White women
manifest certain defense modes presented in the PIE Model when confronted
with race conflict. Finally, I conclude the ardcle with suggesdons on ways to
engage in difficult dialogue while authendcaUy owning one's privileged idendty.
The Intersection of Social Identities
All of our social idenddes inform and shape one another. One's idendty as a
woman is shaped by muldple factors in her life, including race, social class,
sexual orientadon, and so on. While sexism shapes the nature of womanhood.
White womanhood looks ver)' different than Asian American, Black,
Indigenous, or Ladna womanhood, because each woman's experience is
shaped by the internal expectadons and external percepdons of what it means
to be a woman within each of these racial communides (Hernandez &
Rehman, 2002; Anzaldua & Keating, 2002). Comprehensive historical research
explicates this nodon of racial idendty informing gender idendty (Daniels,
1997; Frankenberg, 1993; 1997). While White women have been depicted to
be the foundadon of purity, chasdty, and virtue. Women of Color have
historically been caricaturized by the negadve stereotypes and the historical
lower status posidon associated with their racial communides in American
society (Hernandez & Rehman, 2002; Collins, 2000; Lorde, 1984; hooks, 1981).
Addidonally, as Palmer (1994) states, "the problem for White women is that
their privilege is based on accepdng the image of goodness, which is
powerlessness" (p.l70). This powerlessness informs the nature of White
womanhood. Put in simple terms, male privilege posidons the nature of
womanhood, while White privilege through history posidons a White woman's
reality as the universal norm of womanhood, leaving a woman of color defined
by two layers of oppression.
As Dyer further elucidates, "White people set standards of humanit)' by which
they are bound to succeed" (Dyer, 2005, p. 12). As a natural outcome, when
there is conflict among women, the norms under which these conflicts are
managed are based on White societal norms. To illustrate, let us consider a
conflict between two women, one Asian American and the other White. How
might we assess the situadon if we nodced that during this conflict the White
woman was crying while the Asian American woman condnues to talk without
any nodceable change in her tone of voice? Our societal norms inform us that
crying indicates helplessness, which triggers automadc sympadiy for the White
woman. Certain stereot)'pes of Asian Americans characterize them as
unfeeling and/or devoid of emodon, therefore our norms also reinforce that
the, Asian American woman, showing no physical reacdon, must not be
experiencing emodon. As we piece together diese observadons to create "the
SPRING 2007 ~ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 2
210 ACCAPADI
story," we might further conclude that the Asian American woman caused the
NX^te woman to cry, without regard for her feelings. As shown through this
scenario, the White woman's reality is visible, acknowledged, and legitimized
because of her tears, while a woman of color's reality, like her struggle, is
invisible, overlooked, and pathologized based on the operating "standard of
humanity."
One Up/One Down Identities
The challenge and responsibility of any person who has a "one up/one down"
identity, with one identity that is privileged and another that is oppressed, is to
recognize when their privileged identity is the operating norm. As Johnson
reminds us, "when it comes to privilege, it doesn't matter who we really are.
What matters is who other people think we are" (2005, p. 104). White women,
having "one up/one down" identities as White and as woman, must recognize
the power that comes with their Whiteness. Recognizing privilege means
acknowledging that our societal norms allow White women to toggle their
identities, meaning they can choose to be a woman and choose to be White.
Combining these two social identities. White women can be both helpless
without the helplessness being a reflection of all White people and powerful by
occupying a position of power as any White person. Women of Color do not
have the option of toggling their identities in this manner. When a Woman of
Color acts, her actions at some level reflect upon her racial community, and she
cannot centrifuge her racial identity from her womanhood. Through the
presentation of a case study, I will delve deeper into how the "standard of
humanity" privileges White women.
Priviiege Manifested: A Case Study
A case study is presented below to illustrate how White privilege manifests.
The PIE Model is used as a tool for identifying privileged identity behaviors
(Watt, 2007).
Case Study
A group of student affairs professionals were in a meeting to discuss retention
and wellness issues pertaining to a specific racial communit)' on our campus.
As the dialogue progressed, Anita, a woman of color, raised a concern about
the lack of support and commitment to this community from Office X
(including lack of measurable diversity training, representation of the
community in question within the staff of Office X, etc.), which caused Susan
from Office X, a White woman, to feel uncomfortable. Although Anita
reassured Susan that her comments were not directed at her personally, Susan
THE COLLEGE STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL
When White Women Cry 211
began to cr)' while responding diat she "felt attacked". Susan further added
that: she donated her dme and efforts to this community, and even served on a
local non-profit organizadon board that worked with this communit)'; she
understood discriminadon because her family had people of different
backgrounds and her closest friends were members of this community; she was
committed to diversity as she did diversit)' training within her office; and the
office did not have enough funding for this community's needs at that dme.
Upon seeing this reacdon, Anita was confused because although her tone of
voice had been firm, she was not angry. From Anita's perspective, the group
had come together to address how the student community's needs could be
met, which pardally meant poindng out current gaps where increased services
were necessary. Anita was very clear that she was cridquing Susan's office and
not Susan, as Susan could not possibly be solely responsible for the decisions
of her office.
The conversadon of the group shifted at the point when Susan started to cr)'.
From that moment, the group did not discuss the actual issue of the student
communit)'. Rather, they spent the duradon of the meeting consoling Susan,
reassuring her that she was not at fault. Susan calmed down, and publicly
thanked Anita for her willingness to be direct, and complimented her passion.
Later that day, Anita was reprimanded for her 'angry tone,' as she discovered
that Susan complained about her "behavior" to both her own supervisor as
well as Anita's supervisor. Anita was left confused by the mixed messages she
received with Susan's compliment, and Susan's subsequent complaint regarding
her.
Case Study Discussion Using the Privileged Identity Exploration Model
The PIE Model allows us to name the resistance that comes when people with
privilege are challenged through dialogue (Watt 2007). What is especially
useful about the PIE Model is that once we can recognize the defense
mechanisms that come from such resistance, we can actually engage in
authendc dialogue across social idenddes. Through this case, we are able to see
die defense mechanisms manifested through Susan's acdons, as informed by
die PIE Model.
Initial Observations. In this case study, we have a White woman professional
who felt challenged by a woman of color's cridcisms of how a pardcular office
met the needs of students of color. In this case, Susan assumed the persona of
her office. While it was her office's pracdces that were challenged, she, in a
sense, "became" her office and thus interpreted the "cridque" of her office to
SPRING 2007 ~ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 2
212 ACCAPADI
be a "direct attack" of her. The act of personifying one's office is commonly
noticed among women in student affairs, likely due to their gender socializadon
of women as nurturers and providers of emofion-related support, which are
also characterisdcs of the profession. Susan's Whiteness can be seen through
this personificafion, because she is able to deny responsibility of racism by
togghng idenfides-between her own individual identity and her self-as-conduit
of Office X's idendty.
Denial. Denial, as defined in the PIE Model, is the act of arguing against an
anxiety by stating it does not exist. As would most persons who "feel
attacked," Susan portrayed denial of any possible active or passive racism on
the part of her office when it came to serving the racial community in quesdon.
Her acdve denial of Office X's responsibilifies was based on her own personal
experiences as a professional denying any ownership of personal racism, and
yet her personal experiences also absolved Office X of any responsibility of
owning racism, because she personified the office. Hence, "I do several
diversity trainings," (code for "I am not racist") became Susan's foundation of
her denial of the possibility that Office X was not meeting the needs of a
specific student community (code for "therefore my office is not racist"). The
act of toggling between self and office itself is a manifestadon of denial of
systemic racism.
Rationaiization. As Susan defended her position, she also began to radonaUze
the status quo of her office. She admitted that the office did not have the
funding to support the students in the way they needed, and therefore there
was not much that could be done. Within our privileged idenfides, we often
use radonalizadon as a tool to explain and jusdfy the status quo, and because
the argument we pose is 'radonal," naturally those who challenge such a logical
stance must be "irradonal." Thus, in this scenario, Anita's crificisms became
"irradonal" compared to the radonal argument presented by Susan.
False Envy. Susan claimed to understand discriminafion because she had
close friends and colleagues who were people of color. False env)' is often a
common defense tool, as it posidons the person with White privilege, Susan, as
not only someone who understands difference across race but also someone
who transcends it, because she has posidve relafionships with people of color.
As the PIE Model explains, false envy oversimplifies the complexity of the
dialogue by assuming that it is merely about like versus dislike, while also
removing the role that power might play in the dialogue.
Benevolence. Susan used her volunteer work with people of color to show her
sensidvity to the community. Her emphasis on being on the board of a non-
profit organizadon that serves this community also reinforced her commitment
THE COLLEGE STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL
When White Women Cry 213
to communides of color. Widiin the difficult dialogue, benevolence as a
defense tool shifts the conversadon to make the person with privilege, and her
good intendons, the central focus of the discussion, further privileging her
idendty.
Wlien Race and Gender Coiiide
These pardcular defense mechanisms could apply to any difficult dialogue
across race without regard to gender. The collision of racial and gender
idenddes becomes evident in the case study when the focus of the meedng
shifts to consoling Susan after she starts to cry. Since Susan's emodonal
reacdon aligned with the "standard of humanity" which is rooted in White
norms, she received consoladon, absoludon of guilt, and uldmately, validadon
of her posidon, without a cridcal inquiry of the situadon. From the point that
Susan started cr)'ing, she was no longer held responsible for her acdons, which
also relieved Office X of its responsibilides; yet Anita was held accountable for
causing the endre situadon.
The PIE model serves as a tool to recognize the natural reacdons that people
with privilege have while engaging in difficult dialogues surrounding social
idenddes. As educators, we have a responsibilit)' not only to recognize these
defense modes, but also to understand how they play out in reladon to our
other social idenddes. Perhaps the most effecdve use of this model is for self-
evaluadon so that we can recognize when we as educators exhibit these defense
modes when our sense of enddement based on privilege is challenged.
Strategies for Heaithy Difficult Dialogues
As student affairs pracddoners, we are the instruments through which we do
our work. We take pride in our abiHty to understand the human spirit. While
academic literature has certainly defined White privilege, how do we move
from understanding the definidon to applying this understanding as we
negodate difficult dialogues surrounding White privilege? Liberalism
encourages us to embrace a color-blind paradigm without considering how
White norms become universal norms (Cochran, 1999). Using these universal
norms as our barometers for assessment of leadership, success, and confiict
resoludon, we further perpetuate a system of White privilege, despite our best
intendons. If there is one thing I have learned as a pracddoner in student
affairs, it is because of my best intendons that I acdvely choose not to
recognize how I use my self-as-instrument to protect and sustain my own
privileged idenddes. Based on the discussion presented, I offer four strategies
to foster healthy difficult dialogues:
SPRING 2007 ~ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 2
214 ACCAPADI
1. In difficult conversations, remember the goal of the conversation. White
privilege allows you to shift the conversation about you and your feelings and
away from the original goal of the conversation.
2. Instead of blanketing "assumption-observations," be specific about your
observations. Rather than "You are angry," be specific about your
observations- "I noticed that when I said X, you were impacted in Y manner."
Be clear on not only naming emotions, but the cause/root of those emotions.
We often do not hold ourselves accountable for our actions within our
privileged spaces which leads us to the underlying assumption that things just
mysteriously "happen."
3. Privilege is not just about our social identities, but associated with the
behaviors that are normalized within those social identities. Which behaviors
do you privilege (crying, lower tone of voice, direct eye contact), and which
behaviors do you punish (anger, raised voices, indirect eye contact)? Recognize
how certain preferred behaviors are associated with Whiteness, while
problem/questionable behaviors are associated with different communities of
color. Learn to recognize when you are in a position to be an ally, or a more
effective administrator, by not assuming that because someone is crying they
are helpless or innocent, or that because someone is using a raised voice they
are uncooperative and unprofessional. Try to remove the value judgments that
we have been taught to associate with specific physical representations of
emotions.
4. Understanding race and healing racism are deeply connected, yet entirely
different concepts. Create active dialogue spaces to recognize the differences
and inter-relatedness of these concepts. White people should also actively talk
about White racism in safe, separate, spaces to challenge themselves, their
peers, and/or their staffs. This process should be rooted in empowerment, not
guilt.
Conclusion
While these strategies are basic, they can assist in creating a healthy
environment to have difficult conversations surrounding oppression and
privilege. Applying these strategies, using the PIE model as a tool for self-
assessment, can also change the institutional culture surrounding difficult
dialogues further contributing to a campus environment where critical thinking
is cultivated and encouraged at all levels. Our responsibility as educators
committed to social justice, is to reframe our "standard of humanit)'," so that
we are asking different questions, treating the actual cause of the conflicts
presented to us and not their external symptoms, and challenging our own
notions of "normal."
THE COLLEGE STUDENT AFFAIRS JOURNAL
When White Women Cry 215
References
Anzaldua, G. & Keating, A. (Eds.). (2002). This Bridge We Call Home: Radical
Visions for Transformation. New York: Routledge.
Anzaldua, G. & Moraga, C. (Eds.). (2002). This Bridge Called My Back:
Writings by Radical Women of Color. (3rd Edition). Berkeley: Third
Woman Press.
Cochran, D. C. (1999). The Color of Freedom: Race and Contemporary American
Liberalism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
CoUins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Daniels, J. (1997). White Lies: Race, Class, Cender, and Sexuality in White Supremacist
Discourse. New York: Routledge.
Dyer, R. (2005). The Matter of Whiteness. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), White
Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side ofRadsm (pp. 9-14). New York:
Worth Publishers.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of
Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Frankenberg, R. (1997). Local Whitenesses, Localizing Whiteness. In R.
Frankenberg (Ed.), Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism
(pp. 1-33) [Introduction]. Durham: Duke University Press,
hooks, b. (1981). Ain't I A Woman?: Black Women and Feminism. Boston:
South End Press.
Hernandez, D. & Rehman, B. (2002). Colonize This!" Young Women of
Color on Today's Feminism. Emeryville: Seal Press.
Johnson, A. G. (2005). Privilege as Paradox. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), White
Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism (pp. 103-107). New
York: Worth Publishers.
Palmer, P. M. (1994). White Women/Black Women: The Dualism of Female
Identity and Experience. In R. Takaki (Ed.), From Different Shores: Perspectives
on Race and Ethnicity (2nd ed., pp. 167-174). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Watt, S. K. (2007). Difficult dialogues and social justice: Uses of the privileged
identity exploration (PIE) model in student affairs practice. College student
affairsjournal 26{2), 114-126.
SPRING 2007 ~ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 2
