William.Turnbow@eng.sun.com (William Turnbow) (04/25/91)
I was recently in a workshop in which we were asked to accept some
definitions. One was for sexism -- and that was discrimination that
was done based on sex and supported by the societal structure in place
(at least that was it to the best of my memory). Now by this
definition, sexism was something men could do to women but not vice
versa. Gender oppression was sex discrimination that occurs outside
of the societal structure. So this workshop leader -- a female, said
that women were worse off because they suffered from both, while men
could only suffer from GO. Now she was not belittling the fact that
GO could cause much suffering even to the point of killing, but it
doesn't change the fact that women are worse off.
Has anyone experienced this argument and does anyone agree with
it? I am trying to understand it, because I am completely in disagreement
with it. I can't discuss it with the workshop leader since every
attempt to discuss it with her reduces into a bitter speech on my part
about how I can't possibly understand or comprehend since I am part
of the oppressing group. I am really trying to understand this though
to see if I really so blind that I can't see, or what.
-wat-chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us (j chapman flack) (05/08/91)
In article <12212@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> William.Turnbow@eng.sun.com (William Turnbow) writes: > I was recently in a workshop in which we were asked to accept some >definitions. One was for sexism -- and that was discrimination that >was done based on sex and supported by the societal structure in place >(at least that was it to the best of my memory). Now by this > Has anyone experienced this argument and does anyone agree with >it? I am trying to understand it, because I am completely in disagreement >with it. Marilyn Frye, a philosophy prof. at Michigan State, in her book _The Politics of Reality_ (published where? I dunno, somebody has my copy, again, I think it was Crossing Press) makes some helpful analogies, such as a prison: the walls are as much a barrier to those outside who might want in as to those inside who might want out, but the effect is not the same on both groups. The shortcoming of that analogy is that you may be convinced that you are hurt by the structures supporting sexism while you don't have any problem with being kept out of a prison, so you may feel the analogy invalid. So she makes a similar analogy involving a ghetto. The boundaries of a ghetto are not as tangible as those of a prison (which is probably why she included the prison analogy as well--to make sure you could clearly visualize what she was getting at) but they do tend to keep people out as well as in. And those kept out are in fact hurt in many ways, from being deprived of exposure to and familiarity with other cultures and customs (a real loss), to losing out on the bargains at the secondhand stores (more an imagined hardship for the affluent...). So the structure in this case hurts both ways, but still not equally, and it's not just a matter of degree. [completely aside: Has anyone else encountered that `ghetto' is Italian for `Jewish neighborhood'? And now it's come to be universally used to mean a decrepit neighborhood populated by "undesirables"... sigh. Etymology can reveal so much....] To get the idea of how the _structure_ plays a role, she uses the image of a birdcage. If you look very closely you see a wire. There's nothing asymmetrical about a wire. Substitute any one discriminatory practice for the wire (somebody else offer an example, I'm brain-dead right now). It's a barrier equally to anyone who tries to pass. But while you're looking at that one wire, you're probably thinking "why would anyone not just go around it?" Only when you see *all* the wires, and the peculiar way they *relate* to each other, do you see a structure with a definite inside and outside, that means something very different to those inside than to those outside. The usual disclaimer--I'm recounting from a book that's not in front of me. Don't flame me, read the book. (Then flame Frye. :-) ) (She can flame me, if I got it all wrong.) The book is a collection of essays; it's deceptively thin, and her style is deceptively engaging; it's easy and inviting to sit down and read through-- but she made it thin by making every word count, so if you get too casual and blow off an article here or an adverb there thinking you'll get the gist of it, you won't. (My experience, anyway.) ...the "easy and inviting" of course doesn't mean the *content* will be painless--her target audience (I betcha) was feminists who already agree on a lot of groundwork--a sort of "read at your own psychological risk" to those of us still working on the groundwork. Flamers probably get little out of it. Since you sound like you want to study and understand what bothers you (more power to ya!), and especially if you enjoy reading someone who can really turn a phrase, I'd say check it out. -- Chap Flack Their tanks will rust. Our songs will last. chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us -Mikos Theodorakis Nothing I say represents Appropriate Roles for Technology unless I say it does. -- Chap Flack Their tanks will rust. Our songs will last. chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us -Mikos Theodorakis Nothing I say represents Appropriate Roles for Technology unless I say it does.