hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (11/10/89)
I think the following points are somewhat off the subject of langauge, so I am starting a separate thread. In article <1989Nov7.065815.22895@agate.berkeley.edu> Mark Ethan Smith <era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU> writes: >There are many ... devices used to denote that a person is female, such as >traditionally feminine names, female clothing, and socialization in >female mannerisms. Without having been given a female name, wearing >female clothes, learning to speak, walk and act in a female manner, >and being referred to in a gender-specific, non-default way, a person >who is born female might not be readily recognized as such in any and >all situations, and might thereby avoid some types of discrimination. >As Professor Gerder Lerner said in, "The Creation of Patriarchy," in >order to keep an entire class of people permanently oppressed, they >must be made readily identifiable at all times. That's why slaves >were always required to wear clothing that marked them as slaves and >forbidden to wear clothes that might cause them to be mistaken for >free persons. That's why Jews and gays in Nazi Germany were required >to wear distinctive patches on their clothes. It is just too easy to >make a mistake and treat somebody as an equal unless they are >obviously marked out as different. ... Although I agree 100% with your observations here, Mark, I have some problems with the prescriptions for remedying discrimination that seem to be suggested. Specifically, the implication here seems to be that the only way to truly end discrimination is to eliminate readily visible diffferences between affected classes and non-affected classes. Certainly I would concede that this would work if it could be done, and you yourself provide good evidence that it can be done with respect to gender to a large extent. Nonetheless, I sincerely hope that this is not the _only_ way to solve the gender discrimination problem, because it it is, then by analogy, the race discrimination problem becomes intractable. I suppose we could all camouflage our faces in some way, but I think that would be a rather high price to pay. In any case, since I am not willing to concede that the race discrimination problem is intractable, neither am I willing to concede that removing identifiable differences is the _only_ way to solve the gender discrimination problem. >Women are human, not a seperate, inferior >species that must be discriminated against on the basis of sex. There >is absolutely no reason to give females distinctive names, distinctive >clothing, and socialize them to act in what every culture considers to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >be inferior ways, other than to discriminate against women on the ^^^^^^^^^^^ >basis of sex. ... Well, I agree with this, insofar as it is true, but as with language I would suggest that it might be easier, in some but not all cases, to change society's considerations about inferiority rather than to eliminate the differences. Or better still, preserve the differences but eliminate the gender-based correlations, so that everyone, female and male, would have the freedom to dress or act according to the situation rather than their gender. I'm not sure what I am saying is really any different from what you are suggesting, Mark, but as you write it above, it sounds a bit overstated to me. hb -- Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET) ** MOBILIZE for Women's Lives on November 12th; details in soc.women. **
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (11/15/89)
hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) writes: >... I have some problems with the prescriptions for remedying discrimination >that seem to be suggested. Specifically, the implication here seems to be >that the only way to truly end discrimination is to eliminate readily visible >diffferences between affected classes and non-affected classes. > >Certainly I would concede that this would work if it could be done ... > >Nonetheless, I sincerely hope that this is not the _only_ way to solve the >gender discrimination problem, because if it is, then by analogy, the race >discrimination problem becomes intractable... Well, I would maintain that the only reason that we can tell someone's race from appearance to such a high degree is because of racist rules against "mixed" marriages. Even in a very racist society you cannot always tell someone's race from their appearance. In South Africa, periodically people who are classified as "white" have children that are classified as "Black". (The parents then must apply for re-classification as "Black" themselves if they want to be able to live with their child, I believe.) Of course, the reason for this is that the parents actually have some "Black" genetic material. If non-racially-pure marriages were commonplace, in several generations it would be common to have genetic material corresponding to racial characteristics you did not know you had. This would mean that people no longer knew what race they were, or at least that it was no longer externally visible. (Obviously, I think this would be good.) ajr
era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU (11/25/89)
In article <1420@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: >Although I agree 100% with your observations here, Mark, I have some >problems with the prescriptions for remedying discrimination that >seem to be suggested. Specifically, the implication here seems to be >that the only way to truly end discrimination is to eliminate readily >visible diffferences between affected classes and non-affected classes. >Nonetheless, I sincerely hope that this is not the _only_ way to solve >the gender discrimination problem, because it it is, then by analogy, >the race discrimination problem becomes intractable. I suppose we >could all camouflage our faces in some way, but I think that would be >a rather high price to pay. Yes, it would be a high price. Freedom and equality don't come cheap. But eliminating racism would not require people to hide their faces. You see, Hank, sexism exists among almost all shades of people. And in almost all shades, women occupy lower status than men and men therefore often consider women to be their property. By eliminating those visible distinctions that mark women as property and thereby raising the status of women, you leave people with much less ability and justification to own women and control their lives. There would then probably be a lot more intermarriages. I personally know of many cases where Caucasian women experienced sexism and therefore felt a kinship with minority men who had experienced discrimination, and preferred to marry somebody who was more apt to treat them as an equal and with whom they could unite against a common enemy. The highest status group in our society isn't just men, Hank, it is white men. Eliminating racism won't eliminate sexism, but eliminating sexism will be a major step towards eliminating racism. >....preserve the differences >but eliminate the gender-based correlations, so that everyone, female >and male, would have the freedom to dress or act according to the >situation rather than their gender. Amen. --Mark