posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigelphoenix at 03:32pm on 30/05/2006 under anti-oppression and the evil *isms, armchair philosophizing, feminism and sexism
sigelphoenix at 03:32pm on 30/05/2006 under anti-oppression and the evil *isms, armchair philosophizing, feminism and sexismOver at Alas, Ampersand has made a post defending the Male Privilege Checklist against various criticisms, most notably the one of "pettiness" (i.e., "this isn't worth your time, and if you really cared about sexism you would pay attention to _____"). The post is great, and thoroughly trounces this would-be dismissal.
On a related topic, Tekanji rebuts the "pettiness" criticism about analyzing sexism in popular culture. As analyzing popular culture is one of my favorite nerdy hobbies, I'm glad to see this articulate defense.
Finally, Amanda at Pandagon has a post that responds to and expands upon Ampersand's, and she introduces some very accurate terminology. "I’ll Give You Something to Cry About" is the perfect name for the "you should pay attention to _____ instead" attempt, and reveals the thinly veiled threat behind the argument. It says, essentially, that women "here" (i.e., the U.S.) shouldn't complain because of how much worse it is "over there" (Iran, China, etc.). The implication is that things could be just as bad "here" as they are "there," and it is only because of the graciousness of U.S. men that we don't suffer as much. Not only is this tactic extremely arrogant and ethnocentric ("look how backwards those darkies are!"), it also implies that women should be grateful that we aren't outright beaten and raped everyday - not, for instance, that misogyny is wrong no matter what the degree.
Also note the title of the post: "Whatever you do, don't figure out that it's systematic." That's what this is about. Of course individual things like sexist advertisements or misogynist language aren't going to oppress women by themselves. But things add up - and if we're prevented from looking at the individual pieces, we'll never have an accurate picture of the entire system. Telling women that certain topics are too "petty" for them to worry about effectively discourages us from ever getting that entire picture of men's domination. Also, when men in the U.S. say that things are worse "over there," they're throwing the attention off of their own culpability while doing nothing to address the original topic. (Not that I would accuse poor, dear men of ever being that deceitful.)
Calling observations of power imbalances "petty" is itself an expression of power. It also helps maintain the existing power structure - if the status quo is already in your favor, and you dismiss any criticisms of it, you are more likely to be listened to. Nothing changes, and guess what? You still get to stomp on people!
If you are part of the group in power, then you have no right to tell someone of the oppressed group that their concerns are not worthwhile - you aren't on the bottom, you have no idea how major or minor the offense is, or how much has already piled on top of them. It might be a small matter in your eyes. It might also be part of an unrelenting chain of events that have consistently pushed this person down. Men have no right to tell women not to worry about any expressions of sexism. It goes on: white people have no right to tell people of color not to worry about any expressions of racism. Straight people have no right to tell queer people not to worry about any expressions of homophobia. People in the upper or middle class have no right to tell poor people not to worry about any expressions of classism. And on, and on. Make sense?
Note: I'll keep sharing noteworthy links I find, but I've also added a list of all the non-LJ blogs that I follow to my info page. Check it out for good reading material.
On a related topic, Tekanji rebuts the "pettiness" criticism about analyzing sexism in popular culture. As analyzing popular culture is one of my favorite nerdy hobbies, I'm glad to see this articulate defense.
Finally, Amanda at Pandagon has a post that responds to and expands upon Ampersand's, and she introduces some very accurate terminology. "I’ll Give You Something to Cry About" is the perfect name for the "you should pay attention to _____ instead" attempt, and reveals the thinly veiled threat behind the argument. It says, essentially, that women "here" (i.e., the U.S.) shouldn't complain because of how much worse it is "over there" (Iran, China, etc.). The implication is that things could be just as bad "here" as they are "there," and it is only because of the graciousness of U.S. men that we don't suffer as much. Not only is this tactic extremely arrogant and ethnocentric ("look how backwards those darkies are!"), it also implies that women should be grateful that we aren't outright beaten and raped everyday - not, for instance, that misogyny is wrong no matter what the degree.
Also note the title of the post: "Whatever you do, don't figure out that it's systematic." That's what this is about. Of course individual things like sexist advertisements or misogynist language aren't going to oppress women by themselves. But things add up - and if we're prevented from looking at the individual pieces, we'll never have an accurate picture of the entire system. Telling women that certain topics are too "petty" for them to worry about effectively discourages us from ever getting that entire picture of men's domination. Also, when men in the U.S. say that things are worse "over there," they're throwing the attention off of their own culpability while doing nothing to address the original topic. (Not that I would accuse poor, dear men of ever being that deceitful.)
Calling observations of power imbalances "petty" is itself an expression of power. It also helps maintain the existing power structure - if the status quo is already in your favor, and you dismiss any criticisms of it, you are more likely to be listened to. Nothing changes, and guess what? You still get to stomp on people!
If you are part of the group in power, then you have no right to tell someone of the oppressed group that their concerns are not worthwhile - you aren't on the bottom, you have no idea how major or minor the offense is, or how much has already piled on top of them. It might be a small matter in your eyes. It might also be part of an unrelenting chain of events that have consistently pushed this person down. Men have no right to tell women not to worry about any expressions of sexism. It goes on: white people have no right to tell people of color not to worry about any expressions of racism. Straight people have no right to tell queer people not to worry about any expressions of homophobia. People in the upper or middle class have no right to tell poor people not to worry about any expressions of classism. And on, and on. Make sense?
Note: I'll keep sharing noteworthy links I find, but I've also added a list of all the non-LJ blogs that I follow to my info page. Check it out for good reading material.