judecorp | Do I ever think about anything else?

So I was wondering this morning about the dominant culture, the dominant paradigm, The Man, what have you. I was in my Clinical Practice With Adolescents class and we were watching some educational program (which was actually rather good) called "Tough Guise," which was basically about how we socialize boys and men to associate masculinity with violence and aggression. Unfortunately, there wasn't a lot of "what you can do about it" information, which made it a rather depressing watch.

I don't usually like things like this. I tend to cringe away from anything that tries to offer "ways that males and females are different" because it makes me nervous... nervous that someone will be 'legitimizing' lack of equality. But since this one focused entirely on socialization, well, that's different. Of /course/ males and females are socialized differently in our society. That's one of the things I have a problem with.

So I got to thinking about the dominant paradigm. It occurred to me that the dominant paradigm is so rarely challenged because it is, for all intents and purposes, covert or invisible when issues that buck the dominant paradigm come up.

When one thinks of "race issues," one thinks of African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latinos/Latinas, Chicanos/Chicanas, etc. When one thinks of "gender issues," one usually thinks of wimmin's issues (and maybe transgender and intersex issues). And when one thinks of "sexual orientation issues," one thinks of GLBTIQQT-S and whatever other initials one can think of at the time. WHERE IS THE DOMINANT PARADIGM IN ANY OF THIS? We think of these "issues" and the dominant paradigm can continue to exist unexamined and unchanged because it doesn't directly come up.

Race issues include Caucasians. Gender issues include men. Sexual orientation issues include heterosexuality. But these things are not usually thought of when we think of "issues."

This is a serious problem, I think, and a major oversight. I will think more on this after I have Chipotle with Coworker Velma. I am so hungry that my lack of blood sugar is giving me major headaches and shakes. Whee!

Current Mood: hungry
Current Music: Jesus Christ Superstar - Damned For All Time

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

noog.livejournal.com

The problem I usually encounter in these debates is that when the "dominant paradigm" comes up, it's usually brought up in a manner that I feel is counterproductive to finding solutions. For example, a big argument where I go to college is, "Men are victims of sexism too!" No, they're not. It's not possible for womyn, or transgendered people, or intersexed people, to act against them in a sexist manner, because they don't have the institutional power necessary to oppress men. What we see, I think, is not sexism, but the gender system set up by a patriarchal society biting its own dominant group in the ass. The problem is setting the terms of the argument. If we talk about the dominant group, are we going to give it only the attention it's due, or is it going to become the focus of our discussion?

From:

thespian.livejournal.com

but that's not true anymore. I thought in those terms a short while ago, I'll admit myself, however, since starting to date

cpdohert, I've come to realize that, of late, women are in fact getting powerful enough as a gender to practice institutionalized sexism against men (individual women have always had the ability to do so; look at some of the stuff that Andrea Dworkin has written and tell me it's not sexist). Chris has pointed out to me that in Ontario, it is legal for women-only healthclubs, women-only social clubs, etc., to exist, but not for men-only ones. That's government enforced sexism.

Despite the fact that men do get abused, by women and by other men whom they are dating, there are no shelters for men to go to if they need to. As we allow more men to become less dominant, and less socialized to 'masculine' behaviours, more men are being abused, however they have nowhere to go. For reasons I completely understand, they cannot go to women's shelters, both to keep 'sneaks' from getting in but also because some women who are there need the time away from men to recover. The one time in ontario that someone tried to create a shelter for men, it was deemed illegal.

That's sexism, and worse, what it does is make it harder for those few men who can reach out for help to do so, because the result of people keeping them from that help is to make them (or others who see their situation) believe the only way to survive is to adopt the masculine behaviours that seem to protect other men.

From:

yarnaddict.livejournal.com

That's so sad. Men are abused, both by women and by other men. They're beaten, they're raped, they're emotionally abused as well as physically. It's not a women-only issue. That it would be considered illegal to have a shelter where men might seek assistance/refuge/solace is... wow. Something that takes away just a little bit more of my faith in my fellow humans. =(

Now... don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way downplaying the fact that women are abused and need assistance/refuge/solace. I think it's amazing and wonderful that there are means and ways for women to get it. But if men need the same thing - and they do - why on earth would we deny them access to it?

From:

judecorp.livejournal.com

I would argue that denying a "men only" institution is not sexism, it is discrimination, for exactly those reasons that

noog pointed out. Even if wimmin outnumber men in the US (and I'll talk about the US rather than Canada here because I don't know information on Canada), and even if wimmin have more power in the US than they used to, they are not the dominant group. They are the oppressed group.

The oppressed group can never be sexist, racist, etc. simply because they do not have the power (financial, governmental, etc.) to do so. Wimmin still make less money than men. Wimmin are still highly overrepresented in poverty, in the service industry, in the uninsured, etc.

...but yes, there should be shelters for men. Absolutely. We have an organization here in Columbus (BRAVO - the Buckeye Region Anti-Violence Organization) that specializes in crimes in the queer community -- both hate crimes and same-sex domestic violence. There are services for battered men here... of course, most of them are in the queer community and while I don't believe they would turn away a heterosexual man, said heterosexual man may not be comfortable.

*shrug* But it's not illegal here. I'd like to see some of these laws.

From:

thespian.livejournal.com

sexism has nothing to do with 'dominant gender', however. Sexism occurs when you make a negative action-decison about another person because of gender.

Hypothetically: (generic 'you' coming up)

Are you in charge of hiring for a workplace?
Have you decided to hire someone who was equally qualified as another applicant because of the hiree's gender?

That *is* sexism; it's a person in power making a decision based on gender. It can be towards a man, it can be towards a woman. But until you and noog look up the term sexism, and realize that yes, it might be 'especially towards women', but the actual definition is *not* _only_ towards women, you're not going to win this with me, because you are, as feminists often seem to, making things up to help your half of the argument - in this case, a definition of sexism that is not what the dictionary says it is, and that idea sexism can only be perpetrated by dominance, which is not true. Sexism can be enforced by dominance, but anyone can in fact be sexist.

From:

cfred.livejournal.com

And this is precisely the problem I have with Affirmative Action. Regardless of what its intentions may be, it still leads to the situation of "I'm not hiring you because you're the best candidate for the job. I'm hiring you because I need a woman(/black/etc.) to make my quota."

Global female domination.

Do I ever think about anything else?

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags