Do I ever think about anything else?

[judecorp]

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!

Comments

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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)

1. Are you in charge of hiring for a workplace?
   
2. 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.

[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."

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I would like to know, in all actuality, how often this happens. I wonder how often it is that someone who is /not qualified for a position/ gets a position based on race, ethnicity, or gender.

The racial/gender composition of the people in power does not IN ANY WAY represent the racial/gender composition of the people in our country. Look at, for an ironic example, those who make up our "House of Representatives."

[noog.livejournal.com]

But can Andrea Dworkin really be said to be practicing "sexism" against men? Sure, she can be angry, incendiary even, but she can't oppress men with her writing. She can't restrict their mobility in society by writing.

And while I appreciate that more men are getting abused and have no place to go, that's not a function of sexism against men. That's not a function of women oppressing men. That's a function of men living in a society that they created, that assumed they would be dominant, that is punishing them now for not being dominant. It's a matter of sexism against women backfiring against itself.

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

I think you are being all inclusive here, and I don't think that's fair.

'Men' did not create a male-dominated society. Some men did. I interpret what you're saying as sexism against men, blaming all men as individuals for what 'men' as a general term have wrought in society. The implication in your post is that it's somehow partly their fault, these men who experience abuse, or that they somehow deserve it because 'men' created the situation that you think allows it to occur. I think that's very unfair. And yes, I think it's sexist. Your post says to me that you have a prejudice against 'men'.

[noog.livejournal.com]

I did not, nor have I ever said that it is men's fault for being abused. Furthermore, nowhere in this or any other comment have I said that men, as individuals, are the scourge of the earth simply because society is male-dominated. My point is, when a man isn't abused, it isn't because women are sexist against men. Sexism is an institution in which members of certain sexes or genders are granted less power and social status than others because of their sex and gender, and yes, that system is dominated by men; therefore, women cannot be sexist against men because they, as a group, do not wield the institutional power to oppress men. Yes, they can be angry; yes, they can even hate men. But these are not the same thing as sexism because, in being angry or hateful toward men, they cannot limit men's sphere in society. That is simply not in their power.

You twist my words around when you say that I blame men for being abused. My point was that when men are abused, it is not because women are sexist against men. Women's abuse of men is not an institution; men's abuse of women is. Roughly 98% percent of all physical and sexual abuse cases are perpetuated by men against women; therefore, it is absurd to think that women have gained enough power to enact "sexism against men" through abuse. The problem lies not with women's purported sexism against men, nor does it lie with men as individuals; rather, the problem is rooted in a society that compels men to be the dominant, domineering force: they are being punished by male-dominated society for failing to perform their prescribed role, not by women for being men. I did not say that this was a rightful vindication, that men "deserve" this treatment, as you so cruelly suggest. I merely pointed out that the social forces at work in keeping men from gaining relief from abusive relationships were not functions of women's supposed oppression of men.

To point out the fundamental problems in a social structure is not to treat the members of a given social group with hatred. It is the failure, willful or otherwise, to recognize that difference, that undermines the efforts of such groups as feminists who are working to eradicate prejudice, not to perpetuate it.

[cpdohert.livejournal.com]

"Discriminating against men isn't sexism because all wyymyyn are oppressed, and all oppressed people are completely blameless for any evils they commit because, well, they're oppressed."

If anyone needs me, I'll be hiding behind the couch, clutching a shotgun.



I was gonna post a horde of cites contradicting the "all[1] men bad, all women good" factoids, but it's late and I doubt it would change anyone's mind.

[1] "all", "98%", same excrement, different heap.

[noog.livejournal.com]

Have you not read anything I've written? I have never-- and I've asserted this several times-- asserted that women are blameless individuals in any way, or that men are the scourge of the earth. I have merely pointed out-- and I do so tire of repeating myself on this point-- that women do not have the wherewithal to institutionally oppress men. Yes, they can anger, hurt, even injure men on an individual basis. But they do not have the power to limit male autonomy or self-determination in any way as a group. This is still a male-dominated society. Sure, the gender roles set up by that society fuck men over, on a regular basis even, but that is the result of gender roles as determined by this society with its current social structures-- which are dominated by men-- and not the result of female oppression-- which women as a group, lack the means to produce.

Oh. And the "wyymyyn" spelling, which evokes a humorless feminazi stereotype, is not amusing.

[cpdohert.livejournal.com]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

By Clarkson's Corollary, that means I win. Hooray!

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Is it so threatening to hear that most violence is perpetrated by men? Stats in the US as recently as 1998 purport that nearly 95% of all violent crimes (murder, rape, assault, domestic violence) are perpetrated by men.

Does this mean "all men bad, all wimmin good"? Not hardly, Chris. That sickens me.

And I don't even know you.

[gmalivuk.livejournal.com]

I was gonna post a horde of cites contradicting the "all[1] men bad, all women good" factoids, but it's late and I doubt it would change anyone's mind.

The 'factoids' you speak of would be better read as saying "all bad people men" instead of "all men bad people." The factoid (which is very well-supported by statistical evidence) that 95% of all violent crimes are perpetrated by men says nothing about the rest of the male population, so you have no justification for interpreting it as being a generalization about "all men."

[saldemonium.livejournal.com]

You wrote: "That's a function of men living in a society that they created, that assumed they would be dominant, that is punishing them now for not being dominant."

Perhaps you didn't intend it to be so, but that very much reads as 'they created the situation, and now they're being punished for it.' To me, that's like saying, 'that woman went out to a bar in a mini-dress, she created the situation, so she deserved to be raped.'

[noog.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to argue semantics. The issue is not how I structured a sentence. It's about more than that.

[saldemonium.livejournal.com]

No, it's not about how you structured a sentence. It's about what you said, which could be taken in the light that I pointed out. When one is striving for change, what they say, is often far more important then what they mean. After all, people hear/see what you say, they can't read your mind, to see what you really mean.

The issue, seems to have become, can women be sexist. Yes, they can be. Can blacks be racist. Yes, they can be. If I sat here, and said, I hate the Japanese, because they have slanted eyes, that would make me a racist, regardless of any institutional power I may or may not hold against the Japanese. Really, to say that someone can not be racist, or sexist, because they lack power? Anyone can be racist, or sexist, be virtue of their viewpoints.

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

Up above, you wrote: You twist my words around when you say that I blame men for being abused.

So, I think it is about the way you worded a sentence, because you worded your sentence such that it can easily be read to imply that you believe men who are abused are somehow being punished for failing to live up to societal expectations in a society they themselves (they being 'men' in general) created and perpetuate.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I suppose it all depends on how it's read. Maybe it's because I agree (heh, isn't that always the way?), but I didn't read it in /any/ way in the "mini skirt" sense.

To put it in the way /I/ understood it: The way that culture exists today is largely due to the way "our forefathers" created and perpetuated our culture. Because the situation that was created by our ancestors (and those who were in the position to create the 'good ole boy network' we have in place now were men) is perpetuated to this day, there are consequences. There are consequences like the 'repairations' some people/organizations are trying to make (such as allowing all-woman institutions).

No, it's never the victim's fault for being abused. This is a ludicrous statement. It is, however, the responsibility of the people who perpetuate the culture that was put in place eons ago to acknolwedge the consequences of not wishing to allow changes.

[gmalivuk.livejournal.com]

I read that as saying that men in power created a society in which men had the power, and now that society, in which men still have most of the power, is punishing those men who don't have power, because they're not playing the dominant role that society as a whole has prescribed for them.

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

I'm too tired tonight to properly articulate my full response, and as such will do so tomorrow.

However, I did want to post this, from http://www.webster.com.

Sexism:
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

So err, yes, men can experience sexism from women. Sexism does not equal oppression. Let me repeat that. Sexism does not equal oppression. To use a similar analogy, do you also think blacks cannot be racist because they lack the institutional power to oppress whites?

If I say, and believe, that I am better than a man, any man, because I am a woman and he is a man, regardless of whether I hold any kind of power over that man or any man, I am being sexist against that man. If I am in some position of power over a man, and I treat him as if he is inferior because he is a man, then I am being sexist against that man.

-W

[saldemonium.livejournal.com]

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Let's look at this from another angle, as well. Women whom expect men to be the strong, tough, breadwinner, and never cry, and always be a rock, are also being sexist. Yet, people never seem to consider that.

[noog.livejournal.com]

Yes. As a matter of fact, I do think that black people cannot be racist because of their lack of institutional power. They can be angry at white people-- and justifiably so-- or can even hate them, but they cannot be racist.

Once again, you're arguing semantics. The counterpoint initially made to my comment asserted that women were sexist against men because men could not, for example, seek the same help for abuse that women could. That is an example of insitutional discrimination. But-- and I do repeat myself-- evidence has yet to be offered that any of this, any institution that limits men in any way, is a function of sexism against men on the part of women. That, I would like to see proof of.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

It is the failure, willful or otherwise, to recognize that difference, that undermines the efforts of such groups as feminists who are working to eradicate prejudice, not to perpetuate it.

I would like to point out, though this is obvious, the feminism as a philosophy and as a practice does not strive /simply/ to combat the patriarchy (i.e. "be man-haters"). The core tenets of feminism describe goals of eradicating racism, heterosexism, and capitalism as we know it.

So, umm... yeah.

[noog.livejournal.com]

Well... yes. I figured that went without saying. But then again, apparently the idea that feminists are not man-haters doesn't seem to go without saying in this particular debate.

So. How are you, and what are you doing and why aren't you doing me?