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

[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.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

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.

It depends on how you define the terms "racism" and/or "sexism." I would argue that the non-dominant races cannot be racist, and the non-dominant sex cannot be sexist.

But of course, I was already lambasted by thespian for this because she doesn't agree with it, and that's fine. I can be lambasted by other people, too. That doesn't make me believe it.

And because a /dictionary/ of all things says it's so... gah. Who writes the damned dictionary?

This (http://www.floridacdc.org/roundtable/docs/undoing.htm) has a neat little thinger, in the beginning, about the definition of racism. Racism = Race Prejudice + POWER. Anything else is just plain prejudice. (Which is /wrong/, and /absolutely wrong/. Of course.)

[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.

[noog.livejournal.com]

Really, this is ridiculous. Arguing about the structure of a sentence does nothing constructive; it simply detracts from the main argument. I clarified my meaning; what more do you want?

[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]

But is that an expectation of "women," or is it a societal expectation created by both sexes to better facilitate the subjection of women? Men are socialized to see toughness and breadwinner status as desirable, because in our society we are socialized to believe that toughness and breadwinner status, traits traditionally ascribed to men, better facilitate the assumption of power. To assume that the expectation of men to be these things is simply an act of sexism on the part of women is to ignore the greater social mechanisms at work in creating that role.

[gmalivuk.livejournal.com]

we are socialized to believe that toughness and breadwinner status, traits traditionally ascribed to men, better facilitate the assumption of power.

I would add to that the claim that we are also socialized to believe that the kind of power whose assumption is facilitated by toughness and breadwinning is "superior" to any kind of power that can be gained by other means. Specifically, we are taught to believe that "masculine" forms of power are more honorable than "feminine" forms of power (which are traditionally limited to power based on trickery and seduction).

[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.

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about institutions. I'm simply stating that, according to the Dictionary Definition of "sexism", women can be, and some are sexist against men. Some women have prejudices against men, as some men have prejudices against women. Some blacks have prejudices against whites just as some whites have prejudices against blacks. Some gays have prejudices against straights, just as some straights have prejudices against gays. The power, or lack thereof, to affect society based on those prejudices does not change the fact that those prejudices exist.

Sexism does not equal oppression. Racism does not equal oppression. Both, rather, have to do with beliefs and actions that discriminate or otherwise enact prejudices against someone because of their sex or race. Again, as I said above, if I as a woman believe that I am better than some man because I am a woman and he is a man, I am being sexist towards that man. It has nothing to do with whether I have "institutional power to oppress him". It has to do with whether I think that his sex or gender makes him inferior to me.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

these cites are from:
http://www.vix.com/menmag/batbangor.htm

Judie:

Steve Easton of Toronto found that out in 1993 when he opened an organization that provided programs for men who were abused.

Despite a volunteer staff and a shoestring budget, Easton received 2,000 calls a year from throughout North America.
Five years later, unable to access any of the $110 million his province spends annually to fight domestic violence against women and tired of the hostility he received from women's groups, Easton closed up shop.

This is, in my opinion, fully qualified as sexism; it's keeping funds that are earmarked for victims of violence away from some victims of violence based upon their gender. It's being perpetuated by the government (there were court cases, which were lost when he tried to get some of the funding). In some form or another, for some reason or another (mostly, I suspect, to court women's votes), the government of Ontario fought to not help a shelter for men.

for noog:

A National Family Violence Survey conducted several times during a 30-year period indicates that half of domestic violence victims are men.
And a 1998 Department of Justice survey, which isn't broken down by state, finds that while 1.5 million women are battered each year, men account for 36 percent - or 835,000 - of the 2.3 million domestic violence victims.

Even if you discount the comment by the Men's Rights activist that follows that, that men are less likely to report the abuse (and I am well aware that women are prone to not reporting abuse, as I did not myself the time I was attacked by a domestic partner), those are still huge numbers, and not coming from a gender-based organization. As it says later in the article, Women's advocates maintain that women make up 95 percent to 98 percent of victims, but neither you nor they are giving a cite for this. I've worked in shelters both women's and homeless, and by no means do I believe it's that disproportionate.

[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?

Hey baby. How YOU doin'?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I just thought a little clarification was in order.

And now onto the oral sex!