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

[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.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

And here I would play devil's advocate and ask "who writes the dictionary" that we are all so quick to base our philosophical beliefs on.

(The dominant culture, maybe?)

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

I will state again:

If I treat a man as if he is inferior because he is a man and I am a woman, that is sex-based discrimination, otherwise known as sexism.

I think I have to just go back here and agree with thespian. You're changing the definition of sexism so that it reflects your cause. I'm going to quote her, too, because I strongly agree with something she's said. "Sexism can be enforced by dominance, but anyone can in fact be sexist."

If you're going to argue that "the dominant culture" wrote that dictionary definition in order to give men the opportunity to be the victims of sexism... then why did they include "especially: discrimination against women" in the definition? It only makes them look bad, after all.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Now wait a minute, Evil Twin. I never said:

"the dominant culture" wrote that dictionary definition in order to give men the opportunity to be the victims of sexism...

You added that part in bold and attributed that to me without me saying that at all. If you want to debate this, or any other definition, that's great. But if you are going to put words to my name, that's something else.

I said that the dictionary is written and published by the dominant culture. Therefore, it will reflect the dominant culture's beliefs - and people will accept these beliefs as fact because they are the product of the dominant culture to which we are all socialized.

I did /not/ say that the dominant culture defined the word that was so that "men could be victims of sexism."

However, the definition of the word that would reflect the beliefs of the "non-dominant culture" may not be the same, since it's not terribly likely that the dominant culture and the "non-dominant culture" would share all of the same beliefs (if they did, there would be one culture).

To recap, I /never/ said that men wrote that definition to be victims of sexism, and in the future, I would really appreciate it if I was answering only to my own words.

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

Okay, mea culpa. I read your post and wrote my response as I was hurrying out the door this morning, and I neither read carefully enough nor thought my answer through thoroughly enough. I was out of line, and I apologise.

I still disagree about the dictionary definition and what it reflects/what it means, but I did put words in your mouth, you are correct. I am sorry.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Apology accepted. Disagree away. I have no problem with that. :)

[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.

[noog.livejournal.com]

Even accounting for the fact these statistics are true, I still don't see how they are indicative of a sexism against men by women. Even knowing the percentage of victims of abuse, we do not know the breakdown of the perpetrators-- and indeed it would be heterosexist to assume that all of these men are being abused by female partners.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

men account for 36 percent - or 835,000 - of the 2.3 million domestic violence victims

How many of these male victims are victimized by male perpetrators?
How many male children are molested by male sex offenders?

It's rather heterosexist to assume that men who are victims of DV, rape, or assault are perpetrated by women. Men are most often the victims of murder, for example, but that doesn't mean they are all murdered by women. Not hardly.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

actually, I never said anything about women attacking men. Projection and assumption that I was not well aware that some of those domestic disputes were male on male is incorrect. So is your listing off all the ways men attack men, without acknowledging that some of those women are going to be victims of women on women violence. It is just as bad as my supposed 'heterosexism' to assume that either I didn't know this, or that it was an issue. My point was not about the gender of the perpetrators, but about the actions of the government in failing to provide support, for fear of losing the votes of the women who don't want to let men have shelters because there was 'no need', and 'men aren't victims in the same way', despite the obvious need that was seen (and yes, that's the way it worked). Women fought against the shelter for males getting funding, and they harassed the founder (as mentioned in the article), and eventually men lost that escape route.

That's sexism.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

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.

I think this is a terrible shame. I believed you when you talked about this shelter, and I'm pretty sure I said waaaaaay up there that I thought it was awful, that we have services like that here, and that I wished they were everywhere. However, I don't know enough about the political/philosophical climate of Canada as a whole or of Ontario to even fathom a guess about how many of Canada's major institutions are controlled by women. I just have no idea at all.

There is a reason, I would imagine, that the Ontario government established the law about "all woman" institutions versus "all man" institutions. /THIS/ was the law I wanted to see, because I wanted to see how it was written, because I wanted to see if there was a rationale for this policy inherent in its words. As for the shelter thing, I entirely believed you 100%.

I want to know, though, how a simple mental exercise on my part turned into a scathing argument by several people that insinuated that "evil feminists who hate men want them to be abused."

Ick.

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's what any of us are trying to say at all, at this point. I know that I, myself, am simply trying to reiterate that sexism is not limited to men, and that men can be, and are, the victims (gah, I dislike that word so strongly) of sexism just as women can be, and are.

And... trying to point out via argument that things can easily be worded in a way that leaves them prone to misinterpretation by someone who would use one's words against one, and therefore weaken one's argument.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's what any of us are trying to say at all, at this point.

I may be misreading, but this, to my understanding, was certainly an insinuation made: that feminists like Adrienne said that men deserved to be abused because they created the patriarchy.

[yarnaddict.livejournal.com]

That's how I interpreted what she wrote. She's clarified her position, and I thank her for that, and I've dropped that particular line of argument.

However, I do not think that feminists are evil people who think men deserve to be abused.