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'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. :)