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

Re: Trying to get to the root of our discussion...

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

But you have to see that there are things *a woman* can do that can change the position of *a man* in our society. If a woman is in a position of power, and refuses to hire a male simply because he is a male, then she has both sexual prejudice and power. Therefore, by your own definition, she is acting in a sexist manner.

By my own definition, a woman who refuses to hire a man is engaging in sexual prejudice (and/or sexual discrimination). The woman you speak of holds limited power in a localized setting, but not the sort of institutional or financial power to jeopardize the social or power status of men as a whole.

What *a woman* can do to *a man* is not institutionalized oppression. Sexism is not one single act - it's an institution, a philosophy that runs our culture. There are acts of sexism, sure, but these don't involve one person doing something to one other person.

Re: Trying to get to the root of our discussion...

[gmalivuk.livejournal.com]

so really your definition is "sexual prejudice + *institutional* power"?

Re: Trying to get to the root of our discussion...

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, I believe that was stated above somewhere, somewhere in one of noog's comments. It's a maze up there now, I know. Ugh.

But yes. I was simplifying. And I shouldn't have. But in the link that I posted about racism earlier, it mentioned that as well, if I remember correctly.

It's been a long day.