At 05:46 AM 7/6/97 -0700, Maggie Coleman wrote, inter alia: >In fact, men do criticize women as a gender constantly. This is pervasive >throughout society. Example #1. Who exactly do you think is being >criticized by the press as being welfare cheats? All those white guys with >union jobs? All those white, male, tenured professors teaching economics? > Example #2. Women's appearance. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard >one of my co-workers criticize a woman's weight while overlooking his own >beer belly. Or, the way women dress: women who have blue collar jobs look >too masculine, women who wear mini skirts are asking to get raped, and forget >about women's suits in business--there is no way to dress to avoid criticism. > Example # 3. How women perform the reproductive activities assigned to them >(by men). Women who pursue careers are 'bad' mothers. Women who stay home >to take care of their children while on public assistance are lazy. > Basically, you sitting and having coffee (served by the waitress in >her properly subservient position) and thinking to yourself about how sexist >feminists are provides me with the picture of every self-satisfied man I've >ever watched who ordered women around while thinking of how liberal he >was!!!!! I reply: While I agree with these statements, I also think that the problem is not limited to M/F relations. There is a general tendency to view members non-dominant groups through social stereotypes associated with that group, whereas such stereotypes are carefully avaoided in viewing members of the dominant group. For example, the fact that women usually get the short end of the stick on the job market, or publically display their emotions is often construed as a " proof" that women are by nature less rational. However, the fact that men have much higher incarceration rate than women mysteriously says nothing about the "nature" of men -- all those guys in jail are simply individuals who happn to break the law. Of course, the same holds for politics. When dissidents are harassed in Cuba, this is a proof of the "rogue" nature of the Cuban regime; when the same thing happend in the US, however, this says nothing about the nature of the US political system. Noam Chomsky aptly summarised it as follows" "In the special case of the United States, facts are irrelevant." Yet another example. A documentary sponsored by unions or ennironmental groups is viewed in this society as potentially biased or at least representing special interests; whereas the fact of business sponsorship cretes no such perceptions. What underlies these double standards is that power hates day light -- it always hides itself beneath a facade: gods, natural laws, rationality, superior efficiency and what not. Using dominant class or group markers in everyday life discourse would bring the power issue to the lime light. Using stereotypes to describe non-dominant groups, however, accomplishes two things: it directs teh attention away from the dominant group focusing on subordinate groups instead, and it explains the inferior position of these groups by some supposedly "natural" characteristic shared by the members of that group. That way, power relations are more likely to go unchallenged. >>> It seems to me that much of the the generalities of a critical nature >>> made about men as a gender have a sexist character to them. It would >>> therefore seem that much of the so called feminist movement is sexist >>> and seeks to create a reactionary polarization within the working >>> class along gender lines thereby reinforcing division within the >>> working class. >This is an interesting conglomeration of contradictory statements. Are you >saying that all generalities about men are sexist? Hmm, so we are to see men >as individuals. O.k., but you refuse to accord the same individuality to >feminists who we must see as a group of sexists. Then, you define feminists >as a "so-called ... movement." Well, if it's not a movement, how can it make >overarching sexist statements? Finally, you say feminism divides the working >class. Does that mean feminism is ok for other classes? How about >professionals, should they be allowed to be feminist? Or, does this mean >that working class men should continue to be allowed to exploit the labor of >women and children within the home? If this is the case, I suppose you would >agree that whites in the working class should be allowed to continue to hold >on to their racist attitudes too? > >>>This in turn sustains the politically weak nature of >>> the working class. >Well, I am so glad to see you agree with someone. The Republicans who penned >the "Contract with America" also blamed unwed mothers, and women who seek >roles outside the home, as the primary enemy of a healthy economy in the >United States. You must be so proud to be espousing the same logic as Newt >Gingrich. > >>> >>> In short sexism is prevalent both among men and women. >>> >>> Karl >So, you've run into a few sexist women, and you use this to justify your own >bigotry. That's really intelligent! > >Feminism is not associated with femaleness in the same fashion as >menstruation. In fact, there are many feminist men out there. Broadly >defined, feminism seeks to include gender into the academic discussion within >social sciences. Clearly, you are of the school which feels men don't have >gender and women should shut up and clean. > >maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233
