Author
|
Topic: Social science, activism patriarchy and generalities
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 31 August 2008 09:32 AM
quote: OK, here are a few ideas. 1) Acknowledging change. A generality or pattern you observe in a category of folks or things justifies generalizing, but that doesn't mean the pattern is static, or unamenable to change through action, awareness, input, natural evolution, resistance, people wanting to break free of the pattern, our improving the observation, etc. 2) Acknowledging fine structure. Within a general pattern, there may be any number of variations. The general pattern exists because of certain determinants and historical influences, but it plays out in variants, depending on specific conditions, histories, observers, other determinants. Like any picture, it is read one way at a certain distance and produces other pictures at other distances. Each pattern is no less real. 3) Acknowledging the envelope. Any generality is only true within a certain realm. Outside of that envelope, it isn't valid. So time and space act as limits to the scope of each generality, keeping generalization honest and away from any essentialist interpretation. 4) Exceptions. Even within the envelope, generalities often have exceptions and contrary forces that help us think dialectically not only about the patterns observed but about what subverts them and our perspective, the power of the disempowered, for instance. 5) Occam's razor. This philosophical principle reminds us that a generality is simply the most economical solution to a problem, the one with the least unnnecessary assumptions. Yet, we know through mathematics that any problem has an almost infinite number of solutions. ("That object speedingtoward me with 'Greyhound' on the front may be trouble, but it may just be a clever Martian trying to fool me.") So generalization does not have to tie our hands as would a stereotype or a stifling "blanket". It's simply a simple but important rational first step to inquiry (and sometimes survival). What do you think? Do you find that using generalization is useful in your life and activist concerns, given what you know, even if you keep trying to refine that process?
That is a very nuanced and fair minded reply. However, I think that you need to go out and speak to more women, and certainly more feminists from diverse backgrounds. You consistantly speak about first and second wave feminism, but there seems to be nothhing in your philosophy from the third wave.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 31 August 2008 02:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: He's responding to my latest post in the Men's involvement with feminism thread, remind.Actually, CMOT, I have never mentioned waves in my posts about sexism and the women's movement. Like Ms. Communicate, I find this classification Eurocentric. As for the differences and specific character attributed to each alleged "wave", they are often superficial and a tad too convenient for those who wish to dismiss preceding feminists and a more grounded analysis, common to feminist movement in general. We don't split patriarchy in various "waves", do we? [ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
No, but I still think you could benefit from entering into discussions with feminists who are not part of the Dworkin/Mackinnon faction.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 31 August 2008 05:57 PM
I'm just popping in here to add some of my thoughts on meta-arguments and generalities.I majored in Sociology at both the undergrad and graduate levels, and am a great lover of large meta-theories and hypotheses to explain social phenomenon. There is much value in doing so, but it's very important in how language is used. So, if I say "patriarchy benefits all men, but not in the same ways" everyone is likely to agree with that. What if I say "A given man's power under patriarchy is mediated by his racial identity, his current class status, where he is on the dis/Ability spectrum, gender identity, sexual orientation"? For me to say something like "All men have power over women" would be untrue and I hope I've never said anything like that on babble or elsewhere. Poor men of colour, immigrant men, First Nations men, men with disabilities, queer men who are poor, immigrant, of colour, do not have more societal power than women such as Belinda Stronach, Olivia Chow, Barbara Amiel, etc. Yet, there remains value in my first statement "patriarchy benefits all men, but not in the same ways". I'm not making statements about individual men, I'm making statements about groups of men, in a patriarchal society. That's sociology, really. I could re-write this entire post from the perspective of race, or ability, or class, or sexual orientation. All are valid, meta-lenses to look at the world through, and to try to understand how systems impact us in the day to day. P.S. To Martin, I like your point about waves of patriarchy, but patriarchy isn't a social movement, it's a system of oppression. In other words, it don't need no waves. But that said, we can look at specific historical and current backlashes, some beginning immediately after a gain for the women's movements (all waves. I'll use the flawed waves structure for now for the North American context). What else are backlashes but patriarchy responding with force, might, ridicule, whatever, to diminish accomplishments and achievements by social movements? If we broaden our understanding of patriarchy and name it (from bell hooks) white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, it does the same with the civil rights movement, gay liberation movement, etc.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 31 August 2008 08:29 PM
quote: What else are backlashes but patriarchy responding with force, might, ridicule, whatever, to diminish accomplishments and achievements by social movements?
Yes, they do that, but they also bash women when they are not in movement, between active phases of feminist movement. In a personal essay entitled "Backlash" that was sold through the classified ads of off our backs magazine, some ten years ago, Redstockings member Brooke Williams made what seemed to me an interesting point about that, saying (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that it would be a mistake to conceptualize male oppression as basically a backlash, and to think that women or early feminists had had it "easier" before a reaction kicked in. Male active hostility to women and their rights is not merely a reaction to feminist movement, she argues: it has always been there, and it has always been extremely hard and dangerous for women. Indeed she makes the point that the notion of backlash - with its implicit focus on women's agency having an effect - can seem gratifying but it can contribute to justify a blaming of women, as if it was their demands and advances that had "pushed" men into an oppression mode (the backwash answering the wave, the pendulum needing to swing back, etc.). Not the case, she says: male oppression was there before feminism and it was at least as harsh as the current version. Seems to make sense: consider the various forms of sexis oppression: rape, wife battering, low/no pay, sex harassment, substandard retirement conditions, etc. All of them existed whether feminists were active or not.[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 31 August 2008 08:49 PM
quote: ...Poor men of colour, immigrant men, First Nations men, men with disabilities, queer men who are poor, immigrant, of colour, do not have more societal power than women such as Belinda Stronach, Olivia Chow, Barbara Amiel, etc...
True. But would you agree that, compared to women that are similarly situated on other categories than gender,these various categories of men do have more societal power, generally/sociologically speaking (there are always exceptions and local conditions), than their female counterparts? When compared with women who are disabled, immigrant, First Nations, queer, homeless, etc. like them, each of these categories of men is - relatively - privileged. The same pattern is true for the categories at the other end of the social scale: Stronach, Amiel and Chow may trump poor or disabled men, but they are almost always trumped by their male equivalents among the rich, the well-connected and the political class. So...[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 01 September 2008 07:56 AM
quote: True. But would you agree that, compared to women that are similarly situated on other categories than gender,these various categories of men do have more societal power, generally/sociologically speaking (there are always exceptions and local conditions), than their female counterparts? When compared with women who are disabled, immigrant, First Nations, queer, homeless, etc. like them, each of these categories of men is - relatively - privileged. The same pattern is true for the categories at the other end of the social scale: Stronach, Amiel and Chow may trump poor or disabled men, but they are almost always trumped by their male equivalents among the rich, the well-connected and the political class. So...
This is why, After a certain point, I feel that discussions of privilage become irrelivant. It's all to easy to engage in opression contests, and ignore the challenges faced by marginalized groups. Is it really that important to point out that the newly immigrated disabled black man has more privilage then the newly imigrated disabled black woman beside him, when both are struggling to find adiquate housing, and fighting to be accepted by Canadian Society? [ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 01 September 2008 09:00 AM
Indeed, it seems that the most downtrodden in society, category by category, are the females of each category, so I support your imperative but not your apparent conclusion. Thanks for acknowledging the specific oppression of disabled women. In my experience, female disabled rights activists meet with great difficulty when they try to raise this problem in disabled circles and confront "their" men on issues of violence, misogyny, exploitation. It's good to know that you can be an ally in that struggle too.The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) recently held a conference on Violence against Women with Disabilities. Here is a summary report, hot off the wire: quote: Last Thursday August 28, CATW, Swedish Member of European Parliament (EP), Eva-Britt Svensson and the European United Left/Nordic United Left Parliamentary Group (GUE/NGL) co-organized a seminar in the European Parliament on Violence Against Women with Disabilities. The Seminar was well-attended, and individuals and organizations from all over Europe, Africa and Asia contacted us to receive information, despite not being able to travel to Brussels to attend the seminar. Importantly, Anna Zabrowska, who is the chair of the EP FEMM committee took part in the seminar.The panel speakers came from France, Sweden, Norway and Belgium. Wiveca Holst of the Swedish Women's Lobby and the NGO, Forum, Women and Disability, spoke about the particular vulnerabilities of women with disabilities who are victims of different forms of male violence, including through prostitution and trafficking in human beings. Claudine Legardinier, who is a French author and journalist and active in the organization Mouvement le Nid, analyzed the discourse of the new prostitution apologists in France, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands who argue that "people" (men) with disabilities should be given access to women in prostitution through government subsidized sexual caretakers. Helle Hagenau, who is the head of office for the Norwegian Association of the Disabled described a recent study carried out by the Norwegian association for Battered Women's Shelters on lack of access to services for women with disabilities who are victims of male violence. Finally, Gunilla S. Ekberg, CATW Co-Executive Director spoke about root causes of prostitution and trafficking in human beings, with a focus on the behaviours and violence committed by men who purchase women for sexual purposes, using two recent cases of trafficking in human beings (national and trans-border) in Sweden and Finland where several hundred men purchased and sexually abused two young women with severe intellectual disabilities. The audience was also given ample time to comment and ask questions. The seminar will be followed up in 2009 with a one-day conference on the same subject. Gunilla S. Ekberg Co-Executive Director Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 01 September 2008 12:26 PM
quote: Indeed, it seems that the most downtrodden in society, category by category, are the females of each category, so I support your imperative but not your apparent conclusion.
Yes, but is it necesary to enter the realm of meta analysis all the time when talking about political issues? I am an very privileged person, for all that I have a disability. I'm Mr. Big. Come and get me. But don't you dare try to pretend that a newly emigrated Urdu speaking Pakistani janitor in Bramton is in fact, powerful and privileged, or that the problems faced by men who do not have the privileges that I do(ethnicity, education, class gender speaking english as a first language) should be minimized in favor of a single cause that you consider more important than all the rest. ALL SUFFERING IS WORTHY OF NOTICE. [ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] edited to make my janitor more oppressed. [ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 01 September 2008 01:05 PM
quote: Indeed, it seems that the most downtrodden in society, category by category, are the females of each category, so I support your imperative but not your apparent conclusion. Thanks for acknowledging the specific oppression of disabled women. In my experience, female disabled rights activists meet with great difficulty when they try to raise this problem in disabled circles and confront "their" men on issues of violence, misogyny, exploitation. It's good to know that you can be an ally in that struggle too.
I'm not just talking about the standard kinds of abuse heaped on women, although that exists too. Many disabled woman, according to my counselor, anyway, are told to forget about sex by their parents, because of fears that they will be molested and taken advantage of. Their sexuality is invisible (the sexuality of disabled man is marginalized too, but in a different way) as a result, some disability rights activists have saught to express their sexuality in ways that the stalwarts of the feminist movement, like Gloria Steinem, find baffling. After years of campaigning against objectification, they are seeing women with disabilities who wish to be objectified to a certain extent, because if a man notices your body, even a way which Steinem et al would consider sexist, at least he is acknowledging that your sexuality and sexiness exists (and no, when I talk about objetification I'm not talking about extreme examples like rape) PS: I read an article in a new internationalist, (Internet archives are so cool!) about reproductive choice as it pertains to women with disabilities, the main thrust of which was that disabled woman have to fight to have children, whereas able-bodied women have to fight not to. Jesus Christ. I wish there were more disabled feminists on this board so I could get more credibility. [ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 01 September 2008 05:14 PM
quote: For instance, I would really like to know what brought you to confront systematically Israel' s horrendous oppression of Palestinians. I am really impressed by your commitment to that cause. Have you ever taken the time on a previous thread to explain your process and motivation? I'd like to read that.
I wish I could make it sexy. I wish I was like a character in a John le Carre novel, whose past is full of tragedy and heartbreak, and yet is somehow able to remain the gentleman's gentleman and consort with devastatingly intelligent anarchist godesses, and fight injustice. Unfortunately, that is not the case. My commitment can be traced back to an argument I had about Israel/ Palestine that I had with a family friend. I took the Palestinian side, but I didn't know enough. He was very combative and blamed Arafat and the arabs for the conflict,(it's extraordinarily funny how some Zionist apologists have transformed old Yasser into the most powerful man in the Middle East, when in fact he was just a figurehead.) The incident just about made me cry. he felt guilty, and to me a bicky in the form of a non-authorized biography of JK Rowling, which I still haven't really read. At the end of the argument(rant) I agreed with him, because I didn't know about the peacemaking efforts on the Palestinian side. Then I discovered the Middle East threads on Babble and the arguments that peacenik activists were actually making. I can't use any of them in debate, however, because the Internet has no credibility, but just knowing he's wrong is enough. I wish that Unionist M.Spector and Cueball would come to Fernie so that I could put them on retainer, and they could argue for me.(that was a joke, there's absolutely no way I could get the money required). As for my commitment, and the Israeli resistance threads, that comes from having too much time on my hands. The two jobs I have are both volunteer. If I worked full-time in a job with lots of oversight, I couldn't maintain them. Really it dosen't take much commitment to post on message board. I'm just a guy. Cuball and Unionist are much more comitted then I could ever hope to be. Which also why I don't feel worthy of the title, feminist ally. I'm too repressed, immature and have too little experience to be anything of the sort. [ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 03 September 2008 09:06 AM
quote: Where are the young disabled? Probably being cared for by a "volunteer" mother, sister or grandmother somewhere.
Oh my. I'm afraid I've bred a misconception. The point I was trying to make is that quite often, the disabled, interact with members of other oppressed groups, as a matter of course, not that youngsters with disabilities are all forced to live in broom closets. This isn't 1950, (although in many ways, our attitude towards the disabled hasn't changed a lot since then). There are teenagers and young kids, who are disabled, who are able to participate in the public school system, and their communities. Unfortunately, special needs programs are being cut back in many schools, and in some of the smaller towns in Canada, it's more difficult to get support for things like outings. This is why I believe so many evangelicals are drawn into work revolving around people with disabilities. There willing to put up with things that secular people won't, simply because of their powerful belief in a higher power. quote: Why is the staff such a motley crew? Perhaps because the marginalized get lumped together, especially by the employment world.
Well, caring for people who have chronic conditions and illnesses is still considered women's work. Which might be one reason why gay men are in those positions as well. If you're a nurse, there's no pressure to be macho. It's safe. Now, that's not saying that a gay nurse doesn't long to be a policeman or firefighter, it's just that they can't because of social restrictions. One of the problems with finding me male workers in high school was the fact that the mines still operate here. If a young man can get tonnes of money driving a big ass truck around a hole in the ground, why would he sign up to work with the disabled, and earn less. Especially when the Church Lady with the Mother Teresa complex is waiting in the wings, willing to take up the slack.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 03 September 2008 10:01 AM
quote: Absolutely, just as there a lot of religious women who volunteer at food banks and thrist stores because they care enough. Why label them with "Mother Teresa complex"? Do you feel you are being denied "worthy" help? Or is it possible that you are bitter that these "ladies" don't measure down to the Photoshop-enhanced women being stuck out at you by the porn industry?
My choice of words was unfortunate. These are good people, by and large, and the ones I worked with treated me very well. You don't have some kind of Freudian condition in order to be kind. However, the religiosity of Christian fundamentalists, and come to think of it, prudery of secular individuals, influenced by the religiously induced anti-sex slant of our society, (whether they are male or female,) can be a major stumbling block when trying to achieve certain goals relating to sex and sexuality. [ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 03 September 2008 01:20 PM
quote: But you also found some female disabled activists who took very rightwing, "pro-lifer" positions, arguing for example against the right to unhook that poor woman on life support in the US, for example, or against abortion rights. Oppression and marginalisation don't necessarily lead people to progressive outlooks.
Those reactions may be caused by fear. Fundamentally, Canadian society views disability, at best, with an odd paternalism, and at worst, with dread.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 03 September 2008 04:39 PM
No. I wasn't clear. Every people fears disability, but North American society in particular isn't disability friendly. A lot of people don't want us to exist. We are reminders of death and decrepitude in a culture obsessed with youth and beauty, a society, which has really lost its capacity to deal with death. As a result, we are marginalized, employed but never really needed, included but never really accepted. In such a society, a society that would rather we didn't draw breath, we seek ways to tell the world that we do exist, that we want to be heard. One rather extreme way of doing that is to become part of a fundamentalist church of some sort, (which while it may spew the most horrendous right wing byle provides a sense of community) and speak about life at all costs. Personally, I think it's nuts. I feel that Euthanasia should be an option just as abortion is, but I can see why disabled opponents of doctor assisted suicide would be afraid of the whole idea. I am very glad my mom is here to fight for me. Without her, the medical bureaucracy would be storing me in a broom cupboard. PS: please don't describe downs syndrome as an affliction. You make it sound like the plague. quote: Lots of reactionary outlooks are fuelled by fear. Racism is one of the most obvious. But that does not excuse disabled groups promoting "life at any cost" positions that could impact other people's decisions. No, I don't want to live in a position where I'm dependent on others for the most intimate life functions. I certainly support greater funding for care for those who do not share that outlook.But it is very sadistic to say people have to live at any cost, when life may just be an intolerable burden to them
[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 04 September 2008 04:37 PM
quote: CMOT, I would like to thank you for your willingness to speak so frankly about your circumstances, in this case your observations about caregivers. It is really cool to get to hear about these collateral (attendant??) issues (pun intended!) that go along with the territory of physical disability. It sounds like this is big part of the culture -- if that is the right word? -- that went right over my head, until you brought it up.
But it isn't just attendants. It's about the support network. Which includes everybody from counselors to physiotherapists to the person who drives the special-needs schoolbus. It seems like the powers that be have given stewardship of the oppressed to the oppressed. Which really when you think about it, would give many opportunities to collaborate in civil disobedience. Unfortunately, the people who give us help often don't see us as equal partners. [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|