[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

quote:

---

Who writes the dictionaries? Men.

---

The editor-in-chief of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is Katherine Barber. Perhaps his parents really wanted a girl.

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

The most popular dictionary in Quebec, Le Multi, is written by one woman, Marie-Éva de Villers.

dianal, while I agree that historically dictionaries have been the sole domain of men, but things have changed dramatically over the last 30 years. To imply that women have no input into the codyfiyng of language today is wrong.

quote:

---

I hear ya BUT is she and other women there creating the definitions?

---

In her case yes. She caused a big stink when she changed the definition of marriage to a union between two people.

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

Word-related fields are more and more women-dominated, but like most other professions that are "feminised", tend to lose power and prestige - so many of us work freelance under VERY precarious circumstances.

Lexicographers are supposed to rely most of all on usage of the language - obviously there often have been volontaristic moves to impose
language found less offensive or oppressive for many reasons.

In English we'd been saying postperson ... but in French it is a facteur or factrice, depending on the sex of the person delivering the post. A major difference is that for us a major part of non-sexist language is making women visible, while in English you see the opposite trend, such as calling women "actors", saying there is no reason to identify or distinguish the sex of the thespian. (Say THAT 5 times fast !)

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

I am neither wise nor sexless, but I am definitely aging fast. And in my experience, any human being who manages to survive to fifty has already lost enough contemporaries to be getting just a little perspective on anything that happens to our bodies that is not immediately life-threatening.

Before I was fifty, I lost beautiful women friends to (in order) suicide/depression, lymphoma, breast cancer, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Another of our friends is being taken slowly by MS. If they'd lived/thrived long enough, all those women would have worried about hot flushes too, but ...

Among the men I've known, fifty-five is not such a good age either. Drop dead suddenly is probably preferable to several strokes in a row, but who would choose either?

My point (and I do have one) is that, after a certain age, sentimental bourgeois lies still oppress more people of both sexes than sexism oppresses women.

I am not denying that older women face much much tougher times economically, practically, than do older men (if they live). How could I deny that? I'm one of them. Older women have been terribly discriminated against by medical science, and that situation is changing only very very slowly.

But then all old people have been dreadfully treated by our medical system, and why? Because old people are invisible to the young, and the young have not heretofor pressured the system on behalf of people they tend to regard as expendable.

Listen up: by the time women are sixty, they are thinking about problems a whole lot more serious than the "change of life." (Trust me: someone tells you that you have an ovarian tumour the size of a dinner plate, and you will not mind experiencing an overnight change of life.)

They are thinking, just as men are, about dying -- or living, living on in a way that means something. If our world were not so mean and tight, they could think creatively about how we live on with each other.

I cannot accept a feminism that does not value that greatest of human strengths, empathy, the ability to put one's self in another's shoes, another's skin, one of the human strengths that traditional "feminine" training, whatever its other problems, has traditionally offered to every new generation of women.

No one, including no other woman, is ever going to make me feel ashamed of being good at what Keats called "negative capability," which is empathy. There is no meaning at all in contemplating nothing but one's own destiny, gazing at one's own navel. If the women's movement is to mean something to the world, then women have got to offer the world something, something great.

Perhaps my wariness of New Agey cultural feminism is not just because of my materialist prejudices forged in youthful Marxism, but also because I see it as a turning back, turning inwards from a broader emancipatory project. This is not at all to deny the importance of therapeutic approaches that are less harsh, and less driven by profit and by seeing people with health concerns as "consumers".

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

Why can't versions of ideas (such as feminism) be better or worse than others? What is wrong with attacking one version or another, if one is really worse?

[ 27 October 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]

Plus, there's intense hubris in giving oneself the power to define what's "proper" feminism and what isn't! Nobody gets to speak for the whole of feminism, so unless you've got a serious consensus backing you, it's probably arrogant to dismiss a group as "not real feminists". I know that's not quite what you're talking about, Mandos, but the judgement of "better feminism" and "worse feminism" does seem to lead in that general direction to me.

And of course, there's the issue of unity - a movement with more backers is more effective, so one doesn't want to get into doctrinal disputes over very minor issues, and sabotage the major ones.

That said, I think it can be helpful to discuss various approaches as "more effective" and "less effective", or "more consistent with the ideals and goals of feminism," and less so, etc. How can one decide on policy approaches without discussing their relative merits, after all?

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

So, what i'm saying is: the big problem of our time is not so much men vs. women as money vs. people.

---

Thank you for saying that, nonesuch.

[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

All the same, there are still issues that are clearly the domain or concern of women. I think things like rape, domestic abuse, and reproductive rights are definitely our battles, as men just don't know or understand their weight in our lives.

As someone who has had a chronic illness from the age of 17 which is pretty much guaranteed to kill me someday, and who has been told by successive provincial governments that the insulin which keeps her alive is "not medically necessary," I can tell you that being told you are expendable is something that can happen to you at any age. You don't need to be old; you just need to be sick. Of course, being sick is something that tends to happen more when you get older.

I'm not saying age isn't a huge barrier, because I think it is. But I think maybe it comes as more of a shock when previously you've been able to take your health for granted.

As I said, I don't want to contribute to thread drift, so this is just an aside.

As several posters have already pointed out, privilege works in complicated ways and depends on many variables besides just sex. Class, wealth, race, language, area of residence, health and ability, sexual orientation, age, religion and other issues all intersect to produce one individual's actual experience of oppression or privilege. But IMO sex remains a key variable among the group. First of all: it's visible, people can almost always tell when a person is male or female (and when they can't they tend to get rather nasty about it). Secondly: sexism is still considered "OK" in ways other isms aren't.

Things like the whole "mars and venus" publishing juggernaut would be considered totally "not ok" if it were about differences between groups other than men and women. At the very least, it would be considered controversial; not self-help. And cultural relativism is used to justify sexism when it would never be considered acceptable for racism, for instance.

[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

But as far men and women are concerned, how far do you have to go to see what roles we're supposed to play? Spend a couple hours in front of the TV; a few beer commercials, an R&B or hiphop video or two, you pretty much get the picture. We are positioned as narrowly defined, gender-specific markets geared to mutual exploitation. Our society, for all its advances, still tells us who we should be. And who we should be are people who are fixated on instant gratification and mutual exploitation. This keeps most of us from looking too carefully at how deeply fucked we are by the powers that be.

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

"The White Male System - and it is important to keep in mind that I am referring to a system here and not pointing a finger at specific individuals within it - controls almost every aspect of our culture. It makes our laws, runs our economy, sets our salaries, and decides when and if we will go to war or remain at home. It decides what is knowledge and how it is to be taught." (...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skye88:
I think the men who are suffering are working class men. Working men, especially in the current phase of de-industrialization, do not have the same power or privilidges as wealthy corporate men.

---

Agreed, but I would add in a couple of qualifiers. The following should take it as read that I think that economic factors are still a much greater determinant.

Men of ethnic minorities still to a degree suffer even when wealthy. Witness actor Danny Glover's wry comemnts about being unable to get a cab. This may not seem like a big deal, but I think it symptomatic of many other biases that help make life more difficult for minority men.

What if you're a member of a minority religion? Even the super-rich Saudi royal family is coming face-up with anti-Muslim prejudice in the States. Not that I weep any tears for the Saudi family, in general, but all their money can't save them from being tarred as those dirty heathen types by the religious right.

Men of sexual minorities (gays, transgenders, etc) damn well suffer seriously from societal structures, regardless of economic bracket. Being a corporate type won't save you from being constantly condemned at the pulpit, for just one example. Or having your right to marry constantly questioned and, even when gained, under legislative threat.

When you start confining the idea of "vast privilege" to rich, white, straight, "Christian" males, well, then I start to come closer into agreement. But there are always those dratted exceptions. What if you're all that - but disabled, or mentally ill? Societal pressures still start smacking you around at that point.

Now, that said, it is of course the poor and disenfranchised who are, rather by definition, the worst victims of the way that society is structured. It seems evident that a wealthy corporate woman enjoys much more privilege than a poor working-class man. Even in Canada. For instance, imagine that each is accused of a shoplifting offense. She gets the best lawyer money can buy, and has a much better chance of having the charges dismissed. Even if convicted, she pays a fine and goes free. He can't afford a good lawyer, or the fine, and does jail time.

[ 29 October 2003: Message edited by: April Follies ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by April Follies:

It seems evident that a wealthy corporate woman enjoys much more privilege than a poor working-class man. Even in Canada. For instance, imagine that each is accused of a shoplifting offense. She gets the best lawyer money can buy, and has a much better chance of having the charges dismissed. Even if convicted, she pays a fine and goes free. He can't afford a good lawyer, or the fine, and does jail time.

---

I disagree. It depends on the situation.

When it comes to a shoplifting charge, sure.

But who is more likely to be raped? Who is more likely to be told to restrict their activities to certain dates, times, and places in order to remain "safe"? Who is more likely to end up depressed? Who is more likely to be told they "should" stay out of hte workforce when they have children, or that they should only work if they "need" to? Who is more likely to have their worth judged based on their body size or attractiveness?

Who is more likely to have their reproductive decisions interfered with or influenced by the state? Who is more likely to be a victim of domestic violence? Who is more likely to be a "resident" of a mental hospital?

(And let's not forget that women are *significantly* more likely to be poor in the first place, and thus victims of the various kinds of classism that exist.)

I could go on (and on and on)....

I find it completely useless to engage in discussions of "which kind of ism is really the worst or causes the most pain." It's apples and oranges. Black men are incarcerated more often than white women. White women earn less on average in the States than black men. Which is worse? How can you compare? Privilege operates differently for each person depending on the situation. In some cases, the woman with money will have more privilege. In other cases, the working class man will have more privilege.

quote:

---

As, of course, is the Female System, which includes women from the other ethnic systems as well as white women.

---

But, as I said, I wouldn't frame things as Shaef does, by a series of systems, though what she says is certainly true in part.

Like Lagatta, I'm curious as to why the paragraph neglects a class analysis. But I have to say that what I really object to is Shaef's characterization of men:

quote:

---

There are a few white men who do not fit into the White Male System. They form a small but growing group which is frequently perceived as a sanctuary by white men who do not want to acknowledge their sexism. Whenever I mention the existence of this group during a lecture, I can almost see the men in the room rushing to crowd into it. If they can just get into that circle, they can be 'different' and not have to face themselves. Saying that you are not sexist - or that you do not want to be, or would rather not admit that you are - is not the same as doing something about your sexism.

---

Brrrrrrr...is it cold in here, or is it just me?

[ 29 October 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

When I think about it, in fact, athena_dreaming's position is far more consistent with my earlier contention that it's the systems that need changing. That is, it's not a matter of competition between the people who are, to greater or lesser extent, almost all victimized by the system to different ways.

And yet... at some point one has to prioritize. I mean, Donald Trump may be a victim of the system, just like me, but somehow I don't see us as suffering equally, yanno? So while I'll by and large agree with the "apples and oranges" argument, I gotta qualify it somewhat.

Maybe it's not helpful to put things in terms of greater or lesser ills, or privelege. Yet I think it must be necessary in terms of greater or lesser urgency of specific issues. E.g., when people are starving in the streets, I see that as requiring more immediate action than, for instance, body-image issues, which are important, but perhaps not quite as urgent by comparison. It's like saying that FGM is a more nasty violation of human rights than is circumcision, because of the pain and suffering involved.

Now, on this point I fully agree:

quote:

---

(And let's not forget that women are *significantly* more likely to be poor in the first place, and thus victims of the various kinds of classism that exist.)

---

There's definitely a tendency of these factors to stack. Minority women are even more likely to be poor, etc.

[ 30 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

But then there are other girls and women I know that share all those demographic characteristics--and they've been raped, or beaten by boyfriends or husbands, etc. etc.

I don't know if this is clarifying my position or just making it fuzzier. Suffice it to say that I do think privilege is real and very important, but I don't think it can be tallied up by determining someone's demographics and applying a checklist to them. White privilege? Check. Male privilege? Check. Heterosexual privilege? No. And so on ... and hten come up with some sort of absolute index for how much they suffer based on how much each type of discrimination is "worth" in terms of suffering.

And I agree that we need to prioritize. As much as Donald Trump may miss our activist energies in campaigning on his behalf for ... umm ... the lifting of zoning restrictions so he can build even bigger towers, he is just going to have to leap that hurdle without me. Of course, different people will have different priorities. I don't mind that there are men and women out there working hard on body image issues, because body image issues *can* kill. Anorexia, bulimia, etc. That's not where I choose to focus my energy, but they have my full and wholehearted support for doing so themselves.

And on the whole I even agree that socioeconomic issues are huge ones and ought to be a big priority. Because as much as it irritates me that every single product I've ever seen marketed to 'parents' has a picture of a MOM with her kid/s on it, and as much as I am 100% dead certain that being female was a key (if unconscious) factor in my being laid off a few years ago, it's not quite the same thing as being reliant on food banks, and I can realize that.

However--I do believe that these various interacting systems of discrimination (and if anyone has a better phrase for it, please let me know) are a huge, key factor in those socioeconomic issues in the first place. BEing female increases your risk for poverty. As does being a member of a visible minority, or from a certain country, or disabled, or homosexual, or member of certain religious groups, or older, or fat, and so on and so on. So while I do believe that classism has its own way of creating and perpetuating poverty, mostly I think that poverty functions as a way of keeping groups that are discriminated against disenfranchised so that their power to effect change in their own lives and in society is extremely restricted.

Does that make sense? To me, a key underlying factor of the socioeconomic issues that are so busily killing people are all the ugly "isms". So by solving or attempting to solve sexism, heterosexism, sizeism, ageism, racism, etc., you will end up addressing socioeconomic disparities between groups and thus those issues in general. Not entirely--there will still be work that needs to be done on poverty and class issues--but in great part.

As you said, April, those issues tend to "stack." But what is the best way of changing that? By working to redistribute resources to people who have been denied them, or by working to change the rationales that determine how those resources are distributed in the first place? IMO, both are important and necessary, but hte second has the bulk of my energy.

quote:

---

That journey begins, I believe, with our confronting our own complicity with the system. I expect men to do the same. I don't believe that men can 'opt out' of being sexist purely by stating they aren't. Do we get to 'opt out' of being oppressed simply by stating we aren't a part of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by athena_dreaming:
I talk too much!

---

Not when you make this much sense, you don't. Actually, my first response was: "hey, isn't that my line?..."

Reading the input here is such an education... so many articulate people, with so many good points! This discussion is really laying out the complexity of dealing with all of these different factors and their interreactions. Really challenges my tendency to simplify matters for easy comprehension. As it should be. But allow me to express my appreciation.

quote:

---

But who is more likely to be raped? Who is more likely to be told to restrict their activities to certain dates, times, and places in order to remain "safe"? Who is more likely to end up depressed? Who is more likely to be told they "should" stay out of hte workforce when they have children, or that they should only work if they "need" to? Who is more likely to have their worth judged based on their body size or attractiveness?

Who is more likely to have their reproductive decisions interfered with or influenced by the state? Who is more likely to be a victim of domestic violence? Who is more likely to be a "resident" of a mental hospital?

(And let's not forget that women are *significantly* more likely to be poor in the first place, and thus victims of the various kinds of classism that exist.)

I could go on (and on and on)....

I find it completely useless to engage in discussions of "which kind of ism is really the worst or causes the most pain." It's apples and oranges. Black men are incarcerated more often than white women. White women earn less on average in the States than black men. Which is worse? How can you compare? Privilege operates differently for each person depending on the situation. In some cases, the woman with money will have more privilege. In other cases, the working class man will have more privilege.

---

This was exactly my point on the thread about men suffering from domestic violence. I totally agree that we can not compare someone's suffering to someone elses.

quote:

---

Suffice it to say that I do think privilege is real and very important, but I don't think it can be tallied up by determining someone's demographics and applying a checklist to them. White privilege? Check. Male privilege? Check. Heterosexual privilege? No. And so on ... and hten come up with some sort of absolute index for how much they suffer based on how much each type of discrimination is "worth" in terms of suffering.

---

However, the problem with this analysis is that it does not address the problem of women within the classes. Sure, rich men oppress poor men and women - but poor women get oppressed by both rich men AND poor men. And if you're poor, female, AND non-white - well there's a triple-whammy happening there.

did we all just agree with each other?

quote:

---

I've never bought this idea that class oppression comes before gender oppression. Isn't that the argument men in progressive movements (e.g. unions, etc.) used in the past to squelch feminist criticism of sexism in the movement? "Don't divide the movement by fighting for equality with us, honey, you're just letting the capitalist oppressors win."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Non-partisan partisan:
Also, an integrated approach to understanding how oppression operates means you can't separate class, gender, race etc from each other and "solve" them sequentially.

---

I think that people like Patricia Hill Collins and Evelyn Nakano Glenn who write in terms of "mutually constructed dimensions of oppression" really have something. It's rarely just class or gender or race/ethnicity, but several working at once.

[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

PARTY THREAD!!!!!!

Hey while we're at it, let's make it a HALLOWEEN PARTY THREAD!!!

`I know what "it" means well enough, when I find a thing,' said the Duck: `it's generally a frog or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop find?'

And also, why a duck?

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming: trick or treat!!

`In that case,' said the Dodo solemnly, rising to its feet, `I move that the meeting adjourn, for the immediate adoption of more energetic remedies--' [I]

How about a toast to dianal? Or a toast to babble? Or how about a toast to my midterms finally being over?

Cheers!!

[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]

quote:

---

Am I the only one that is having a problem with this shit?

---

[ 31 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

No. Everyone is finding their own peculiar way to cope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal

Peculiar? Understatement. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Making nasty fun is bullying. Dianal chose to delete her posts and she deserves the minimum of respect. Why are we beating a dead horse?
Yippee, babblers won. Dianal wants to leave Babble, deletes her posts and the trashing goes on.
Oh yeah, peculiar.

---