The Difference Between the Oppression of the Sexes

[DesertShark]

I've been reading a very good book called The Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory by Marilyn Frye. The first essay in there titled "Oppression" is excellent. The ending paragraph of this essay is as follows (all emphasis is part of the original text):

Women are oppressed, as women. Members of certain racial and/or economic groups and classes, both the males and the females, are oppressed as members of those races and/or classes. But men are not oppressed as men.
...and isn't it strange that any of us should have been confused and mystified about such a simple thing?
I'm still trying to find a full copy of this particular essay on the internet, once I do I'll post it.

[synthesis]

To say that "men" aren't discriminated against for being "men" is incredibly ignorant. Whoever made that argument has obviously never lived in a community where men are targeted by the police for being "gangsters" or "drug dealers," where men are overwhelmingly the ones rotting away in jail for decades at a stretch.

I would also argue that war can "oppress men as men", and until recently targeted them exclusively for dehumanization and so on.



I've been reading a very good book called The Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory by Marilyn Frye.

It seems as though a more apt title would be The Politics of Comfortable Middle-Class Reality... but nobody said we needed more evidence of the shallowness of bourgeois identity politics.

[Black Dagger]

Whoever made that argument has obviously never lived in a community where men are targeted by the police for being "gangsters" or "drug dealers," where men are overwhelmingly the ones rotting away in jail for decades at a stretch.


You say this even though the topic post is right above yours?

This is precisely the point the author was making.

Neither of those examples relate to the oppression of men as men.

The first is a class issue - the young and poor getting targeted by the police (unless you're suggesting that the police are an anti-male institution?).

The second is another class issue - unless you're suggesting that the drug war or the system of private property (two of the major causes of imprisonment for example) are the product of our matriarchal state and it's 'anti-male' laws? Ignoring of course the thousands of women who end up in jail for the same offence. Really what you're talking about is more of a class and race issue than one of sex or gender.

You should be asking, why are poor black men overwhelmingly the ones rotting away in jail for decades at length?

I'll tell you it's not 'because they're men'.

I mean honestly? The idea that men are oppressed as men (on that basis) means that to some extent there is conscious or deliberate anti-male or 'reverse sexism' at play - on the individual level, or that this sentiment is effectively practiced on the level of ideology, engrained into the very institutions of the state - the judiciary etc. Institutions that historically speaking were created and are dominated by men (and sexism).

That is pure fantasy, and is nothing more than another pathetic backlash against feminism by some insecure (ignorant) men.


The Politics of Comfortable Middle-Class Reality... but nobody said we needed more evidence of the shallowness of bourgeois identity politics.

This is funny given the only person to advocate 'shallow bourgeois identity politics' so far has been you. How else can we describe the politics of the 'Men's Liberation' movement (the kind of people who echo your feelings of male persecution)? It is the sole domain of middle class navel gazers. You've totally jettisoned any kind of class analysis in your post - 'Why are so many men in jail? COZ THE SYSTEM IS AGAINST MEN DAMMIT!' It's shallow middle class identity politics of the worst (read: most reactionary) kind.


I would also argue that war can "oppress men as men", and until recently targeted them exclusively for dehumanization and so on.


Uh... what?

The fact that most societies were so sexist towards women that they were excluded from participation in armed conflict is not a case for 'male discrimination' or 'oppression'. It is the men in the military and government who made this decision - purely on the basis of sexism - that men should be the only people drafted to serve (because 'women should fucking stay at home or get in the factories... then out of the factories once the men come back from war! That they are too weak to be soliders etc.).

You're also ignoring the millions of women who have been raped and abused at the hands of soldiers during war-time, which as far as i can tell is the only real example of gendered oppression that exists in the context of war (in the very least it is the most prominent example).

[manic expression]

I think the whole perspective is incorrect. Women aren't oppressed because they're women, "oppression" doesn't happen in some sort of vacuum. Perhaps the author wasn't saying that, but I don't know, and to be honest it seems as though s/he was. It's like that third-wave radical feminist idea that men have a vested interest in the oppression of women, which strikes me as anti-worker garbage, not to mention sexist.

Anyway, the oppression of women takes various forms, and it almost always revolves around class. Bourgeois women are not nearly as "oppressed" when it comes to many aspects of life: overwork, abuse, rape, denial of education, etc. Thus, the oppression of women isn't some sort of icing on the cake of "class oppression", it IS the direct result of class dynamics. Saying women are oppressed because they are women is painfully simplistic and wrong. If we are to say that the oppression of women will end after class society is abolished, then the entire premise is false in the first place.

By the way, the fact that incarceration of black men in America is tied to class just proves this point further.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Sympathetic to the idea there, but I am confused. Does this mean, say, a white man in an ethic community who is discriminated against is not oppressed? Even though society favors him overall, the individual community may override that so he becomes the minority.

Before I go further, can we define oppression? If it's "we know it when we see it," we could arguably categorize any form of discrimination on the basis of "arbitrary characteristics" qualifies as oppression.

Although men regularly are oppressors, and society systematically oppresses women, oppression is not a zero sum game. For instance, if I hit you, and you stab me, you can't say "You stabbed me minus a punch." Harm values are not purposely compensated for in an analysis. Similarly, if I kill twenty people in a room, and this saves 1000, I did something good? I'd say necessary, instead.

Even if women are primarily the victims of oppression, I don't see (using my vague notion of what oppression is) how males are never oppressed. Arguably, the following situations are examples based on some self-reflection and Google:

1. Stereotyped as violent. (Maybe this is justified, but why this is justified and affirmative action, for instance, is not, would become an issue to clarify).
2. Violence against men is more acceptable.
3. Emotions are considered undesirable. (Is this by women as well as men?)
4. Men are stereotyped as sexual deviants.
5. Since abortion is an acceptable choice, left only to the women, it seems unfair that a man loses his ability to "choose" after conception. More specifically, his choice should be related to the issue of child support. (Arguments against this are worth considering).
6. Prostate cancer receives substantially less funding than breast cancer relative to the prevalence of the disease. (explainable without oppression, I think).
7. Divorce bias (I think this is a pretty fair claim, honestly).

In short, it doesn't matter that women are overwhelmingly treated "worse" with respect to oppression when we talk about oppression. An individual can conceivably oppress themselves, as well.

Basically, I need a clear definition of what "oppression" is from the OP argument. After that, I need to know if that has any relevance towards the injustices, with respect to men, that I listed.

If society makes men oppressive, by default, women are entitled to defend themselves against the oppression even, perhaps, by oppressing the men? If interests are mutually exclusive, yes (capitalism). However, society has been making advances. Oppression is a form of political power, of which women have little, but it's difficult to place an "ethical" terms on this. It seems like political maneuvering. The system makes the oppressor, so he is a victim if the oppressed strikes against him. He is an innocent bystander strapped to a tank bearing down on you. The women can rightfully attack the tank, let's say, but there man on the tank will utilize any means he can, including how to define "oppression," to protect himself.

Nobody wants to be treated unfairly just because we perpetuate a system of inequality by virtue of being ourselves.

[Black Dagger]

If we are to say that the oppression of women will end after class society is abolished, then the entire premise is false in the first place.

No Manic i think you're wrong. The oppression of women predates capitalism, certainly like all things in this day the oppression of women is shaped and informed by the dynamics of class and class society (this means that not all women are oppressed on the same basis, as you've suggested). But it is wrong to argue that the abolition of class/capitalism is the same (in effect) as the liberation of women or the end of sexism as a social attitude or practice. This is why we are advocates of Social Revolution and not merely the economic reorganisation of society.


Saying women are oppressed because they are women is painfully simplistic and wrong.

It depends on the context, in most cases gendered oppression occurs along other lines as well- most frequently class and race. But that does not change the effect (gendered oppression), it simply requires a more nuanced analysis. Take reproductive rights for example, the prohibition of abortion is an example of the oppression of women - obviously the effects of this are the same for all in the first instance - no woman can legally access abortion - but from a more nuanced materialist approach we can see that this will not impact upon women equally. Bourgeois women are more likely to be able to find (largely through their wealth) access to a safe alternative (abortion in another state/country/by doctor) - or at least their access is necessarily better. Working class women necessarily have fewer options, or a more limited access - but neither woman has reproductive freedom (both are subject to prosecution).

I.E. Just because other factors influence the impact of gendered oppression does not change the fact it is in the first instance oppression of people as 'women' -the alternative is to argue that women are not oppressed, compartmentalising female oppression into racial or class categories which is a fallacious approach that effectively denies that this oppression has a gendered nature - i.e. the victims of it are women, but that the impact is then mitigated or altered by other factors.

Also Dooga, Oppression /=/ Discrimination and vice versa.

I also have to say that there is on this forum, in terms of its relevance to the revolutionary left, a very disproportionate level of discussion of 'Male Oppression' and other ideas of the 'Men's Liberation' movement compared to say sexism or feminism.

[synthesis]

blah, blah, blah

You miss the point. In exclusively concentrating on the ways in which women are oppressed by men the original author completely ignores the ways in which people are oppressed by gender roles as a whole.

So if you're going to tell me that the capitalist system does not also oppress men in unique ways, my only response would to pinch you on the arm and tell you that you're dreaming.

"Men's liberation"? Men don't need to be liberated, people do.


This is funny given the only person to advocate 'shallow bourgeois identity politics' so far has been you. How else can we describe the politics of the 'Men's Liberation' movement (the kind of people who echo your feelings of male persecution)? It is the sole domain of middle class navel gazers. You've totally jettisoned any kind of class analysis in your post - 'Why are so many men in jail? COZ THE SYSTEM IS AGAINST MEN DAMMIT!' It's shallow middle class identity politics of the worst (read: most reactionary) kind.Again, I would expect this sort of kneejerk response from someone who is obviously incapable of basic reading comprehension. Women are obviously oppressed in unique ways, but so are men. Are you going to tell me that the Vietnam draft was not vastly more destructive to American men than it was to American women? You'd have to be fucking crazy.

[Black Dagger]

Sorry mate, but i can't reply to your post if you're going to refuse to engage anything i've said, quoting my post as 'blah blah blah' - what you've typed is a non-reply/evasion.

You made an argument in favour of the idea of 'male oppression' - even citing examples. I attempted in my post to refute this idea - either respond to that criticism or leave the discussion. You can't just pretend like your first post didn't happen.

I mean, considering you've repeating this clap-trap about 'male oppression' in your second post (without dedicating a word of your post to addressing the refutation of your idea) this is basically trolling.

[synthesis]

Sorry mate, but i can't reply to your post if you're going to refuse to engage anything i've said, quoting my post as 'blah blah blah' - what you've typed is a non-reply/evasion.

It was a "non-reply" because your entire post consisted of setting up a massive strawman, which you then proceeded to valiantly hack into tiny little giblets of meaninglessness.

Did you miss the part where I said "women are oppressed in unique ways"? I agree with you that "men's liberation," as well as accusations of "reverse racism" and so on, tend to carry reactionary overtones which are simply unacceptable in a modern socialist movement.

I simply disagreed with the author's thesis that only women fit the definition of "x being oppressed as x." It is absurd. If she had said "homosexuals are oppressed as homosexuals" I would have had no objection - there is no unique way in which heterosexual people are oppressed by the system.

But the simple historical existence of the military draft proves her thesis wrong. That's probably all I'm going to say here - you seem to have more of an interest in venting your frustration with "men's liberation," something I don't agree with, than actually reading what I have to say.

[Black Dagger]

Er... what exactly is a 'strawman' about my direct reply to your assertion?

You tried to make the case for the 'oppression of men', citing:


Whoever made that argument has obviously never lived in a community where men are targeted by the police for being "gangsters" or "drug dealers," where men are overwhelmingly the ones rotting away in jail for decades at a stretch.


I would also argue that war can "oppress men as men", and until recently targeted them exclusively for dehumanization and so on.

I replied to this assertion, arguing that these were not - as you had suggested - examples of men being 'oppressed as men'.

Please expose this strawman of mine, or reply to my post. Either way you have to justify your argument that the oppression of men as men exists, and provide examples (other than the ones i've already responded to).


Did you miss the part where I said "women are oppressed in unique ways"? I agree with you that "men's liberation," as well as accusations of "reverse racism" and so on, tend to carry reactionary overtones which are simply unacceptable in a modern socialist movement.


No i did not miss that, but it's not a controversial point so i don't/did not see the utility in addressing it (i agree with it after all, having already made the same point myself in this thread).

On the other hand i did also see and respond to your initial comment that men are oppressed as men - i challenged that - but apparently you don't see my response as of a high enough standard to warrant your reply :unsure:


I simply disagreed with the author's thesis that only women fit the definition of "x being oppressed as x."

I think you may have the thesis twisted, this is just my feeling though as i have not read the text either.

I assumed the author (and the topic poster by quoting this passage) was making an attack on the idea of 'male oppression' (not to be confused with oppression of individual men) rather than making some kind of exceptionalist argument for female oppression.

I.E. She was merely making the case that although men experience oppression it is usually not because of their sex but another factor, where as women in a patriarchal society are subject to oppression on the basis of their sex - as well as the other factors listed.



But the simple historical existence of the military draft proves her thesis wrong. That's probably all I'm going to say here - you seem to have more of an interest in venting your frustration with "men's liberation," something I don't agree with, than actually reading what I have to say.


The reason why i mentioned the Male Liberation movement is because you have articulated and supported the very core thesis of their movement - men being oppressed as men:


Whoever made that argument has obviously never lived in a community where men are targeted by the police for being "gangsters" or "drug dealers," where men are overwhelmingly the ones rotting away in jail for decades at a stretch.


I would also argue that war can "oppress men as men", and until recently targeted them exclusively for dehumanization and so on.

You have now just restated this with your reference to the draft. As i said before none of these examples are cases of 'male oppression' and i have explained why. I am intensely 'interested' in resisting male chauvinism, and the anti-feminism (and ultimately sexism) that lies behind 'male liberationist' ideas or concepts (like 'male opppression'). I'm not suggesting you are an adherent to the views of this movement, merely that your attempt to address this author from the point of view of 'male oppression' is deeply flawed (you also seem to be conflating negative things that happen to men with gendered oppression, structural, cultural or social laws/attitudes which subordinate men because they are men). In the case of the draft for example, ignoring the reasons why it was only for men I.E. this is a byproduct of patriarchal views of women and the military itself, not an effort to oppress men.

Like you don't seem to understand what the author is saying at all - it's not that men are not oppressed, or discriminated against it's about the nature of this oppression and how it differents from the gendered oppression of women in a patriarchal society - it's not the same, and it cannot be - that is her point.

[Lynx]

I mean honestly? The idea that men are oppressed as men (on that basis) means that to some extent there is conscious or deliberate anti-male or 'reverse sexism' at play - on the individual level, or that this sentiment is effectively practiced on the level of ideology, engrained into the very institutions of the state - the judiciary etc. Institutions that historically speaking were created and are dominated by men (and sexism).
As long as men are expected to conform to male gender role models, then men are being oppressed because they are men, or male.

I also have to say that there is on this forum, in terms of its relevance to the revolutionary left, a very disproportionate level of discussion of 'Male Oppression' and other ideas of the 'Men's Liberation' movement compared to say sexism or feminism.
By that measure I could say there is a disproportionate level of discussion regarding women's oppression on a forum dedicated to fighting oppression of the working class. It's not as if every capitalist were sexist.
I don't see the benefit in drawing a distinction as described in the opening quote. I prefer a case by case approach. The more forms of oppression and discrimination I can study and later detect, the better.
That being said, lets wait for the full essay before making up our minds - again.

[Black Dagger]

As long as men are expected to conform to male gender role models, then men are being oppressed because they are men, or male.Whilst i agree that gender is oppressive, using gender roles as an argument for male oppression is a bit dubious considering that it is 'gender roles' that place women subordinate to men, to cook and clean up after him - his role is to have a job and money, and hers is to depend on him for everything. This paraodoxical notion that men are oppressed by their own role as oppressors is evident in Bourdieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordieu) for example (forgive the text references):

1st sentence p. 49:
'If women,, subjected to a labour of socialization which tends to diminish and deny them, learn the negative virtues of self-denial, resignation and silence, men are also prisoners, and insidiously victims, of the dominant representation. Like the dispositions toward submission, those which underlie the pursuit and exercise of domination are not inscribed in nature, and they have to be learned through a long labour of socialization,....'

p. 50 'Male privilege is also a trap, and it has its negative side in the permanent tension and contention, sometimes verging on the absurd, imposed on every man by the duty to assert his manliness in all circumstances....Manliness, [p. 51] understood as sexual or social reproductive capacity, but also as the capacity to fight and to exercise violence (especially in acts of revenge), is first and foremost a duty.

I agree with you and with Bordieu in the sense that – yes- masculinity and the way it is socially and culturally constituted is restrictive – men are socialized into asserting violence and manliness but is that oppression? Who is the oppressor? Other men? Certainly in the case of queer guys conceptions of masculinity and the corresponding inferiority of perceived ‘femininity’ does lead to very real oppression – homophobia and sexism are arguably two sides of the same coin – and so ‘manliness’ as it is constructed is in many ways explicitly homophobic – or at least homophobia or the ‘fear of the feminie’ that Bourdieu talks about is used in male socialization as a whip to keep the men behaving like men. But does this make particularly, hetero guys – oppressed as men?

You say that just as women are expected to fill different roles in society men are too, but what are these? Men are the ones that are expected to provide for the family, are expected to protect the family, be the head of the family. The role that burdens men is complete authority - over the family and over women. The role of women is to be subordinate to men, sure, masculinity as it is popularly conceived is a fucked up construct... it has given us the phenomenon of 'male liberation' in the first place - a support group for men who want to 'rediscover their emotions' etc. But is that the same as oppression? It’s certainly nothing at all like the oppression of women and exists paradoxically alongside the social domination of women by men.


By that measure I could say there is a disproportionate level of discussion regarding women's oppression on a forum dedicated to fighting oppression of the working class

Hmmm... you realise the working class is like 50% women right? In reality, the proportion is probably much higher - in global terms women make up the vast majority of the lowest paid workers on the planet.



It's not as if every capitalist were sexist.I'm sorry, what?

No one said 'every capitalist is sexist' - besides the real problem is not individuals but structures - the oppression of women is as much a structural issue as it is a one of individual evils.



I don't see the benefit in drawing a distinction as described in the opening quote. I prefer a case by case approach. The more forms of oppression and discrimination I can study and later detect, the better.
That being said, lets wait for the full essay before making up our minds - again.Not sure what this bit means.

[Hiero]

No Manic i think you're wrong. The oppression of women predates capitalism, certainly like all things in this day the oppression of women is shaped and informed by the dynamics of class and class society (this means that not all women are oppressed on the same basis, as you've suggested). But it is wrong to argue that the abolition of class/capitalism is the same (in effect) as the liberation of women or the end of sexism as a social attitude or practice. This is why we are advocates of Social Revolution and not merely the economic reorganisation of society.

In the Marxist analysis these social attitudes and practices are based on the economic base. I think it is in German Ideology that Marx and Engels, and Engels in The Origin of the Family, put gender down to the division of labour and the rights of property.

The issue of gender is then an issue of labour, whether unpaid such as house wife labour or other, and this issue of labour is only resolved in a real economic re-organisation of society accompained with cultural revolution that aims at removing thoose social practices and attitudes that are chauvinist.

It has often been said in identity politics that Marxism had no footing in gender issue, when infact when Marx and Engels are read outside the readings of other Marxists who were interested primarily in working men's issues we find a very radical non-essentialist ideaology that deals with the roots of oppression of woman and the roots of gender, and that is economical. TC is a perfect example of someone who has read Marx and Engels and taken note of this insight into gender oppression.

Where woman are oppressed differently over the world it is an issue of economic development in regards to woman's standings in relations of production (where they enter labour aristocratic relations in the first world, or completly excluding from paid labour in productive labour and forced into complete sevitude in the family etc) and the increases in productive forces and other technology.

In socialist countries that increased proleteriat standings yet the oppression of woman remand is not a counter arguement. Rather where this happens it is a source of Marxist criticism against thoose socialist leaders.

[manic expression]

No Manic i think you're wrong. The oppression of women predates capitalism, certainly like all things in this day the oppression of women is shaped and informed by the dynamics of class and class society (this means that not all women are oppressed on the same basis, as you've suggested). But it is wrong to argue that the abolition of class/capitalism is the same (in effect) as the liberation of women or the end of sexism as a social attitude or practice. This is why we are advocates of Social Revolution and not merely the economic reorganisation of society.

Then "you" are being redundant. The abolition of the exploitation of the working class will, as a matter of course, revolutionize the relationship between male and female, and most importantly it will destroy the vast majority of forms of sexism.

I repeat, all forms of oppression of women are inherently tied to class society. In a classless society, there can be no oppression of women. The author mentioned above, it seems (from what little we can read), is denying this by saying women are oppressed merely because they are women.


It depends on the context, in most cases gendered oppression occurs along other lines as well- most frequently class and race. But that does not change the effect (gendered oppression), it simply requires a more nuanced analysis. Take reproductive rights for example, the prohibition of abortion is an example of the oppression of women - obviously the effects of this are the same for all in the first instance - no woman can legally access abortion - but from a more nuanced materialist approach we can see that this will not impact upon women equally. Bourgeois women are more likely to be able to find (largely through their wealth) access to a safe alternative (abortion in another state/country/by doctor) - or at least their access is necessarily better. Working class women necessarily have fewer options, or a more limited access - but neither woman has reproductive freedom (both are subject to prosecution).Yes, I agree with this. In addition to what you mentioned, wealthy girls and women are far more educated when it comes to sexual protection, birth control, etc.


I.E. Just because other factors influence the impact of gendered oppression does not change the fact it is in the first instance oppression of people as 'women' -the alternative is to argue that women are not oppressed, compartmentalising female oppression into racial or class categories which is a fallacious approach that effectively denies that this oppression has a gendered nature - i.e. the victims of it are women, but that the impact is then mitigated or altered by other factors.What is being lost here is that the victims are working-class women more than anyone else. The same argument you made against the position that there is exclusive oppression of men (incarceration rates, police brutality, etc.) comes into play here. It is tied fully to class, for bourgeois women are far less the victims than their working-class "sisters" (:rolleyes:). If you want to say this is an example of pan-female oppression, then by the very same token I can say that the majority of police brutality and incarceration of minorities is a form of pan-male oppression. Needless to say, both are incredibly short-sighted.


I also have to say that there is on this forum, in terms of its relevance to the revolutionary left, a very disproportionate level of discussion of 'Male Oppression' and other ideas of the 'Men's Liberation' movement compared to say sexism or feminism.What do you mean? Class oppression affects women and men; revolution does the same in different ways. It's not about gender.

[Lynx]

Whilst i agree that gender is oppressive, using gender roles as an argument for male oppression is a bit dubious considering that it is 'gender roles' that place women subordinate to men, to cook and clean up after him - his role is to have a job and money, and hers is to depend on him for everything. This paradoxical notion that men are oppressed by their own role as oppressors is evident in Bourdieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordieu) for example (forgive the text references):

1st sentence p. 49:
'If women,, subjected to a labour of socialization which tends to diminish and deny them, learn the negative virtues of self-denial, resignation and silence, men are also prisoners, and insidiously victims, of the dominant representation. Like the dispositions toward submission, those which underlie the pursuit and exercise of domination are not inscribed in nature, and they have to be learned through a long labour of socialization,....'

p. 50 'Male privilege is also a trap, and it has its negative side in the permanent tension and contention, sometimes verging on the absurd, imposed on every man by the duty to assert his manliness in all circumstances....Manliness, [p. 51] understood as sexual or social reproductive capacity, but also as the capacity to fight and to exercise violence (especially in acts of revenge), is first and foremost a duty.
I'm not sure what Bourdieu is getting at. To demean women is to demean the relationship between men and women. Most men will be brainwashed into believing this is the natural order of things, and those men who think differently will be pressured to conform. If a man wishes to treat his female partner as an equal, is he free to do so? Is he free to do so in public?

I agree with you and with Bordieu in the sense that – yes- masculinity and the way it is socially and culturally constituted is restrictive – men are socialized into asserting violence and manliness but is that oppression?
Depends to what extent they accept their role in society.

Who is the oppressor? Other men?
In theory, society; in practice, his peers.

Certainly in the case of queer guys conceptions of masculinity and the corresponding inferiority of perceived ‘femininity’ does lead to very real oppression – homophobia and sexism are arguably two sides of the same coin – and so ‘manliness’ as it is constructed is in many ways explicitly homophobic – or at least homophobia or the ‘fear of the feminie’ that Bourdieu talks about is used in male socialization as a whip to keep the men behaving like men. But does this make particularly, hetero guys – oppressed as men?
On what basis are gay men discriminated against? Exploring the rationales might reveal the form of oppression.

You say that just as women are expected to fill different roles in society men are too, but what are these? Men are the ones that are expected to provide for the family, are expected to protect the family, be the head of the family. The role that burdens men is complete authority - over the family and over women. The role of women is to be subordinate to men, sure, masculinity as it is popularly conceived is a fucked up construct... it has given us the phenomenon of 'male liberation' in the first place - a support group for men who want to 'rediscover their emotions' etc. But is that the same as oppression? It’s certainly nothing at all like the oppression of women and exists paradoxically alongside the social domination of women by men.
The Male Rights Movement has a list of grievances. If you wish to know which are gender discrimination, which are oppression, etc, you'll have to examine them. Part of the task is to uncover alternate justifications.

Hmmm... you realise the working class is like 50% women right? In reality, the proportion is probably much higher - in global terms women make up the vast majority of the lowest paid workers on the planet.
Then we should see more discussion examining the oppression that female workers specifically face. Or male workers.

I'm sorry, what?

No one said 'every capitalist is sexist' - besides the real problem is not individuals but structures - the oppression of women is as much a structural issue as it is a one of individual evils.
No disagreement then. Manic expression explains this better than I can.

Not sure what this bit means.
Closer examination of grievances and a reference to DesertShark who wrote about finding the essay.

[MilitantAnarchist]

As ive said before, no matter what the case, discrimination is discrimination... i think women have obviously had the 'harder' times, if you no what i meen.... but for instance i went for a job interview in a office with a small call centre.... and the staff were 100% female aged 18 - 30 except for the bosses which were all male 35+... obviously i didnt get the job cos i wasnt a 'fuckable' young lady.... that is sexist towards me (sort of) but it is towards women too... so it is strange......... BUT i had a job about a year ago and the boss wouldnt employ women because (in his words) 'all they do is get pregant and then you gotta pay maternatity leave'...... which is fucked up too.... so its all fucked up, but there ya go....
its another case of 'behead the boss' cos its the rulers in every warp of life that oppresses us, in my oppinion whatever its worth :rolleyes:

[DesertShark]

From the essay "Oppression," which is broken into 5 parts, the following contains the opening and the entire 1st section (pages 1-7) (again, all emphasis is the author's):


It is a fundamental claim of feminism that women are oppressed. The word "oppression" is a strong word. It repels ant attracts. It is dangerous and dangerously fashionable and endangered. It is much misused, and sometimes not innocently.

The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the claim that men are oppressed too. We hear that oppressing is oppressive to those who oppress as well as those they oppress. Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised inability to cry. It is tough, we are told, to be masculine. When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word "oppression" is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. We are accused of insensitivity; even of bigotry. For women, such accusation is particularly intimidating, since sensitivity is one of the few virtues that has been assigned to us. If we are found insensitive, we may fear we have no redeeming traits at all and perhaps are not real women. Thus are we silenced before we begin: the name of our situation drained of meaning and our guilt mechanisms tripped.

But this is nonsense. Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer.

We need to think clearly about oppression, and there is much that mitigates against this. I do not want to undertake to prove that women are oppressed (or that men are not), but I want to make clear what is being said when I say it. We need this word, this concept, and we need it to be sharp and sure.


I

The root of the word "oppression" is the element "press." The press of the crowd; pressed into military service; to press a pair of pants; printing press; press the button. Presses are used to mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them by squeezing out the gases or liquids in them. Something pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing’s motion or mobility. Mold. Immobilize. Reduce.

The mundane experience of the oppressed provides another clue. One of the most characteristic and ubiquitous features of the world as experienced by oppressed people is the double bind – situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation. For example, it is often a requirement upon oppressed people that we smile and be cheerful. If we comply, we signal our docility and our acquiescence in our situation. We need not, then, be taken note of. We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure. On the other hand, anything but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous. This means, at the least, that we may be found "difficult" or unpleasant to work with, which is enough to cost one one’s livelihood; at worst, being seen as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous has been known to result in rape, arrest, beating, and murder. One can only choose to risk one’s preferred form and rate of annihilation.

Another example: It is common in the United States that women, especially younger women, are in a bind where neither sexual activity nor sexual inactivity is all right. If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore. The "punishment" comes in the form of criticism, snide and embarrassing remarks, being treated as an easy lay by men, scorn from her more restrained female friends. She may have to lie to hide her behavior from her parents. She must juggle the risks of unwanted pregnancy and dangerous contraceptives. On the other hand, if she refrains from heterosexual activity, she is fairly constantly harassed by men who try to persuade her into it and pressure her into it and pressure her to "relax" and "let her hair down"; she is threatened with labels like "frigid," "uptight," "man-hater," "*****," and "cocktease." The same parents who would be disapproving of her sexual activity may be worried by her inactivity because it suggests she is not or will not be popular, or is not sexually normal. She may be charged with lesbianism. If a woman is raped, then if she has been heterosexually active she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since her activity is presumed to show that she likes sex), and if she has not been heterosexually active, she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since she is supposedly "repressed and frustrated"). Both heterosexual activity and heterosexual nonactivity are likely to be taken as proof that you wanted to be raped, and hence, of course, weren’t really raped at all. You can’t win. You are caught in a bind, caught between systematically related pressures.

Women are caught like this, too, by networks of forces and barriers that expose one to penalty, loss or contempt whether one works outside the home or not, is on welfare or not, bears children or not, raises children or not, marries or not, stays married or not, is heterosexual, lesbian, both or neither. Economic necessity; confinement to racial and/or sexual job ghettos; sexual harassment; sex discrimination; pressures of competing expectations and judgments about women, wives and mothers (in the society at large, in racial and ethnic subcultures and in one’s own mind); dependence (full or partial) on husbands, parents or the state; commitment to political ideas; loyalties to racial or ethnic or other "minority" groups; the demands of the self-respect and responsibilities to others. Each of these factors exists in complex tension with every other, penalizing or prohibiting all of the apparently available options. And nipping at one’s heels, always, is the endless pack of little things. If one dresses one way, one is subject to the assumption that one is advertising one’s sexual availability; if one dresses another way, one appears to "not care about oneself" or to be "unfeminine." If one uses "strong language," one invites categorization as a "lady" – one too delicately constituted to cope with robust speech or the realities to which it presumably refers.

The experience of oppressed people is that the living of one’s life is confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction. It is the experience of being caged in: all avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped.

Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would gave trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.

It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced.

The arresting of vision at a microscopic level yields such common confusion as that about the male door-opening ritual. This ritual, which is remarkably widespread across classes and races, puzzles many people, some of whom do and some of whom do not find it offensive. Look at the scene of the two people approaching a door. The male steps slightly ahead and opens the door. The male holds the door open while the female glides through. Then the male goes through. The door closes after them. "Now how," one innocently asks, "can those crazy womenslibbers say that is oppressive? The guy removed a barrier to the lady’s smooth and unruffled progress." But each repetition of this ritual has a place in a pattern, in fact in several patterns. One has to shift the level of one’s perception in order to see the whole picture.

The door-opening pretends to be a helpful service, but the helpfulness is false. This can be seen by noting that it will be done whether or not it makes any practical sense. Infirm men and men burdened with packages will open doors for able-bodied women who are free of physical burdens. Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first. The act is not determined by convenience or grace. Furthermore, these very numerous acts of unneeded or even noisome "help" occur in counter-point to a pattern of men not being helpful in many practical ways in which women might welcome help. What women experience is a world in which gallant princes charming commonly make a fuss about being helpful and providing small services when help and services are of little or no use, but in which there are rarely ingenious and adroit princes at hand when substantial assistance is really wanted either in mundane affairs or in situations of threat, assault or terror. There is no help with the (his) laundry; no help typing a report at 4:00 a.m.; no help in mediating disputes among relatives or children. There is nothing but advice that women should stay indoors after dark, be chaperoned by a man, or when it comes down to it, "lie back and enjoy it."

The gallant gestures have no practical meaning. Their meaning is symbolic. The door-opening and similar services provided are services which really are needed by people who are for one reason or another incapacitated – unwell, burdened with parcels, etc. So the message is that women are incapable. The detachment of the acts from the concrete realities of what women need and do not need is a vehicle for the message that women’s actual needs and interests are unimportant or irrelevant. Finally, these gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women, who are in most respects the servants and caretakers of men. The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women.

One cannot see the meanings of these rituals if one’s focus is riveted upon the individual event in all its particularity, including the particularity of the individual man’s present conscious intentions and motives and the individual woman’s conscious perception of the event in the moment. It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic view and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macroscopically. At any rate, whether it is deliberate or not, people can and do fail to see the oppression of women because they fail to see macroscopically and hence fail to see the various elements of the situation as systematically related in larger schemes.

As the cageness of the birdcage is a macroscopic phenomenon, the oppressiveness of the situations in which women live our various and different lives is a macroscopic phenomenon. Neither can be seen from a microscopic perspective. But when you look macroscopically you can see it – a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live.

[DesertShark]

You miss the point. In exclusively concentrating on the ways in which women are oppressed by men the original author completely ignores the ways in which people are oppressed by gender roles as a whole.

So if you're going to tell me that the capitalist system does not also oppress men in unique ways, my only response would to pinch you on the arm and tell you that you're dreaming.
I don't believe the claim was made that women are oppressed by men. The claim was that women are oppressed as women. This has nothing to do with unique ways that may or may not exist in which "men are oppressed as men". Capitalism does not oppress men as men, it oppresses ANYONE in a lower economic class as a part of that class (regardless of their sex, gender, race, etc.). I personally cannot think of examples where men are oppressed because they are men. Even having to throw in anything about economic standing, social significance, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. proves that men are not oppressed as men, but for being people in an identifiable group.

[manic expression]

The gallant gestures have no practical meaning. Their meaning is symbolic. The door-opening and similar services provided are services which really are needed by people who are for one reason or another incapacitated – unwell, burdened with parcels, etc. So the message is that women are incapable. The detachment of the acts from the concrete realities of what women need and do not need is a vehicle for the message that women’s actual needs and interests are unimportant or irrelevant. Finally, these gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women, who are in most respects the servants and caretakers of men. The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women.

Yep, looks like I've been found out. Every time I open a hold open a door for a female, I'm just expressing my inbred contempt for their kind. And if it weren't for those meddling feminists, I would've gotten away with it, too! :rolleyes::lol:

Peggy McIntosh must be destroyed.

[DesertShark]

I don't see the benefit in drawing a distinction as described in the opening quote. I prefer a case by case approach. The more forms of oppression and discrimination I can study and later detect, the better.

Not sure what this bit means.

Closer examination of grievances and a reference to DesertShark who wrote about finding the essay.

You should read the section of the essay I posted. As pointed out by the author, only examining individual cases as separate instances ignores the entire framework under which the oppression occurs. While the incidents may appear separate, they are in fact not. She talks about this in reference to 'bird cages.'

It is important to recognize that women are oppressed as women because that's the only way it can be addressed, dealt with, and overcome. Without this recognition, we cannot hope to create a society where all peoples are free and equal. Eliminating capitalism will not solve the problem of women's oppression, it might lessen the effects of it, but for it (women's oppression) to be gone completely there needs to be an understanding of its existence by people on both sides (ie both men and women). The feeling that a lot of men get where they have the knee jerk reaction that they too are oppressed, is usually based in the fear of losing their on top position in social and personal environments. I would imagine that losing that position (or even the thought of losing it) would be difficult to handle, but if you can't acknowledge the position you are in then there is no hope for that to change once capitalism is eliminated.

[DesertShark]

Yep, looks like I've been found out. Every time I open a hold open a door for a female, I'm just expressing my inbred contempt for their kind. And if it weren't for those meddling feminists, I would've gotten away with it, too! :rolleyes::lol:

Peggy McIntosh must be destroyed.
I think she miss what she getting at. If you take the context of that paragraph:

The arresting of vision at a microscopic level yields such common confusion as that about the male door-opening ritual. This ritual, which is remarkably widespread across classes and races, puzzles many people, some of whom do and some of whom do not find it offensive. Look at the scene of the two people approaching a door. The male steps slightly ahead and opens the door. The male holds the door open while the female glides through. Then the male goes through. The door closes after them. "Now how," one innocently asks, "can those crazy womenslibbers say that is oppressive? The guy removed a barrier to the lady’s smooth and unruffled progress." But each repetition of this ritual has a place in a pattern, in fact in several patterns. One has to shift the level of one’s perception in order to see the whole picture.

The door-opening pretends to be a helpful service, but the helpfulness is false. This can be seen by noting that it will be done whether or not it makes any practical sense. Infirm men and men burdened with packages will open doors for able-bodied women who are free of physical burdens. Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first. The act is not determined by convenience or grace. Furthermore, these very numerous acts of unneeded or even noisome "help" occur in counter-point to a pattern of men not being helpful in many practical ways in which women might welcome help. What women experience is a world in which gallant princes charming commonly make a fuss about being helpful and providing small services when help and services are of little or no use, but in which there are rarely ingenious and adroit princes at hand when substantial assistance is really wanted either in mundane affairs or in situations of threat, assault or terror.She's not talking about people who hold the door open for others, she's talking about people who go out of their way or inconvenience themselves to hold the door open for a woman who does not in actuality need the door held open (note that she talked about people hurrying to get to the door 1st to open it, or those who have their arms full holding the door open for those who are empty handed).

Who's Peggy McIntosh?

[manic expression]

I think she miss what she getting at. If you take the context of that paragraph:

She's not talking about people who hold the door open for others, she's talking about people who go out of their way or inconvenience themselves to hold the door open for a woman who does not in actuality need the door held open (note that she talked about people hurrying to get to the door 1st to open it, or those who have their arms full holding the door open for those who are empty handed).

I go out of my way to hold doors open for women who don't actually need the door held open for them, even if I'm holding something. It's one of the last acceptable ways to be nice to a stranger in everyday life, and I think it shows respect for women.

At any rate, the argument is simply silly, if not insulting. To analyze it in depth would be to give it more credit than it deserves IMO.


Who's Peggy McIntosh?

One of the academic standard-bearers of American identity politics; she's been doing her very best to ruin the left for years.

[Invariance]

Who's Peggy McIntosh?

You can read an article by Peggy McIntosh here (http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf).


Originally written by Peggy McIntosh
Through work to bring materials from women's studies into the rest of the curriculum, I have often noticed men's unwillingness to grant that they are overprivileged, even though they may grant that women are disadvantaged. They may say they will work to women's statues, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's. Denials that amount to taboos surround the subject of advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages. These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended.

For this reason, the word "privilege" now seems to me misleading. We usually think of privilege as being a favored state, whether earned or conferred by birth or luck. Yet some of the conditions I have described here work systematically to over empower certain groups. Such privilege simply confers dominance because of one's race or sex.

Disapproving of the system won't be enough to change them. I was taught to think that racism could end if white individuals changed their attitude. But a "white" skin in the United States opens many doors for whites whether or not we approve of the way dominance has been conferred on us. Individual acts can palliate but cannot end, these problems.

To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these subject taboo. Most talk by whites about equal opportunity seems to me now to be about equal opportunity to try to get into a position of dominance while denying that systems of dominance exist.

It seems to me that obliviousness about white advantage, like obliviousness about male advantage, is kept strongly inculturated in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. Keeping most people unaware that freedom of confident action is there for just a small number of people props up those in power and serves to keep power in the hands of the same groups that have most of it already.Hardly 'ruining' the 'left.'

[Lynx]

You should read the section of the essay I posted. As pointed out by the author, only examining individual cases as separate instances ignores the entire framework under which the oppression occurs. While the incidents may appear separate, they are in fact not. She talks about this in reference to 'bird cages.'
She examines the larger framework by looking at a specific type of incident. I don't see how we can avoid referring to specific incidents, especially if they are repeated, as with the example of opening doors for women. (I should have emphasized 'pattern' instead of 'case by case'.)

It is important to recognize that women are oppressed as women because that's the only way it can be addressed, dealt with, and overcome. Without this recognition, we cannot hope to create a society where all peoples are free and equal. Eliminating capitalism will not solve the problem of women's oppression, it might lessen the effects of it, but for it (women's oppression) to be gone completely there needs to be an understanding of its existence by people on both sides (ie both men and women). The feeling that a lot of men get where they have the knee jerk reaction that they too are oppressed, is usually based in the fear of losing their on top position in social and personal environments. I would imagine that losing that position (or even the thought of losing it) would be difficult to handle, but if you can't acknowledge the position you are in then there is no hope for that to change once capitalism is eliminated.
It is important to recognize that women are oppressed as women. I'm not denying the significance of discrimination or sexism. The distinction I'm referring to was made by the author and it concerns the proper use of the word 'oppression'. It was prompted by the appropriation of the same word by various authors or advocates of the "Men's Rights Movement". I don't see the benefit of this 'back and forth' between camps. It's a reaction to the use of a word. On another level, it's a struggle about who gets to occupy which space, as if that 'space' is limited or will become muddled if it gets crowded.

[manic expression]

You can read an article by Peggy McIntosh here (http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf).

Hardly 'ruining' the 'left.'

With respect, comrade, I've found that identity politics has diverted attention and energy away from a working-class perspective and toward both self-flagellation and self-victimization on the part of "activists". McIntosh asserts that white people perpetrate racism just by living their everyday lives. In addition, McIntosh holds that race and gender are decisive factors in American society, class is just one more form of oppression, not the root of oppression (Marxists, however, know better).

Beyond that, her list makes no sense. Just read the first item. Has she ever been to an American city in her life? Such a list might make sense in a picturesque (petty-bourgeois) college town, but as soon as you go to where blacks and latinos actually live in large numbers (and not surprisingly, most of them live in neighborhoods which are predominately black/latino, which is precisely the problem), the whole premise breaks down real fast.

Just as McIntosh accuses all white ethnicities of consciously or unconsciously oppressing non-whites because they're not on guilt trips, "Oppression" accuses all men of showing contempt for women because they hold doors open for them (and that's the one example I took out of that, I'm sure I could find something equally as ridiculous). It's identity politics, and in my opinion it's the politics of guilt and finger-pointing, it's insulting and it's drawn potential revolutionaries away from revolutionary politics and toward futility.

[Invariance]

Your post was well considered.


With respect, comrade, I've found that identity politics has diverted attention and energy away from a working-class perspective and toward both self-flagellation and self-victimization on the part of "activists". Firstly, by ‘identity politics’ I assume you’re talking about politics which entirely focus on “non-class” based oppression (even though we would probably agree that these things are class issues). I don’t think such groups are necessarily wrong – I just think they don’t hold a class perspective. But that doesn’t mean that they are ruining the left!

Perhaps in your experience those movements have tended towards self-flagellation. I can sympathize with that – having worked with a group which was sympathetic to Indigenous rights and Indigenous land rights. But, I think in that example, I do recognize that I, as a white person, live in a society which was built on the genocide of another, and that I have so many more advantages than non-white people do. It’s not that I am ‘self-flagellating’, it’s that I am recognizing my, and other’s positions, in society for what it’s worth.

Actually, I think the manner in which these things can be stated can be the most off putting, and which most radicals dislike, myself included. I think most would agree that since racism does exist in society, which disadvantages certain groups, that therefore other groups are comparatively privileged/advantaged versus the former. People just don’t like to hear that – they like to think that we’re all ‘born equal’ when we’re not. I’d just rather tell the truth about it.

I think the idea that something ‘diverts attention away from a working class-perspective’ is a good point to rise. But plenty of things divert away from a working class perspective, or indeed any radical perspective. I would say that groups which talk about structural inequality would advocate radical change to the extent of changing that structure - that may well open them up to an anti-capitalist point of view.


McIntosh asserts that white people perpetrate racism just by living their everyday lives. I’m unfamiliar with her entire views, but it seems to me she is saying that we live in a society where there are a complex array of inter-related class and social relations which therefore advantage some and disadvantage others, and that even if our intentions are good, we can’t simply ‘escape that.’ I don’t see what is necessarily ‘wrong’ with pointing out that a white man has far many advantages at life than a black woman. We all, to an extent, perpetrate racism because we are born in racist societies where we continue that. Of course, I would differentiate a die-hard Nazi from someone who, for example, has ignorant stereotypes of Indians, for example. But I still consider it racism; just my approach would be totally different.


In addition, McIntosh holds that race and gender are decisive factors in American society, class is just one more form of oppression, not the root of oppression (Marxists, however, know better). I would agree that there are class reasons why woman have been historically treated as property and later as essentially as domestic servants (which continues today). I don’t see what the huge problem is when you say ‘they’re oppressed as woman’ versus ‘they are oppressed as woman because of the interests of the capitalist class.’ Sure, I’d prefer the later, because it shows the historical, class and economic root of it all, but the former is just a convenient "short-cut." I’d also say that male privilege is strongest amongst married men; I think there are a lot of subtleties in this area – ‘woman’ as an ‘entire group’ is necessarily split up into opposing classes. I don’t think the Marxist analysis should be abandoned, but nor should it ignore the many dynamics in society which are certainly class related.


Just as McIntosh accuses all white ethnicities of consciously or unconsciously oppressing non-whites because they're not on guilt trips, "Oppression" accuses all men of showing contempt for women because they hold doors open for them (and that's the one example I took out of that, I'm sure I could find something equally as ridiculous). Personally, I think the matter of opening and closing doors is really a total non-issue in the scheme of real disadvantage woman face and comes from a liberal perspective. And I’m sure that no man consciously (or even subconsciously?) hold contempt for woman by holding a door open for her, but I’m not sure if anyone (at least here) has stated that. I find most ‘rants’ against those ‘crazy feminists’ ‘attacking men’ for opening doors is just a straw-man propped up by anti-feminists to dismiss their views in full without actually addressing, what I consider, the relevant issues they raise.

[Lynx]

It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced.

The arresting of vision at a microscopic level yields such common confusion as that about the male door-opening ritual. This ritual, which is remarkably widespread across classes and races, puzzles many people, some of whom do and some of whom do not find it offensive. Look at the scene of the two people approaching a door. The male steps slightly ahead and opens the door. The male holds the door open while the female glides through. Then the male goes through. The door closes after them. "Now how," one innocently asks, "can those crazy womenslibbers say that is oppressive? The guy removed a barrier to the lady’s smooth and unruffled progress." But each repetition of this ritual has a place in a pattern, in fact in several patterns. One has to shift the level of one’s perception in order to see the whole picture.
In a birdcage, there is little disagreement on the function of the cage, or of the wire that makes up its framework. There are no alternative explanations for its existence. Individual perspectives about whether bird cages are oppressive do not change the reality of its function. It doesn't matter what the owner of the cage believes, or what the bird believes - the original argument is strong enough, or factual enough, to override individual opinion or perspective.
I don't believe this is the case with the male door-opening ritual.

[YoungScouseRed]

As a young gay male, i often come across ALOT of discrimination..... I cannot escape it, Girls my age, Boys my age, Older males and Females, Teachers and Parents....the list goes on.....

:( x

[manic expression]

Firstly, by ‘identity politics’ I assume you’re talking about politics which entirely focus on “non-class” based oppression (even though we would probably agree that these things are class issues). I don’t think such groups are necessarily wrong – I just think they don’t hold a class perspective. But that doesn’t mean that they are ruining the left!

Understood. However, when the focus on "privilege" as a problem in and of itself (not as something stemming directly from capitalist oppression), and when this focus is used to justify liberal objectives (Obama is awesome cause he defies white privilege!), it can tip-toe the line between anti-racism and anti-revolutionary sentiments. Further, I find that those kinds of conclusions, that race is a defining aspect of society (equal to class), accept the dichotomy put forth by the right-wing: conservatives say it is the fault of this or that non-white group for their plight; the "radicals" turn around and blame whites in general instead of the whites (and non-whites) who are running the damn system.

There is a chance I've gotten fed up with the proponents of such ideas and not the ideas themselves, as so many third-wave radical feminists seem utterly oblivious to class conflict. However, I still feel this sort of rhetoric can only be applied to certain places...homeless whites have no privilege whatsoever, and yet the proponents of "privilege" will shamelessly tell you that homeless whites are somehow more privileged than homeless blacks, which is comically wrong. It really reeks of people who have never thought about the world outside of college campuses; it's easy to say such things when every white person around you is privileged due to class position, but it's not so convenient when you have to deal with working-class whites (who make up the vast majority of white people in any country).


Perhaps in your experience those movements have tended towards self-flagellation. I can sympathize with that – having worked with a group which was sympathetic to Indigenous rights and Indigenous land rights. But, I think in that example, I do recognize that I, as a white person, live in a society which was built on the genocide of another, and that I have so many more advantages than non-white people do. It’s not that I am ‘self-flagellating’, it’s that I am recognizing my, and other’s positions, in society for what it’s worth.

Yes, and I think it's good for whites to recognize what they don't have to deal with. There are a few things here: first, it's important to recognize that recognition does absolutely nothing. There seems to be this idea among "radicals" that if every white person just recognizes how privileged they are, oppression will miraculously come crashing down. The people who have a vested interest in racism and oppression really don't give a sh*t if I realize that I don't have to worry about getting shot by a cop for holding a candy bar (that actually happened to a black kid in Atlanta, IIRC). Second, it's also important to pinpoint the causes of racism (as you do quite effectively), which most so-called "radicals" simply fail to do.

Third, there is again a fine line between analyzing racism and figuring out how to stop it and vexing oneself over crimes one had nothing to do with. Italians from Queens are supposed to shoulder the guilt of Portuguese slave traders in the 18th Century, of southern plantation owners in the 19th Century, of policemen in the 20th. It truly makes no sense to look at "whites" as the perpetrators, regardless of social standing, and that is precisely what Peggy McIntosh tells every sociology student to do.

Also, is the label of "privilege" really all that accurate or helpful? As Marxists, we know that there is no such thing as pan-ethnic privilege, it doesn't make sense historically or socially or what have you (hell, just go to your nearest poor white neighborhood and compare it to your nearest wealthy white neighborhood). Rich whites don't appreciate the company of working-class whites about as much as they don't appreciate the company of working-class blacks, and more and more rich whites are accepting non-whites into their circles, provided they meet certain criteria.

If you look at the rhetoric in those paragraphs, McIntosh is implying that the lack of guilt among whites is a strong contributor to oppression, which we Marxists know to be liberal garbage. It has nothing to do with one's gender or ethnicity, it always comes down to the oppression of the capitalist class, and in this time of capitalist crisis, my patience for self-styled "radical" condemnations of whiteness (yes, I've actually heard a "radical" condemn "whiteness") is wearing thin.


Actually, I think the manner in which these things can be stated can be the most off putting, and which most radicals dislike, myself included. I think most would agree that since racism does exist in society, which disadvantages certain groups, that therefore other groups are comparatively privileged/advantaged versus the former. People just don’t like to hear that – they like to think that we’re all ‘born equal’ when we’re not. I’d just rather tell the truth about it.

Good point. To be honest, the best purpose identity politics serves is to refute the conservative (and liberal) idea that everyone does have equal opportunity.

Beyond that, however, it falls so very short because it cannot provide any feasible solution for society. If you look at the end of McIntosh's essay, she makes the most half-hearted attempt to suggest a solution: yeah, let's just establish that "broader base" for society, that'll do the trick in a jiffy! Have these people ever contemplated the meaning of revolution or socialism? And mind you, people like McIntosh are PAID to think about society, and yet the socialist movement offers something far more effective and feasible for the future.

Which brings me to my biggest gripe: identity politics and the loss of Marxism. Being (unfortunately stuck) in American academia, it's abundantly clear that no one is willing or able to stand up for Marxism. All the students and professors of sociology, women's studies, Africana studies and other "left" fields of study spend their time talking a whole lot of nothing. Identity politics such as this are decidedly un-revolutionary and, in my opinion, form the left flank of capitalist apologism. They cheer Obama simply because he's black, they nod in appreciation as Colin Powell lies to the world. A black captialist, for them, is a victory; to us, s/he is simply another parasite to the working class. Trying to get through to these "radicals" that Obama is no different than any other capitalist politician is incredibly frustrating, and it's not unlikely that someone will question whether or not you're showing your "white privilege" by criticizing Obama.


I’m unfamiliar with her entire views, but it seems to me she is saying that we live in a society where there are a complex array of inter-related class and social relations which therefore advantage some and disadvantage others, and that even if our intentions are good, we can’t simply ‘escape that.’ I don’t see what is necessarily ‘wrong’ with pointing out that a white man has far many advantages at life than a black woman. We all, to an extent, perpetrate racism because we are born in racist societies where we continue that. Of course, I would differentiate a die-hard Nazi from someone who, for example, has ignorant stereotypes of Indians, for example. But I still consider it racism; just my approach would be totally different.

I definitely agree with this. At the same time, McIntosh in that essay basically implies that EVERY white person who isn't on a guilt-trip is essentially perpetuating racism. That goes for me, too, because I reject her (insipid) idea on the "invisible napsack" (or whatever she calls it). If you don't think your life, as a white male, is full of nothing but privilege and the good side of centuries of oppression, YOU are the problem. That's the message I get from reading such rhetoric, and that is in full denial of the dynamics of capitalism, because working-class whites have really no part in that. Ironically enough, the same non-white capitalists the "radicals" cheer are the same that exploit and hurt working-class whites (among others), but to the "radicals", the working-class whites are privileged here.

In the end of the essay, McIntosh is arrogant enough to say that white women, from "watching men", should admit their complicity in the oppression of non-whites. From "watching men", as if we're some sort of case study in ignorance.


I would agree that there are class reasons why woman have been historically treated as property and later as essentially as domestic servants (which continues today). I don’t see what the huge problem is when you say ‘they’re oppressed as woman’ versus ‘they are oppressed as woman because of the interests of the capitalist class.’ Sure, I’d prefer the later, because it shows the historical, class and economic root of it all, but the former is just a convenient "short-cut." I’d also say that male privilege is strongest amongst married men; I think there are a lot of subtleties in this area – ‘woman’ as an ‘entire group’ is necessarily split up into opposing classes. I don’t think the Marxist analysis should be abandoned, but nor should it ignore the many dynamics in society which are certainly class related.

I agree fully, but do you see a class-based analysis in McIntosh's writings? My worry is that so many potential revolutionaries, young people who see capitalism's problems, are led to believe it's just a problem of white vs black or male vs female. Through writers like McIntosh, they find justifications for getting on Obama's capitalist bandwagon, they are told Marx is "interesting", but "probably outdated". Identity politics, in this way, has set the left back, at least in my view.

I have no problem, at all, with your analyses, and in fact I agree with all of them. It's just that very few of McIntosh's supporters have the theoretical basis that you do, and so they see "privilege" as abstract instead of tied to material conditions.


Personally, I think the matter of opening and closing doors is really a total non-issue in the scheme of real disadvantage woman face and comes from a liberal perspective. And I’m sure that no man consciously (or even subconsciously?) hold contempt for woman by holding a door open for her, but I’m not sure if anyone (at least here) has stated that. I find most ‘rants’ against those ‘crazy feminists’ ‘attacking men’ for opening doors is just a straw-man propped up by anti-feminists to dismiss their views in full without actually addressing, what I consider, the relevant issues they raise.

Once again, well said. The thing is that the essay posted in this thread, titled "Oppression", accuses door-holders of exactly that.

I completely agree with you on the anti-feminist point as well. The problem is that there are "feminists" who say such ridiculous things. They're a minority, but in academia they have some sway. The paragraph I quoted from "Oppression" is one example of this. Other essays I've read claim that all men have a vested (inherent) interest in oppressing women, others that assert the penis is useless to females, others that say "*****es" (or, self-interested women who do what they want to get what they want) are to be celebrated. Third-wave radical feminism has tons of wacky ideas, and they serve to undermine revolutionary feminism in more ways than one.

[TC]

I wrote a short essay for revleft a couple of years ago trying to clarify the categorical differences between oppression, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, and chauvinism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/oppression-vs-bigotry-t59878/index.html?t=59878&highlight=oppression

I think its applicable to this thread if anyone is interested.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Infirm men and men burdened with packages will open doors for able-bodied women who are free of physical burdens. Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first.Really? I can't say I've seen this. My experience has been that when two people approach a door from opposite directions, one of them will hold open the door and stand aside to let the other pass. Similarly, if someone is close behind you it's common courtesy to hold open any doors you go through so they don't slam in their face. There seems to be no set gender pattern.

I (try to) hold open doors for everyone. I was taught that pushing past or letting a door slam in someone's face was rude, no matter who you do it to.

You see, this is the problem one encounters when making sweeping generalisations. Ignore too many details such as personal and cultural differences and your "holistic analysis" is worthless.

[TC]

About holding doors open, i think there are two distinct things that go on that shouldn't be conflated for the purpose of this discussion:

1. someone of either gender opens a door for themselves and having passed through holds it open for the person of either gender walking behind them (or passing from the other side, allowing the other to go first). The gesture is designed to simply prevent the door from closing on the other. There are no status dynamics obvious to me present here.

2. A male conspicuously approaches a door and opens it, allowing a woman behind him to pass first, and even delaying so that she passes first. This is different in that the gesture isn't designed simply to prevent the door from closing but to have the other person pass through it while he is holding it open, compelling her to acknowledge the fact that he has made a gesture to her.

To make it clear what i'm talking about, imagine the most 'extreme' version of this gesture. A woman walking slightly ahead of a man reaches a door, before she can reach for it, the man accellerates slightly, opens it in front of her, and makes a slight hand gesture with his other hand and says 'after you'. Obviously this version is rarely done but less pronounced versions of this gesture are common.

This is in fact a gendered gesture, it draws attention to the fact that one is a man and the other is a woman and their relationship is non-symetrical. You never see men doing this with other men or women doing this with other women. It compells the woman to acknowledge that the man is a man, and he is doing something with regard to her because she is a woman. It is a way of introducing the status dynamics of gender into the brief social encounter. This is why its potentially problematic: its a way of saying its socially right for me to do something for you where the reverse would not be true.

Personally when guys do it for me, it does make me feel uncomfortable. Not 'oppressed', 'discriminated against' or whatever, but it does create a socially awkward moment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

2. A male conspicuously approaches a door and opens it, allowing a woman behind him to pass first, and even delaying so that she passes first. This is different in that the gesture isn't designed simply to prevent the door from closing but to have the other person pass through it while he is holding it open, compelling her to acknowledge the fact that he has made a gesture to her.

To make it clear what i'm talking about, imagine the most 'extreme' version of this gesture. A woman walking slightly ahead of a man reaches a door, before she can reach for it, the man accellerates slightly, opens it in front of her, and makes a slight hand gesture with his other hand and says 'after you'. Obviously this version is rarely done but less pronounced versions of this gesture are common.

I see your point, but I confess that even a mild version of what you describe seems remarkably anachronistic even so.

[TC]

I go out of my way to hold doors open for women who don't actually need the door held open for them, even if I'm holding something. It's one of the last acceptable ways to be nice to a stranger in everyday life, and I think it shows respect for women.


It shows more respect to a woman to treat her as a person first. If someone is a stranger and you aren't trying to get them into bed or flirt with them, you should not give any regard to their gender. If you are flirting with them implicitly, you should be concious of the fact that thats what you're doing and sometimes it will make people feel good and sometimes it will make people feel uncomfortable and its important to be aware of how other people experience the way you're treating them.


I see your point, but I confess that even a mild version of what you describe seems remarkably anachronistic even so.

It is but guys still do it all the time.

[Invariance]

Manic Expression, thanks for your post - I think we substantially agree on most things with some minor differences which are probably related to our experiences more than anything else. Which is fair enough because we live in different countries. But one question: you say that identity politics is leading the left astray, how do you think that can possibly be countered? Don't you think it has more to do with America having a weaker working class/labour movement then say, Germany or even Australia? Do you think that identity politics of the sort we both disagree with should be actively countered, or should people just focus more on building a stronger labour movement? I'm also interested in your experiences with the 'proponents' of those ideas.

[manic expression]

Manic Expression, thanks for your post - I think we substantially agree on most things with some minor differences which are probably related to our experiences more than anything else. Which is fair enough because we live in different countries. But one question: you say that identity politics is leading the left astray, how do you think that can possibly be countered? Don't you think it has more to do with America having a weaker working class/labour movement then say, Germany or even Australia? Do you think that identity politics of the sort we both disagree with should be actively countered, or should people just focus more on building a stronger labour movement? I'm also interested in your experiences with the 'proponents' of those ideas.

You make a good point here. The weakness of the American socialist movement contributes to this problem. It's an ideological problem within academia, as I've never encountered such identity politics from working-class people, it always comes from college students and professors in my experience. With a stronger socialist presence, such flaws could be pointed out and a real alternative could be offered. However, I think the socialist organizations doing the best work in the US are as much as they can into getting a presence in the streets. It would be great to win more revolutionaries on campuses, and I think that's a hole the American left needs to fix, but it's going to take a lot of time and patience.

As to your point about other countries, the thing to remember is that just about everyone who had any connection to Marxism was purged from American academia in the late 1940's and 1950's, something that didn't happen in Europe to that extent. We're still dealing with this in a number of ways, especially in that Marxists have been almost outsiders since then. In the long-term, it gave "radical" ideologies the ability to position themselves as "the left" in academia. Will this change? I'm not sure: on the one hand I feel as though "radical" feminism (for example) is entrenched and unwilling to yield any ground, but on the other hand there's a possibility that it won't show any real staying power. It is, after all, something students get into for four years, and unless they stay in academia, they rarely continue to be really active. And how could they? There is no viable movement, no organization that puts forth such nonsense.

I firmly believe that the socialist movement in the US is growing at present, and I think it's very possible that it will be able to assert itself on college campuses (and perhaps among professors) in a few years if it can keep growing. Those putting forth Marxist arguments in college will need to find a stronger voice. However, more than anything else, if revolutionaries can lead by example instead of merely by rhetoric, they will surely win over students who are looking for ways to change the world. When students see class struggles going on in the cities and the workplaces, it will be more and more difficult to believe race and gender and orientation are at the foundation of oppression. In short, it comes down to a strong party IMO.

To answer your question, combating liberal "radicalism" and building a working-class movement go hand-in-hand, but I would say the latter is more important for those reasons. After all, the period of greatest revolutionary consciousness among students (late 60's, early 70's) came as revolutionary movements were gaining speed off-campus.

As to my experiences with the "radicals", I'm not sure where to start. On top of the ideological garbage they peddle, simply their ideas on voting are stupid: they insisted upon a system of voting where a single "no" vote kills the entire motion ("everything must be unanimous!"), and when I pressed them on the inefficiency of this they simply said they'd pressure any "no" voters into changing their votes (which is anti-democratic and just antagonistic). The result? People stopped coming because dissent to the central members wasn't appreciated, welcomed or even tolerated. They seem most comfortable petitioning the school administration (which rarely comes to anything) instead of organizing among the students in order to achieve more multinational unity. They want to build a cultural education center, but they have no idea of what to do once it's established or even what to do in the meantime. When planning a meeting, they spend almost as much time pondering the availability of pillows and comfortable floors in a given meeting space as they do on the meeting itself ("because we all need 'safe space', dontcha know"). And after all this, they've not once expressed any interest in struggles that don't have to do with our campus: no union solidarity, no mention of the incredible poverty going on in the city just down the road, no involvement with regional or national organizations. I'm almost positive that none of them will do a single second of political activity outside academia in their entire lives (barring charity work). That's just off the top of my head. It's just very frustrating, even when you forget about all their ideological stupidity. Oh, and just about everyone who doesn't completely agree with them finds it impossible to work with them, as they're basically a glorified clique which just happens to be "activist".