>It is impossible to make use of empirical data comparing categories
>_until_ those categories have been identified. Doug, on the other hand,
>assumes that his spontaneous and unexamined categories have a platonic
>existence of their own.
on nonsense. he perfectly well knows that there is a long tradition and debate over how to define "working class". there's nothing platonic about speaking of segments of the working class by broadening the definition to account for practices and institutions that are sexist and racist.
why? because oppression doesn't operate on the basis of technical exploitation alone. *structural* racism and sexism are insistently about cultural ideals, beliefs and normative characterizations of who, for example, counts as a "good employee" or what counts as "good family" or "the good father".
the bars in the cage of oppression that marilyn frye writes about are composed of many things that can be separated and analyzed distinctly from the others. one bar might be the belief that white men can't dance or that men are less nurturing than women or that asians are better at math. etc.
i really don't care for the language that suggests that groups of people "benefit" from racism. privileged seems better -- altho i know that aligns itself with certain forms of social theorizing on oppresion that i'm not happy with. but it connotes something that's so obviously the case: i'm privileged, i carry around ideas and beliefs that make me assume i'm deserving of or capable of certain things that i wouldn't have were i black. i don't PROFIT from them as a capitalist profits from exploitation and it's NOT embedded in the very logic of the operations of the capitalist economy -- as exploitation is. but that doesn't mean that gender and racial oppression is not a part of our economy or that some groups aren't privileged in the sense that their ideas, beliefs, behaviors, assumptions, ideals, etc aren't basically mirrored and reinforced for them everywhere they turn. [see the exercise below]
fucking christ, you just saw it in operation on this list over Art's post: white privilege. what do you think just went on? whites who
1. think they can carry on a conversation about reparations without knowing much about what black radicals have been doing 2. think that it's art's job to educate them about what black radicals are doing once he pointed out to them that they'd gotten it wrong 3. white men thinking that reparations is about making white people happy or constructing a reparations discourse that will be approved by the wider society. (leo, here's a better example: should feminists worry about what the fuck men think about abortion and the way we frame abortion issues. not necessarily. why the fuck to lefty men say, "gee, i'm not a woman so... i should stay out of this, but...." when it comes to abortion and yet feel no similar compunction when it comes to other issues?)
why is unpacking how those things work and how they often contribute to exploitation and the superexploitation of blacks somehow plantonic?
>The argument is that "The Working Class" and "Black Working Class" are
>abstractions which contribute to the understanding of and struggle
>against racism in the U.S. while the abstraction "White Working Class"
>blurs the lines and becomes a barrier to clarity and understanding. This
>may be wrong but there is no imaginable set of empirical data that can
>either support or question it.
>
>Carrol
does the abstraction "woman" or "women" contribute to our understanding of and struggle against sexism in the US whereas the abstraction "man" and "men" is a barrier!? frankly, i think it is EXACTLY when i start asking my students what a "good father" is (rather than the usual, what's a "good mother") that we get right into the nitty gritty of how sexism operates in the family and, in turn, in the workplace.
please theorize the difference after thinking about the below.
kelley
Leadership, Gender, and the Invisible Ceiling: An Inductive Exercise
Type up two sheets of paper, one headed as follows: MASCULINITY AND FEMINITY Mark each characteristic with an "M" or an "F" depending on whether you think it is generally defined by society as a masculine or feminine characteristic. The second sheet should be headed so: CHARACTERISTICS OF LEADERS Mark an "X" by the 10 characteristics which you think are the essential qualities for a leadership position in a complex organization (business, government, etc) Type with a readable font, but one which is not easily read by someone in a neighboring seat (i.e. use capital letters for the title but do not use an enlarged font). The two sheets should look alike at a glance. Below each heading provide the following list of characteristics, or a similar list of your own construction:
_______ achiever _______ aggressive
_______ analytical
_______ caring _______ confident _______ dynamic _______ deferential (defers to others; yields with courtesy) _______ devious _______ intuitive _______ loving _______ manipulative _______ nurturant _______ organized _______ passive _______ a planner _______ powerful _______ sensitive _______ strong _______ relationship-oriented (makes decisions based on how others will feel) _______ rule oriented (makes decisions based on abstract procedural rules)
When you come into class, carry a single stack of papers, with one set of questionnaires at the bottom and the other at the top. As you hand them out, deal off of the top for about half the class, then deal off of the bottom for the rest of the class, being careful everyone in a given row has the same sheet. Ask the students to fill out the form, but point out that they cannot ask questions. They must simply follow the instructions on the sheet. (I usually have them fill out this simple survey a day early so I can bring in tabulated results on the day I want to do the actual discussion.) As you might predict, the list of masculine characteristics is usually highly correlated to the list of preferred leadership qualities. I usually find 14 positive correlations between masculinity and leadership and 3 or 4 negative correlations (3 positive and 14 negative correlations for femininity). This can lead to a lively discussion of the "invisible ceiling" for women, the catch 22 that women encounter when they do assume leadership roles, problems of socialization in our culture, the definitional equations of leadership and "masculinity" in our culture, and discussion of what constitutes effective leadership. Since the data evolved from the class itself, students are much more likely to take the data seriously. I always bring in census bureau data for differences in income levels for men and women with education held constant, and have the class discuss the connection between the results of the exercise.