>At 08:02 AM 3/16/01 +0000, Daniel Davies wrote:
>>I'm not sure what to make of this revised formulation
>>myself, but it certainly seems to me to be in line
>>with Charles' previously expressed views on black
>>people, music and sport, so I don't think the implied
>>charge of inconsistency sticks.
>>dd
>
>nope, but it sure aligns charles with a radical feminist epistemology and
>approach to dialectics!
>kelley
offlist, i was asked what i meant. in the first place, i did not charge inconsistency, implied or otherwise. what i was suggesting was that, while some here (matt, for ex) want to flesh out theories of oppression, charles's comment might (or might not) help us with that task.
in the second place, i think we should take into account the fact that these examples you've provided dd, by way of considering charles's own comments in the past, are about black men primarily as compared to white men. blacks' superiority in terms of rhythm, for ex, has always been counterposed to white MEN"S lack, not white women's. sports ... i shouldn't have to elaborate.
interesting n'est ce pas?
okay, so in the interest of fleshing out a theory (theories) of oppression:
to say that women are, on avg, cleaner/better looking than men is to, as i suggested, reinscribe contemporary versions of the Victorian pedestal. first, bracket off the probability that charles's claim is likely unsupportable. (it is highly unlikely that women are "cleaner" than men. the claim that women are better looking is heterosexist hogwash).
the comments appear to be complimentary to women. so does the claim that women are more nurturing and caring than men. because the nurturing compliment works better, i'm going to go with that, even tho it's not what charles said. it is, tho, an assumption fleshed out by the survey doug sent. (hence subject heading)
so, what is the result of this contemporary Victorian pedastal?
students who, for ex, find it inconceivable that men would be any good at social work or counseling or other "caring" professions. women are in those kinds of occupations because they should be. men just can't! (this is why i said that they naturalize media representations maintaining that, of course women naked bodies are more prominent in the media than are mens'! it's because women are better looking. who would want to look at a naked man?! similarly, who would want to be taught or counseled or cared for by a man!?)
another result is that such comments reinscribe hegeomonic femininity so that a woman is deemed a failure if she does not fit the (ostensibly complimentary) generalization that women are cleaner, better looking, more nurturing, caring, not aggressive, etc) than men. (we have managed to completely leave out racialized ideals of hegemonic beauty, of course. but be that as it may...)
so, what does this mean in our attempts to flesh out these two systems of oppression. can we compare these two distinct, but interrelated, systems of oppression? do they work the same way? if we take Frye's discussion seriously, are these the same? are blacks experiencing oppression in a similar way?
tentatively, i think there are important differences.
eg. dd, you speak of charles's claim that blacks are superior in terms of rhythm (music) and sports. what are the consequences here? what are the consequences of a belief system that--FOR MOST PEOPLE--does NOT understand them as historically constituted results of systemic inequality?
one result is that people think that blacks are better at sports and music than are whites. such beliefs discourage black men especially from pursuing other occupations. white men, by contrast, have many more options, even if they are very good at either. i'm acutely aware of this: i lived with a white musician for along time and my son fancies himself the next Michael Jordan. both my ex and my son had options that, say, my son's mentor, Jim, doesn't feel he has. Jim's only hope of getting out is to focus on basketball. my son feels--and is taught (desperately!) by me that he has other options. both Jim, his mentor, and I encourage my son to keep other pots on the fire in terms of a future.
now, i bring this up because i often talk about my kid's pursuit of the NBA bigtime with my students. they are often surprised that I discourage him from the NBA dream. and they often point to sports and music as indicators of the absence of racism: SEE! they say, blacks can make a lot of money, more than the avg joe! racism is gone if not going away quickly, they think.
really?! hmmmmmmm.
what the supposedly complimentary stereotypes do is delimit the range of occupations choices that women and black men are consigned to as "naturally" good at. for women, this means that we tend to internalize the oppression and confine ourself to occ choices that we (and others) are "comfortable with, to occ where we see other successful women. tho delimited, there are still many to choose from, even if it means that we tend to make less money because of occ. segregation.
but i bring up my students reaction to my beliefs about sports. now, they can understand why i'd discourage my daughter from service labor or "caring" labor because they know that those occupations pay, on average, far less than "male" occupations such as engineering or management, etc. so, my daughter could pursue a traditionally male occupation and if she failed, she'd still likely find that she could be successful in many "women's" occupations, though likely make considerably less.
but my students can't understand why i'd discourage my son from a future in sports!
what does this do for black men? it delimits occupational choices *severely* so that the competition is great for very scarce rewards in a very limited range of potential occupations!
now, this is interesting, i think. women's "natural" abilities are systematically devalued in our economy. black men's "natural" abilities, however, are not systematically devalued in the same way. and, it should go without saying but..., i am sticking JUST to devalued in terms of traditional measures here -- the paycheck.
so, i'm just babbling along here, typing off the cuff so to speak, not sure how to articulate this further.
anyway,
kelley
[1] i find charles claim that blacks are less racist completely ridiculous if we take seriously his earlier claims about what racism is. firstly, i can't stand any claim that racism is simply about stereotypical beliefs about any racial/ethnic group. that is, if a black person says something stereotypical about whites, i don't consider that racism. it's what i'd call racial or ethnic chauvinism. it's not racism, part of it, but not reducible to it.
charles also overestimates the absence of racialized beliefs articulated by blacks about blacks. sure, there might be less of it, but it is not completely absent and the differences, i'd contend, are likely pretty insignificant.
why do i say this? well, think about it: can we similarly say that women are less sexist than are men? i sure as heck don't THINK so. there might be *some* difference, but i'll bet it is not much. there is such a thing as internalized oppression. blacks don't escape; nor do women.