>>> kelley at interpactinc.com 03/16/01 03:52PM >>>
-clip-
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.
((((((((
CB: What comments in the past are you referring to ?
Actually, in my experience in general women are better dancers than men too. We find dance as an arena in which women have power, as with Martha Graham and Katherine Dunham, et al.
((((((((((
interesting n'est ce pas?
(((((((
CB: un peu.
(((((
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).
((((((((
CB: I don't buy that all positive generalizations about women in comparison with men are forms of putting women on a pedestal. An important task of the anti-oppression struggle is exactly emphasizing real strengths of oppressed groups, otherwise, if one only attends to the disadvantages of the oppressed one falls into paternalism. A major aspect of women's liberation is acknowledging women's strengths that have been slighted.
I disagree that the claim that women are cleaner is unsupportable. In general, women attend to those issues more than men, and that is a strength of that oppressed group.
What do you mean by heterosexist ? I only buy homophobic, not heterosexist. Anyway , in this case lesbians, who are not heterosexuals, think women look better.
(((((((((
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)
((((((((((
CB: Most women I speak with or hear on this don't agree with you on the idea that all generalizing compliments about women are politically incorrect or covert male supremacy , as you seem to imply.
In the reconciliation between women and men which is the dissolution of male supremacy and the battle of the sexes, positive statements and expressions about women by men play a role as do actions by men, such as abolishing domestic violence. Dialogue between women and men is an important aspect of ending male supremacy. The idea that all compliments by men to women only reinscribe male supremacy is not valid.
(((((((((((
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...)
((((((((((
CB: This line of reasoning negates men saying anything positive about women in general, acknowledging that women have and do in fact do more caring labor than men, in general, for example. Acknowledging this fact does not have to be taken to the extent as to claim that men are incapable of caring labors. Rather it should be a basis for men following women's lead in these areas, precisely an antidote to male supremacy and women's double-duties. The issue here is upping the value of the work that women have traditionally been confined to, but this does not entail leaving it as "women's work".
The solution to male supremacy is in part men , openly acknowledging and genuinely appreciating the works and patterns of women.
(((((((((
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?
((((((((
CB: I don't think anybody thinks oppression of women and oppression of Black people are identical oppressions.
(((((((((
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?
((((((((((
CB: I didn't make these claims.
(((((((((
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.
((((((((((
CB: I don't think this is accurate. Black men are not discouraged from pursuing other occupations because of their successes in sports and music. For one thing, most Black men are not successful at sports and music to the extent that they can make a living off of them.
((((((((
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.
(((((((((
CB: I don't find Black women feel that the generalization that I made that women are cleaner and better looking than men is comparable to the historic claim that Blacks have natural rhythm or sports prowess. I'll get a couple of comments from some Black women on this
You are sort of switching here, because you slip in "naturally" good at, which I specifically said the other way.
However, the idea would be not to limit women to traditional roles , but to give them the credit they have been denied . It is somewhat like saying that the workers are the source of all value. This is not a "supposed compliment" but a first step toward getting workers their due. Acknowledging that women take responsibility for hygiene and appearances is a similar first step. As a matter of fact , for men not to acknowledge these is the male supremacist position. It would be a failure to admit what extra responsibilities women have taken on.
((((((((((
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!
((((((((
CB: Getting in to major league sports is a one in a million chance. This is a reason , not to discourage participation in sports, but to discourage reliance on sports for making a living. Encourage participation in sports as recreation.
((((((((((
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.
((((((((((
CB: You have drifted back into reference to "natural" abilities. If you are thinking the explanation of the various abilities is natural, I am not sure we have a meeting of the minds.
However, an interesting question that raises natural vs. cultural is the fact that women, an oppressed group, have a longer life expectancy ? Why would that be ? Black people, an oppressed group, have a shorter life span , which might be explained by their oppression. But whence women's ability to overcome oppression in terms of lifespan ?
)))))))
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.
((((((((((
CB: Well, I was responding to a somewhat ridiculous and ambiguous request from you that I do it with race, or something like that. I think you wanted me to think that because "complimentary generalizations" about women made you sigh and shake your head, that they are Victorian pedestal placing. But I don't buy that, otherwise , men would be stuck with basically saying nothing about women in this process of abolishing male chauvinism, which would create a sort of insoluable maze for men trying to surrender in the battle of the sexes.
The better course is for men to extend in good faith,the first hand in peacemaking through acknowledgement of women's real (cultural or historical here, not natural) strengths. And when it is genuinely given, women should accept it.
There are valid , analogous compliments that whites can make toward Black people. Being less racist is a species of the more general characteristic that Black people , are by and large more sensitive to oppression , less bossy, more egalitarian than whites. Think up some compliment along those lines.
(((((((((((
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.
((((((((((
CB: This is exactly what I mean, only I'd contend the opposite of what you do. I know I prefer to be around Black people because they are less racist , less anti-Black ( duh ).
((((((((((
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.
((((((((((
CB: What ? Of course, women are less sexist than men. What are you talking about ?
(((((((((
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.
(((((((((
CB: Internalized oppression, subjection and all that are less than the oppression from the oppressor groups themselves. This is fundamental.