>>> kelley at interpactinc.com 03/17/01 08:07AM >>>
At 05:15 PM 3/16/01 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>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.
power?! puh-lease. (are you trying to get me to have a snitfit here charles?! :) )
((((((((((
CB: Power in the dance world as opposed to no women women composers. I thought you were always having a snitfit
(((((((((
> >interesting n'est ce pas?
>
>(((((((
>
>CB: un peu.
hmm. i would think that you'd find it notable that the TWO things that dd
came up with--sports/dance where you've said blacks are superior (tho in an
historically constituted way)--are mainly about black men as compared to
white men.
(((((((((
CB: I didn't say Blacks were superior.
Dance is not an area of comparing men and men.
(((((((
well, i do. can you think of a trait identified with black women that is complimented, even tho it's a stereotype and historically constitued by systemic economic, social, cultural inequalities? is there trait that black women are said to have that is associated with an occupation?
((((((((((
CB: I don't agree with your analysis on this , so , you should be the one to think up the example.
My thing would be that Black women are the best looking of all , and I learned that from Black women themselves, and they don't consider it a false compliment. Black is beautiful.
((((((((((
>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.
that is NOT what i've been saying. compliment women all you want.
i'm looking at the way these so-called compliments are part of a system of oppression and i'm trying to explain how two systems of oppression operate slightly differently -- in response to mat forester's query.
((((((((
CB: You are the one who introduced the word "compliments" . I didn't use it. And said they were acknowledgements of strengths.
(((((((
none of what i've typed is an attack on you. i took what you said, and expanded on it in order to explain how--in the absence of an understanding of these traits as historically constituted (something you advocate but which most people don't do)--they are part of a system(s) of oppression.
(((((((((((
CB: I don't agree with you that the ones I mentioned are part of a system of oppression.
((((((((
>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.
which is why i aligned you with radical feminism -- e.g. Alice Walker,as but one example.
((((((((((((
CB: Thanks for the compliment. To be honest, I am a communist feminist, which is slightly different than radical feminist , in the Alison Jagger typology.
((((((((((
>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.
firstly, "cleaner" remains completely undefined. once you define it, then we can operationalize it and look at different data bases for empirical evidence.
(((((((((((
CB: Go right ahead. Here's an experimental design : Are women and men equally responsible for the spread of infectious disease ?
((((((((((
>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.
heterosexuals think women look better too! hetwomen are more turned on by the bodies of women than they are by men! but this is not natural (and i didn't claim that you said it was, as i indicated yesterday!)
(((((((((((
CB: So, do you agree with me or disagree with me ?
((((((((((
>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.
that's nice. i haven't said this.
)))))))))))))
CB: But you thought it.
((((((((((
>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.
i see. could you please show me where i've said compliments from men to women are always and only reinscriptions of male supremacy?
i HAVE said that YOUR position reminds me of a radical feminist epistemology, however.
((((((((((((
CB: Ok, then we agree. Isn't it nice how people can start out seemingly disagreeing and really they agree.
((((((((
>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".
it's what you do, it's not what most people do and it's not reflected in our system of occupational rewards is it?
((((((((
CB: Probably not, but we are trying to change the world of occupational rewards.
(((((((
as i said from the beginning: it is the same damn thing as the full time female employee saying of her nanny or daycare provider: "what she does is a wonderful trait. she's special. i don't know how she does it. *I* couldn't take care of kids all day." the sentiment appears to valorize the women who do this work but the person claiming that sentiment neither wants to do it nor does s/he want to pay the person who does it what s/he is worth.
do people say the same thing about musicians or athletes?
(((((((((
CB: What about a nanny who is also a good musician ? or athelete ( :>)) ?
(((((((
>The solution to male supremacy is in part men , openly acknowledging and
>genuinely appreciating the works and patterns of women.
don't stop there!
((((((((
CB: Agree with you. " IN PART " means "don't stop there"
(((((((
>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.
no, but we use "opression" for both. as matt (i think) suggested, we need to theorize them differently. not completely, but somewhat differently --else the "compliements" wouldn't manifest themselves in the occupational structure in the way that they do. see my comments immediately above re: the kinds of labor associated with women and with black men.
>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.
take it up with dd. he seemed to suggest you had.
>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.
no, they are not. i'm specifically talking about what people think are occupations that "sync" with women's and black men's "natural" abilities. YOU know they aren't natural, most people do NOT. the labor market is gendered by naturalizing women's "natural abilities and then systematically rewarding occupations associated with those abilities. for black men and women however, the market is not naturalized by way of "naturalizing" abilities defined as black, except in two areas: music and sports. there may be more, but i can't think of any right now. any thoughts?
(((((((((
CB: Actually, I am thinking that being good at basketball, since Michael Jordan became such an icon and they paid Kevin Garnett $120 million coming out of high school (!) , and the like, is more like the category of virtuoso concert classical musician of old, sort of or the like. NBA basketball players are not such a disrespected social category as when this was a sort of derogatory stereotype. In other words, is basketball player still a derogatory stereotype ? Basketball is becoming like an art form. Things change.
(((((((((
i'm pointing out an important difference that we need to look at and why "naturalized" claims about gender are *very* problematic. no, you don't naturalize, but MOST people do, even plenty of men on this list, as past gender wars have demonstrated.!!
((((((((
CB: Well, yea ,the "naturalizing" is a problem. But then most who do this "naturalizing" don't have a theory that makes a cogent distinction between natural and social, so even if they thought it was "socially caused" , it wouldn't do us much good.
((((((((
>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
great. but it's not what i'm saying!!! or worried about!
((((((((
CB: Ok. I'll skip it.
(((((((((
>You are sort of switching here, because you slip in "naturally" good at,
>which I specifically said the other way.
i have already addressed this.
((((((((
CB: OK
((((((
>However, the idea would be not to limit women to traditional roles , but
>to give them the credit they have been denied .
i'd like to see more men actually DO the things that women do, especially since much of these things are integral to our lives.
((((((((((
CB: Agree, however, this thread went off on a Gallop opinion poll, so, my comment remained at the level of commenting on the differences. You then dubbed this comment as a compliment, etc., etc., etc. But, I wasn't even talking about what men should say, compliment or not, let alone what they should do, until you extended the topic.
>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.
that's not the point.
(((((((((((
CB; It's one of the points. There are many.
(((((((((
>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.
and you're deliberately misreading if you hadn't noticed that I put scare quotes around 'natural" (and specifically associated this attitude with students, NOT YOU!)
((((((((((
CB; No I am not deliberately misreading. I couldn't follow your argument all the way.
Nonetheless, my advice is to encourage those male students who give these "compliments" to women in general, if they do so genuinely. Then work with them to clarify that it is not natural, but all the while nurturing their effort to say something which they consider non-sexist, non-male supremacist ( assuming some of them have this sentiment, and this is the significance of what they are saying)
((((((((((
>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 ?
*sigh* men, both black and white, die younger "on average" because they die from car accidents, violent encounters and other things that afflict them during 15-44 age range. there's nothing "natural" about it per se. there's a very slight advantage, but not enough. go look at the numbers and you will see that this has LITTLE to do with genetics or anything of the sort.
(((((((((((
CB: You are saying that all the difference in life expectancy is explained by car accidents ( why are more men in them ?), violent encounters and "OTHER THINGS THAT AFFLICT THEM DURING 15 - 44 RANGE" , that latter is a pretty big catch all, and it doesn't exclude genetics and testoterone or other male physiological characteristics on its face. Nor does it exclude HYGIENE ( or good looks for that matter).
But maybe men could learn something from women about living longer, don't you think ?
((((((((
>CB: Well, I was responding to a somewhat ridiculous and ambiguous request
>from you that I do it with race,
there was nothing ridiculous about it. please read Marilyn Frye's piece on Oppression. That was where I was coming from.
(((((((((((
CB; And my answer wasn't ridiculous either, Read Charles Brown on Oppression.
((((((((((
> 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.
your conclusion is not warranted.
the differences have to do with the fact that we're still largely a het society and men and women commune, if not on the job, then in the rest of their lives a lot more than do blacks and whites.
((((((((((((
CB: Do you think we are headed toward a largely non-het society ?
(((((((((
we remain pretty racially segregated when it comes to race. it has to do with how we 'naturalize" gender differences, tho we TRY to shun such naturalizing tendencies re: race. (we try, which doesn't mean we're successful). it has to do with how these "naturalized" gender differences are embedded in the political economy. naturalized racial characteristics aren't embedded in the economy, not to the same extent. and when they are, it's largely in sports and music. can you think of anything else?
((((((((((((
CB: As far as "naturalized" ( in quotation marks) in the sense of calling something natural that is social, all racist differences in occupations and otherwise are based on "naturalization" of race. I am not sure what you mean. The same people who are "naturalizing" gender, "naturalize" race, by and large.
((((((((((
i think these are important differences worth exploring.
>he 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.
i would 1. rather see men doing their share of the housework and 2. a more equitable (non gendered) division of labor.
((((((((((
CB: What I said doesn't contradict but complements such action.
However, in this women/conflict thing what is said is very important too. On this thread, you started analyzing what is said, so I only addressed myself to that.
(((((((
>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.
it's an oft commented on effect of the system of oppression. it's not surprising.
you seem to have missed my point about racism. if racism has to do with power, then by definition blacks can't be racist, can they?
((((((((
CB: Clarence Thomas, is powerful and anti-Black ; and he is Black. It is a new phenomenon: Racist ( i.e. anti-Black) , powerful Black people. Clarence Thomas is more racist than most white people, because he has more power than most white people.
Anytime we set up a binary opposition, eventually we will find a phenomenon in which things turn into their opposite ( I can't remember the exact quote from Engels).
((((((((((
>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 ).
oh, this is why we have a slew of rap songs where the N word is used as an insult against other blacks (on the part of blacks)???!!!! not unlike the way in which women use bitch or cunt against other women? come on charles! and then there are some quotes from Eli Anderson, shall I dig them out and transcribe?
((((((((((
CB: Believe me, I'd rather be around those rappers than most white people. It is elementary racial analysis to know that the n word does not have the same meaning when spoken by Black people.
i agree that it is less so among blacks than whites, i agree that blacks are more sensitive and self reflective about the issues, etc.
but...
>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 ?
i hope you'll rethink this one. i think it's pretty obvious what i'm talking about. i'll even bet that if i were to go to NORC GSS, we'll find that adherence to sexist beliefs is very similar among men and women.
(((((((((
CB: I just rethought it. I come to the same conclusion. Women are less sexist than men. You will have to elaborate.