[lbo-talk] Re: Sexuality Under Seige or So What Else is New?

[JBrown72073 at cs.com]

>JBrown wrote:
>
>>My take on this whole thing is that women's talk can be sexist (anti-woman
>>sexist, I mean) but it doesn't carry the weight men's does because it 
doesn't 
>>have male privilege attached to it.  So while technically sexist it's just 
not 
>>that significant and would quickly disappear if sexism were not promoted
>>vigorously throughout our society.
>>
>I disagree. The pain I have suffered at the hands of sexist women 
>(particularly my mother) was far greater than that at the hands of men.
>I could always interpret men's sexism in terms of their ignorance (they
>could not sympathize because they were men) or in terms of their 
>privilege, which they would lose in an equal world. But what excuse did
>women have -- other than unconsciousness? None. For sexist men, I could
>feel contempt. For sexist women, nothing but heartbreak.
>
>Joanna

I guess I'd need to see if we're using the same definition of 'sexism' here.  
Could you give some examples?  

In my women's liberation group we sometimes use the term 'prison guard' for 
women who are pushing / enforcing perfect female behavior on other women. That 
is, they don't run the prison of male supremacy but they're doing the bidding 
of those who do--telling other women to calm down, be nice, shut up, wear 
makeup, tone down, be genteel, don't strive, whatever it is (or firing them, 
ratting them out, etc.)  Their actions have power because they have the weight of 
male supremacy behind them, so it's not just one woman criticizing another.  
And it's an extra mindfuck because they're women so, as you point out, our 
expectations are higher.  'Sexism' doesn't quite capture it, you know?

Jenny Brown