Yet another probably erroneous epiphany

[sqbr]

This is based very much on my experiences as an Australian and reading english period works like Jane Austen and Dorothy L Sayers. Also while I'm feeling better than I was earlier today it's probably still pretty garbled! I wouldn't have posted till later but hey, ibarw and it means I can replace my insanely long reply to this post with a link to this one :)

Anyway, some thoughts on how sexism and classism differ inherently from racism and homophobia. I'm not putting them in a heirachy of badness, just saying they're different, though of course a lot of the same issues of privilige and othering etc apply. People suck in pretty consistent ways :(


EDIT: It has been pointed out that my generalistions to class and sexuality are even more flimsy than the central argument. Oops.

Gender and class are distinctions inherent to society, and they cannot be removed or changed without utterly changing the system. Thus you get the idea that women and the lower classes are valued members of society with our own (limited and strictly proscribed) virtues and rights, resulting in things like noblesse oblige and chivalry. (Of course such ideas are generally trumped by the tendency for the powerful to stomp all over the powerless, but they exist in theory) Attempts to remove distinctions of class or race get less hatred but are more likely to be stymied by internalised affection for the current regime from the disenfranchised.

Race and sexuality, on the other hand, are seen as abberattions from the (white, straight) norm, and society tries to wipe the out completely. There is no way to be a good homosexual, you are doomed by your very nature to being at best second class citizen and at worst wiped out completely.

Noone ever tried to perpetuate genocide against all women, because then who would make the babies? There have been many attempts to stop the lower classes from breeding "too much", but afaict none of these stemmed from any desire to remove the class entirely, because then who would do the dirty work?

Now this applies to racism in Australia where the attitude to nonwhites has been quite explicitely to kill them, exclude them from immigration or breed them into nothingness. It gets more complicated than I've painted it here when class and race intersect (as the often do) ie with immigrants doing the dirtiest jobs, slavery, and the Whole American Race Thing. And..yeah, overall an oversimplification.

Also, I've been working class and I've been (and currently still am :)) a woman, but I've never been anything other than white and straight, so may be utterly full of crap. But there's no way to learn but to say stupid crap and have people tell me I'm wrong! (I've been told there are other ways, but they never seem to take)

Thoughts? Off topic thoughts?

Comments

[cameron (from livejournal.com)]

Interesting ...

I note that from a reproductive perspective, not being straight -is- an aberration. (That being said, one that's always been present in a significant minority since recorded history began... I also find it interesting that expressing this observation has got me labelled as homophobic a couple of times!)

An alternative way of dividing up the prejudices you mentioned would be to lump together racism and sexism (physically obvious and genetically determined) vs class and sexuality (not necessarily obvious from looking at someone). I'm not sure what useful analysis you could draw from this, though.

[alias_sqbr]

Good point about the visibility, though of course many "racial" distinctions are based on genetic differences so subtle that they're nigh impossible to see (jews or the irish, for example, not to mention all the pale "black" people) And prejudiced societies throughout history have done their best to make the invisible visible, from rules about what clothes commoners can wear to the pink triangles of the nazis.

There's a (in my non biologist opinion) reasonably strong argument that the fact that homosexuality being so everpresent in human societies indicates it probably does confer some evolutionary advantage, albeit indirectly. Another argument is that both straight and gay people are deviations from the bisexual norm :)

Also it's an even tempered soul who doesn't get offended at being called an abberation, regardless of the justification!

[mandragora2003.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I do agree with you, that making differences visible is essential if one intends to discriminate. If it's your neighbour, Jim, that everyones chucking rocks at, you're liable to get upset. If it's that dodgy bloke that moved in next door on the other hand... Humans. The same rule applies to school-yard bullying, by the way.

Incidentally, I have come across a number of theories regarding the evolutionary advantage of same sex pairings. One parallel I can offer off the cuff is that of non-breeding animals in a wolf-pack. While they rarely produce offspring of their own, they are usually related to the breeding pair. Thus, by contributing to the survival of the pack (by aiding in hunting etc), they help to ensure the survival of "their" DNA. The lion prides are not dissimilar; females often feeding cubs that are not their own, but to which they are an aunt.

Humans, obviously, are not wolves or lions. I'd have to be fairly bloody stupid to suggest that we could draw a direct comparison between the two. But the concept that an individual or couple which do not contribute, genetically, to the continuation of a gene-pool may, never-the-less contribute to the overall survival of a community is an intriguing one. That they may also assist in the survival of related childen (and thus, the descent of 'their' DNA) is a little more abstract, but still interesting. One need not be homosexual for that statement to hold true incidentally; think about all the spinster aunts of the Jane Austen period. Very handy for the extra person in times of need. So it is, then, that such individuals may be essential to the continuation and integrity of a community.

I'll admit that personally, I find it really cold to think of the topic in those terms (ie the passage of DNA and the production of offspring). I can just about manage it if I think in a purely biologist-y way, in which things like "emotions" are simply nature's way of tricking you into doing stuff. Otherwise, I can't help but feel that it sells it all short by a mile.

Hadn't heard the 'naturally bisexual' theory. Must spread it around more.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, absolutely about not-having-children not being the same as not-being-evolutionarily-viable.

I have no problem thinking about people in these reductionist/rationalistic terms myself (well, apart from getting into little existential quandries from time to time :)), but I do have a problem with all the people who think thats All There Is or use this sort of thinking to justify their own entirely irrational predjudices. I mean we are all our genes(*) in the same way we're all just a bunch of chemicals or atoms, doesn't mean The Truth lies in physics or chemistry :)

Hadn't heard the 'naturally bisexual' theory. Must spread it around more.

As long as you don't decide I'm an abberant pervert and shun me :)

(*)Well, except that we're not, I think, if my vague understanding of the current state of evolutionary biology is any guide. There's like...retroviruses..or something.

[gyges-ring.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I'm not quite sure that's true. I think homophobia, for instance, is a lot more connected to ideas of gender identity. For instance, you a lot of homophobia for lesbians really isn't that you have sex with women, it's that you trespass on the territory of men. The stereotypical image of "the dyke" is the big, butch, truck-driving lesbian. Of course, the non-stereotypical sense of homosexuality, that there are just people, and they happen to sleep with the same sex, can run into troubles quite quickly. But that's not really related to discimination.

I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "can't be removed without utterly changing the system." I think the way that gender and class boundaries have changed over the past hundred years or so would tend to indicate you can change things without totally changing the system

[alias_sqbr]

See, I would say the system is pretty different now than it was 100 years ago.

Otherwise, you may be right. My brain is goo, I'll have to think about it more. Also my understanding of the dynamics of homophobia is pretty shaky since it's not something I see discussed a lot (I don't see classism discussed a lot in general but my family makes up for it by talking about it CONTINUOUSLY :))

[gyges-ring.livejournal.com]

I think that has more to do with a series of changes, over an extended period of time, than a single change (small or large) that then cascaded through. I mean, I think that if, in the late 1700s, you'd said "women now have the right to vote, work, and receive equal pay" you wouldn't really have seen that many changes in the system for quite some time.

[alias_sqbr]

You may be right about the simple legal changes, but if women in large numbers had actually started having careers outside the home the way they do now etc I'm sure it would have had a pretty major effect (to be honest I'm not sure it would even be possible in a society without all the modern home labour saving devices).

*struggles to express my idea, which is very clear in my head*

Anyway, I think you and nico_wolfwood below are right about homophobia and it's relationship to upholding rigid gender boundaries.

Hmmph. I am severely limited by my complete lack of an arts degree :)

[mandragora2003.livejournal.com]

As a quiet observation, women often *did* have careers during a long period of history. Once the industrial revolution got going, women were often the bread earners, in addition to being the carers for children etc. This was, of course, because the law allowed women to be paid significantly less than males doing the same job; ergo, the factories would preferentially employ them. Ditto children. The husbands would, not infrequently, have to work away from home. This gender inequality became even more pronounced during periods of economic downturn.

It took a great deal of effort to stamp out the overt belief that women should be paid less. The concept that a woman could have a 'career', rather that a 'job' is a product of the emancipation of women and the entire suffragette movement of the last two centuries.

Or so I understand, based on what I wrote for my brothers history of art assignment a few years ago. Don't ask.

[alias_sqbr]

That's true, while things have definitely changed it's not as simple as "women used to not work and now they do".

*is amused at you doing your older brother's homework for them, but does not ask*

[nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com]

I would second your points on gender identity. My observations of reactions to 'butch' lesbians vs. 'lipstick' lesbians is that the former are viewed as more threatening although that could simply be the double impact of crossing both gender and sexuality lines.

I would also point out that homosexuality, if defined as being attracted to ones own sex, is not necessarily a construct that crosses cultural lines. Some Asian cultures have problems with the definition. Certain 'butch' lesbians take on both male and female roles, depending on context, defining themselves as a third gender. In the case that I read the woman's female partner was not viewed as a lesbian. I've also read at least one interview where a male beauty pageant finalist (also defining himself as a third gender) was asked what would he do if he found out that his boyfriend was 'gay'. His answer was that he would be sorry that they could no longer have sex but he would be happy because they could go look at men together. Note that in both cases gender crossing occurs but they do not view themselves as members of the 'opposing gender.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, I think you and gyges_ring are right about this one.

I've come accross some interesting differing attitudes about it while doing historical research for ACOS. A lot of cultures seem to think having gay sex is all normal and manly..as long as you're not the "woman". Which ties in with the whole seme/uke thing. I didn't say so, but I was really just considering homophobia in australia, america etc in the last hundred years or so. Anyway, you've helped make me aware of how terribly ignorant I am about homophobia :)

[nico-wolfwood.livejournal.com]

Hey if you really want I think my mom's still got all my anthrop. notes in storage. The Sexuality and Gender reader is the one with the pink cover *grin*

[alias_sqbr]

And if you feel like reading up on group theory feel free to download my thesis :)

Heh. Thanks, but I really do have a hard sciences brain, I can manage first year history podcasts but anything harder than that and my eyes glaze over! That said I have been pondering trying to find easy ways to learn more about various artsy/social sciencey subjects if you have any reccomendations (including your notes, if they really are The Dummies Guide to Anthropology)

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

I find class difficult to define in contemporary Australia - it is a combination of how you earn money, how much money you earn and how you spend it.

Much harder to pin down than gender and race. Sexuality is likewise a slippery thing to define.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, I shoulda stuck to race and gender but I just can't help generalising, it's like a curse :)