Why you can't trust your values

[alias_sqbr]

(A continuation of my basic principles, inspired by this discussion)

In general, if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B then:
(a) It really is a coincidence
(b) They're just inferior in general
(c) There's something skeevy going on with the way your values are contructed
(d) You're not applying your values consistently

Now (a) happens sometimes, like I have an intolerance to milk fat so tend to see french food as "inferior" but it's not that I have any deep seated aversion to the french. And I have no problem with those french dishes I can eat. That was a crappy example. A better one is the way that many societies associate black with the night, and thus scariness and evil, and afaict this has (or had) nothing to do with the racist representation of dark-skinned people as inherently bad, though the two have since become linked.

Most people will deny the possibility of (c) or (d), and once the "evidence" builds up (a) starts to look a bit shaky, and so the subtext ends up being (b). This is the justification for almost all modern intolerance, since it's no longer acceptable to explicitly say (or even think) "Group A is just naturally inferior".

But when you scratch the surface? Most of the time it is (c) or (d).

For an example of (c), classism relied on the marks of "gentility" being valued above all else, and those marks were things you only tended to get if you were upper class: the right accent, knowledge of the classics, proper etiquette, the right clothes etc. Thus, the lower classes were provably inferior! And if you think that doesn't happen now you obviously haven't encountered the idea of "white trash"/chavs etc. There are similar deliberately created reasons for the devaluing of women, non-european cultures etc.

On the other hand (to illustrate (d)), a lot of western christians will talk about how the entire middle east as a region is doomed to irrational violence because of the calls to violence in the Koran, despite the fact that the Bible has an awful lot of similar passages, so by that logic all of western europe/America etc is just as doomed.

But even if it is a coincidence you still have to think about the consequences of your actions: if you take an action against everyone who violates value B, and that adversely effects people in group A, well you have to keep that in mind.

This is why saying "It's not that I'm racist/sexist/ etc, it's just that I value *blah*" is a very weak argument, and you shouldn't make it without thinking very hard about where your values come from and how you're applying them.

Of course, "objective values" are different from subjective taste/opinion, and if you are willing to admit your subjectivity that can help ameliorate the "Everyone in group A just sucks" effect. You still have to think about the reasons for and consequences of your value judgements though, especially if your "personal taste" happens to correspond with a lot of other people's for (c) and (d)-esque reasons. For example, you can't help it if you think women are unattractive, but some straight women/gay men can use this as an excuse to be sexist which is bad.

It's important to note that you can't help having skeevy values if you live in a skeevy society, and you may not be able (or wish) to retrain ourself out of them. But it's important to be aware of where this stuff comes from and the effect it has.

Comments

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

I would personally go for a 5th option which is similar to B) only instead of asserting that the group is inferior for violating my value, I accept that they are just different to me. That said I'm unsure how well I uphold that idea in my actions etc, and I doubt most other people are able to see things the same way.

Also I can't think of many if any groups of which every member violates one of my values, without defining that group by their violation of that value.

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

Also I'd like to mention that the original scenario begins flawed because values are by definition subjective, and so if a person has their "objective value" violated they are already unjustified in their opinion regardless of what they conclude.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I forgot to clarify about matters of taste/acknowledged subjectivity. If your taste "just happens" to be against a particular group you might want to consider why that is and what effect that has on your behaviour, but for example I don't feel very sexist for not being much attracted to women :D (then again, some straight women can be really misogynistic about it so there you go)

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Okay, if that's an example (albeit tongue-in-cheek), then you need to re-examine your definition of "values".

"I am not attracted to women" is not a value.
"Women who are attracted to women are bad" is a value, intended to marginalise lesbians.

Importantly, all values must be constructed in such a way as to categorise everyone as "good" or "bad"; they are judgement criteria.

[alias_sqbr]

Mm, I didn't explain it very well. "Attractive" is a good/bad measure though (subjective, yes, but that's what I was talking about with that example)

What I was thinking about was slash writers: wanting to write romances/porn where the main characters are male (and young etc) is perfectly reasonable if that's what you find attractive. But using that as an excuse to marginalise/demonise etc all the female characters (and some do) is sexist, and since female characters tend to get marginalised/demonised in regular fiction too it doesn't leave many spaces for them to be treated well.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

"That person is attractive" isn't a value judgement, though, it's just an expression of aesthetic preference. "Attractive people are good / ugly people are bad" would be the value-based prejudice commonly attached to that preference.

What the slash writers are expressing is their value judgement that women are bad and men are good, which I agree is obviously sexism. Their choice to write about male characters in those cases (I would hypothesise) is motivated primarily by that prejudice; their attraction to gay men is a side-effect.

I think it's strange that you're speaking as if slash fiction (and mainstream fiction) was required to marginalise female characters. Every fictional "space" is open for female characters to be treated well... you can't say that there "aren't many left". The problem is that most authors have sexist views, because most of society has sexist views. Female characters don't need their own "space" in which they are well-treated, they just need more authors (male and female) who lack that deep-seated hatred of women.

[alias_sqbr]

That person is attractive" isn't a value judgement, though, it's just an expression of aesthetic preference.

Yes. But when I use it, I'm not talking about values: I'm saying even when you're talking about matters of taste you still have to think a bit about what you're doing. Ah, I see, but I used the word "value" when I meant "property", that was an unfortunate wordchoice.

Hmm, no, I think enjoying slash isn't necessarily a product of misogyny, I mean I wouldn't say that liking lesbian porn is a sign of misandry :)

Sorry, I made my argument very badly there. What I meant was: slash (and fan fiction in general) is a genre (primarily) written by and for women, which in no way is directly controlled or dictated to by mainstream patriarchal ideas about what makes a good story. So if fanfic writers can't manage not to be misogynistic we're in all sorts of trouble.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Unfortunate word choices and lack of instant clarification are two of the main reasons why text is a rubbish medium for discussing complex ideas. ;)

As far as slash, I was only talking about the writers you were discussing, just my own interpretation of the cause-and-effect relationship. I realise there are other reasons why people might write or read it!

Ah, I see what you mean. You're speaking as though it's men that are mysogynistic, though, rather than society. Sexist social expectations are reinforced just as much by women.

(That's one of the reasons why I really dislike the use of 'the patriarchy' as some sort of shadowy male force in feminist discourse. It distorts the debate: the problem is not that 'the patriarchy' needs to be rooted out and destroyed, it's that society as a whole needs to change its views of women.)

[alias_sqbr]

Unfortunate word choices and lack of instant clarification are two of the main reasons why text is a rubbish medium for discussing complex ideas. ;)

On the other hand, people in real time conversation are less forgiving of me taking a few days to think about things :)

But yes, to give another example: I totally use "the patriarchy" to include women, it's the power structures. Fanfic writers are still inside the patriarchy in general, but are less personally stymied by the specific constraints of the publishing industry etc. EDIT: but I tend to think women on the whole are better at noticing and transcending misogyny, because people are self-centered like that whether they mean to be or not.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean.

While there is a strong argument for the publishing industry being extremely conservative and retarding progress on social reform, to put the onus on them still feels like a failure to acknowledge that it is society in general which is responsible.

People love to blame their personal problems on 'society', but when tackling problems that are actually to do with society, they prefer to break the problem down into more manageable chunks... without realising that the social structures that support those undesirable aspects remain in effect. To attack the publishing industry for being conservative is refusing or failing to realise that the majority of consumers support that view in the only language that matters - money.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Reply to your edit:

Everyone is obviously more sensitised to marginalisation of a group they are part of. However, as can be demonstrated by your slashfic example, women are just as rubbish as men when it comes to acknowledging their own prejudices, even if those values marginalise women.

Joint reply

[alias_sqbr]

I think we mostly agree on the essentials at this point but:
a) I'm not saying publishers are constrained because they're necessarily more sexist. A big industry like publishing is going to be "conservative" in the sense of slow to change existing formulas out of caution, even if on a personal level the writers etc aren't extraspecially old fashioned. Even when the public wants something new, figuring out how to cater to that taste takes a while.

On the other hand, while there is SOME peer pressure on fanfic writers to conform to pre-existing conventions etc on the whole they have the freedom to express themselves how ever they want, so the genre is more able to quickly adapt to changing social mores. In a similar way, avant garde/alternative music/films/writing etc tends to be more progressive than mainstream music/films/writing etc.

The advantage of mainstream stuff is, it's more reliably palatable to your average person. They perform different functions.

b) I think women are in general just as rubbish as men at acknowledging our own prejudices, and can sometimes be really bad at acknowledging our own sexism, but on the whole a group of women will do a better job of noticing and transcending sexism than a group of men (or mixed gender group) I mean, there is some really great feminist fanfic, and as sexist as fanfic can be on the whole I spend much less time feeling skeeved out by sexism than I do with regular sff.

Re: Joint reply

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I find fanfiction to foster an extremely conservative community, and I would argue that the genre is essentially the opposite of avant-garde. However, I'm extremely biased against fanfiction both in concept and execution, so my opinion will be distorted.

We basically agree on (b), but I guess the clarification that I thought was important was that while women are better at noticing the sexism of others, they are generally terrible at noticing their own (just like everyone else). You would think that forming groups would sort this out, but unfortunately people tend to form groups with those who share and reinforce their views (especially on the internet).

Re: Joint reply

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. I tend to think women are better at noticing our own sexism in general, since we can frame it as throwing off the shackles of the sexism that was forced onto us by society etc and thus avoid the whole "Acknowledging that we are personally complicit in oppression" thing that seems to go completely against human nature. But I agree we're not so good at acknowledging it when it gets to the point of us being actively nasty to other women, since we can't frame it that way any more.