Yet another probably erroneous epiphany
Aug. 8th, 2007 06:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrThis 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, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-14 12:23 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-15 04:29 am (UTC)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.