4 ms·

The narrative of oppression is a very important one, and like all grand narratives (thanks critical theorists, for once at least) not always correct. It's start

The narrative of oppression is a very important one, and like all grand narratives (thanks critical theorists, for once at least) not always correct. It's starting to become an example of "rule by victimhood" (c.f. "rule by decree"). Whole terminology has been devised by feminist and other similar movements so as to make the oppression narrative appear untouchably true. For example, the word "sexism" (as well as a few other similar "-isms") has been defined as something one-directional, something that only men can afflict on women and not the other way around. This is considered to be valid because there supposedly exists an "institutionalized oppression" that makes sexism possible, and that therefore sexism in the opposite direction is impossible. In other words, the very definition of a word contains an a priori assumption, with the net effect being that repetitive use of aforementioned word in ideologically correct context engenders constantly consuming this assumption at face value. I could go on for hundreds of pages, but I will stop here.

einhverfr 13y ago
Fortunately that narrative is starting to fall apart, due to folks who have taken on critical studies of these topics and gone on for hundreds of pages each. One of the recurrent problems though is defining oppression. What usually happens is that folks project assumptions about the way society works based on the US today to times and places that are very different. Two things I have come to conclude though: 1. In most times and places, power relationships among women have greater variety, complexity, and nuance than power relationships among men (and therefore defy formalization to a larger extent) and 2. Almost anywhere you have patriarchy you also have matriarchy. The two, instead of being opposites, tend to go together.
- bluekeybox 13y ago
  Any examples of (2) -- or links to something that discusses this phenomenon? Thanks.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Sure. Here are a few examples. 1. In Middle Eastern cultures, the husband's mother has a very strong matriarchal role to play in the family. These are formally some of the most patriarchal cultures in the world, and in particular the young wife is one of the lowest-status members of the household. (But the highest status is that of the husband and of his mother.) 2. This may seem very anecdotal, but if you have ever watched "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" there is this discussion about head of household vs neck of household. My wife (Chinese-Indonesian) always points to that scene as how women operate in Chinese-Indonesian culture.
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      This is the saddest thing on this thread. Purportedly about a scientific paper detailing findings of genetic research. Somewhere along the way, we find you writing a lengthy objection to what you think feminism is, which unsurprisingly makes all the good points on your side and all the wrong points stacked on the opposite side. I can't even begin to object to your characterization of feminism, as your rendering is so beyond recognition that I can't accept that you would even be honestly interested in that line of thought. First, that you have made it so far in life with such a thorough and articulated idea of what feminism is without even considering that you might have a slightly lopsided perspective, that perhaps your rebuttal to feminism perhaps coincides a little too conveniently with what you believe and doesn't seem to challenge you in any way -- that should be applauded as a feat of human obstinance par excellence. Also unsurprisingly, when given a chance to substantiate your very large claims you provide an absurd caricature of Arab cultures, and some comment your wife made while watching a movie. It is literally amazing to me that -- unless you are posessed of remarkable self-awareness -- you are able to, given this evidence, continue to adhere to a worldview which is predicated on the supremacy of your beliefs, and that you can continue to believe in that supremacy even having looked over your own writings. Literally, the only substantiation you have provided are abject speculations. You have simply declared your interpretation of a Jefferson quote to mean whatever you want it to mean, you have not at all demonstrated that women possessed political influence at the time, nor have you attempted to show how very obvious mechanisms against those efforts -- e.g. lack of suffrage, complete lack of female representation -- are mitigated or made irrelevant by any of this. Your recollection of the history of feminism is pure fantasy, a Potemkin village constructed solely to assuage yourself apparently. That you cannot apparently analyze even to a first order your arguments herein and find them lacking suggest that to me that you are predisposed to accept the products of your own prejudices without much deliberation. The facile composition of your argument coupled with the smug manner in which you present them, the certitude that you have reached meaningful conclusions with this lazy thinking -- well, I am left astounded.

einhverfr 13y ago

Fortunately that narrative is starting to fall apart, due to folks who have taken on critical studies of these topics and gone on for hundreds of pages each. One of the recurrent problems though is defining oppression. What usually happens is that folks project assumptions about the way society works based on the US today to times and places that are very different. Two things I have come to conclude though: 1. In most times and places, power relationships among women have greater variety, complexity, and nuance than power relationships among men (and therefore defy formalization to a larger extent) and 2. Almost anywhere you have patriarchy you also have matriarchy. The two, instead of being opposites, tend to go together.

bluekeybox 13y ago
Any examples of (2) -- or links to something that discusses this phenomenon? Thanks.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Sure. Here are a few examples. 1. In Middle Eastern cultures, the husband's mother has a very strong matriarchal role to play in the family. These are formally some of the most patriarchal cultures in the world, and in particular the young wife is one of the lowest-status members of the household. (But the highest status is that of the husband and of his mother.) 2. This may seem very anecdotal, but if you have ever watched "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" there is this discussion about head of household vs neck of household. My wife (Chinese-Indonesian) always points to that scene as how women operate in Chinese-Indonesian culture.
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    This is the saddest thing on this thread. Purportedly about a scientific paper detailing findings of genetic research. Somewhere along the way, we find you writing a lengthy objection to what you think feminism is, which unsurprisingly makes all the good points on your side and all the wrong points stacked on the opposite side. I can't even begin to object to your characterization of feminism, as your rendering is so beyond recognition that I can't accept that you would even be honestly interested in that line of thought. First, that you have made it so far in life with such a thorough and articulated idea of what feminism is without even considering that you might have a slightly lopsided perspective, that perhaps your rebuttal to feminism perhaps coincides a little too conveniently with what you believe and doesn't seem to challenge you in any way -- that should be applauded as a feat of human obstinance par excellence. Also unsurprisingly, when given a chance to substantiate your very large claims you provide an absurd caricature of Arab cultures, and some comment your wife made while watching a movie. It is literally amazing to me that -- unless you are posessed of remarkable self-awareness -- you are able to, given this evidence, continue to adhere to a worldview which is predicated on the supremacy of your beliefs, and that you can continue to believe in that supremacy even having looked over your own writings. Literally, the only substantiation you have provided are abject speculations. You have simply declared your interpretation of a Jefferson quote to mean whatever you want it to mean, you have not at all demonstrated that women possessed political influence at the time, nor have you attempted to show how very obvious mechanisms against those efforts -- e.g. lack of suffrage, complete lack of female representation -- are mitigated or made irrelevant by any of this. Your recollection of the history of feminism is pure fantasy, a Potemkin village constructed solely to assuage yourself apparently. That you cannot apparently analyze even to a first order your arguments herein and find them lacking suggest that to me that you are predisposed to accept the products of your own prejudices without much deliberation. The facile composition of your argument coupled with the smug manner in which you present them, the certitude that you have reached meaningful conclusions with this lazy thinking -- well, I am left astounded.