Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel From: obermark@symcom (Jon Obermark) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: racism/sexism in all of us Message-ID: <1991Apr30.214919.24659@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 30 Apr 91 21:49:19 GMT References: Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: Math Dept., University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Lines: 91 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In article cr2r+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Christian M. Restifo") writes: >> Excerpts from netnews.soc.feminism: 24-Apr-91 racism/sexism in all of us >> Marjorie Panditji@ahimsa (2474) > >> Hillel posts this quote and asks for reactions: > >> > Becky Thompson, a sociology and women's studies professor, in a >> > teaching manual distributed by the American Sociological Association >> > writes: "I begin my course with the basic principle that in a racist, >> > classist and sexist society we have all swallowed oppressive ways of >> > being, whether intentionally or not. Specifically, this means that it >> > is not open to debate whether a white student is racist or a male >> > student is sexist. He/she simply is." -- From the April issue of >> > "Forbes" [Original agreement with quote deleted] > >I have never, nor will I ever, call myself sexist, racist, etc. >Before you flame away as to why I am one, please listen. I am not >saying that I don't exhibit racist, sexist, etc. >views/actions/beliefs. Many times I have said something (like a joke) [Example omitted of sexist action without conciously sexist motive] > >Where is this leading? The reason why many people don't like to refer >to themselves as racist, etc. is that it would make them feel >extremely bad. We all want to feel good about ourselves. We say we >are not racist/sexist/etc. for two reasons: 1) We soothe our own ego. >We feel that we are "good" because we don't do something "evil." 2) >It's the socially acceptable thing to do. That's why we'll say we're >not sexist, turn around, and call a 40 year old single woman a "dyke." But neither of these motives is honest, why should we all help you lie to yourself? > >I believe Becky Thompson's argument is actually self-destructive. For >example, let's say you wanted to lead some discussion group concerning >sexism. You start off with the shocker, "We're all sexist." Right >then and there, you've effectively shut the minds of people like me >(the majority of people--those who may exhibit sexist behavior, but >don't acknowledge it). You know for a fact, that many men (I'm >assuming a regular representation of the whole society) aren't going >to listen because no one likes to be lectured to about how "bad" or >"evil" they are. Yes, but (* Recovery Rhetoric Warning *) to address a problem one must at some point conciously acknowledge it. Starting with the assumption that the audience is willing to do that can, if done correctly, encourage them in their attempt to do it. Some folks can pull this off well and really make change by directly confronting the problem. If, on the other hand, the audience is not really willing, what good does molly-coddling them do? For some folks the only way to address the issue is head-on. I have seen men fight tooth and nail with a presenter working from this assumption and then (much, much) later, after working through their defensive anger, really effectively address this stuff. The presenter respected his anger enough to deal with it, but did not play into his defensiveness. It made all the rest of us really look at what was going on. > >I don't know what to propose as an alternative. I'm not a DON'T, those who wish to address these things will find their own methods and if you aren't going to implement your suggestions, they will only be found insulting. If you aren't working here, don't supervise. >sociologist, psychologist, feminist, etc. The only thing I can think >of is to somehow show (without alienating people) how forms of >discrimination are set up (recognizing differences and identifying >certain people as "others"; projecting problems, stereotypes, social >woes onto them; and creating the division of "us" versus "them"), how >they become engrained into society, and then how subtle actions, >phrases, etc. are sexist/racist/whatever. If you let me "learn" on my >own, I'm much more likely to change than if you "indoctrinate" me. This may be true of you, but it is false of most who would say it. People tend not to change until they are made suitably uncomfortable in their current position. Denial is too "comfortable". True, missionary zeal is annoying, and the expectation of total and immediate change is unfair, but privilege is so seductive (and so effectively conforming), that few of us, left to our own devices, would continue to try to change at all if the subject were dropped completely. >Chris Restifo [disclaimer deleted] Jay Obermark These opinions are obviously my own.