I have decided it has been entirely too long since I wrote a giant-ass series. (Yes, people in the back, I can hear you groaning.) In short, I now think it is time for a giant-ass series about my premises and ideas on social justice and gender egalitarianism. Part One: The Kyriarchy!
The kyriarchy used to be called the “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy”, but that sounds kind of silly, and people remembered there were other oppressions and it would end up being “white supremacist colonialist ableist ageist lookist sex-negative heteronormative cissexist capitalist patriarchy,” and that is just too damn long. So kyriarchy it is.
Essentially, the kyriarchy is the set of all ways society can oppress people. For instance:
- Senior citizens face age discrimination in employment.
- People with physical disabilities have to endure a bunch of patronizing people being all “you’re so strong! And inspirational!”
- Black people in the US are more likely to be pulled over by police when driving than white people are.
- Fat people have their health problems ignored because doctors assume it must be because of their fat.
- Queer teens may be bullied.
- People with mental health issues are more likely to be victims of violence than people without mental health issues.
- People in developing countries may be enslaved to produce the tantalum in your smart phone, or the beans in your coffee.
Nearly every one of these oppressions can be broken down into several different kinds of suboppressions. For instance, racism includes colorism, the way that society tends to favor light-skinned people of color. The privilege of people in developed countries includes Americanocentrism, the way Americans tend to wander into every discussion (especially in the social justice world) and make it all about us. Transphobia includes binarism, the way that binary trans people are considered “realer” than those of us with weird-ass pronouns.
Sometimes the kyriarchy oppresses people of a certain group in really big ways, like it still being legal to fire people because they fall in love with people of the same gender or were assigned an incorrect gender at birth. Sometimes the kyriarchy oppresses people in really little ways, like Cosmo saying a woman’s sexual fantasies about another woman is a sign she should ask for more gentle, romantic sex from her boyfriend as opposed to being a sign she might want to try that most excellent sport of muff-diving. However, even the little things reinforce the whole crappy social structure.
One of the things people most want to do when they first discover the concept of kyriarchy is argue about who’s the oppressedest and therefore gets a shiny prize. This is stupid for a lot of reasons. First, it’s kind of hard to decide. Is it better to be unable to shop in most stores because they won’t provide accomodations for your disability (ableism), or to have some asshole criticize you for using food stamps to buy your child a birthday cake (classism)? I don’t even know where you’d begin to quantify that. Second, it’s completely meaningless. Your bloody nose doesn’t hurt less just because I have a broken leg.
Third, a lot of issues are linked to each other. This whole idea that men are men, women are women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri are small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri causes not just sexism but a lot of homophobia and transphobia. Bodily autonomy, or the right for people to make their own decisions about their own bodies, is an issue that crosscuts race (the drug war), gender (reproductive rights, slut and virgin shaming), class (drug war again, policing poor people’s dietary habits), appearance (fatphobia), ability (criticizing people who stim), etc. It’s really stupid to compete who’s hurting the worse when we’re all fighting the same damn enemy.
Fourth, you know, people can be members of multiple marginalized groups at once. Liberating people of color and not anyone else doesn’t liberate people of color: it only liberates straight, upper-class, abled, cis, conventionally attractive, gender-conforming, developed-country-dwelling, etc. people of color. This is a very small percentage of people of color!
In fact, each person experiences their oppressions differently depending on which marginalized groups they’re a part of. (This is called intersectionality and is big with modern feminism in theory– less so in practice.) A self-harming or suicidal teenager will probably be told zie is “just looking for attention” or “an emo kid” or “just going through a phase.” A poor queer person not only can’t get married but might not be able to afford the forms to create even a facsimile of marriage.
davenj – I grew bored with the people I was arguing with, if you wish to get specific. For an example of why, your own reply “a. The ’40′s-’60′s weren’t colorblind. See: G.I. Bill, house-loan inequality, etc.” is utterly misaddressed; “colorblind” was a reference to the goals of the civil rights movement of the era, not society as a whole, which is why the enactment of affirmative action in the 60’s mattered to begin with. You’re disagreeing with something I never wrote. Why would I argue it? There’s nothing to respond to because there were no substantive objections raised; they… Read more »
Those are all problems with implementation, or other social failures. It’s a different kind of social failure when poverty in historically White areas creates long-term problems, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not worth addressing. Whether or not it falls under the purview of Affirmative Action is a separate argument, but it’s certainly a social wrong worthy of remediation. As for African immigrants, they certainly don’t face the SAME challenges as descendants of African slaves, but they do face challenges worth accounting for. Our president, for example, faces substantial social racism, even though he is not the descendant of African… Read more »
“Again, I agree, but I said “what does it hurt?” with the net in mind.” This brings us back to the question of how much we are willing to sacrifice the individual for the sake of society. The general agreemnt in simalr questions these days is the individual should have some say in the sacrfice zie is expected to make. The only problems I see in AA are in the execution. it has ben hard ot designate the benefiting categories corrctly. So for instance we get cases of African immigrants’ kids (kids of imigrnast who were privileged in their home… Read more »
“Everyone else who argued with me, I’ll refer you back to the posts you responded to, and suggest you read them again. Either way I’m dropping that argument, which I grew bored with a while ago.” I read them. They are rife with factual errors, logical fallacies, and a general unwillingness to even address counter-arguments, which appears to have continued into this post. From general misapprehensions about “colorblind” eras to inaccurate characterizations of civil rights leaders to timelines that do not match your argument, I think it becomes plainly evident why you are dropping the argument. I would invite anyone… Read more »
Daisy – I’d say there’s some truth in there, but not necessarily the truth you represent. Rental properties do change the character of a neighborhood – I can tell you which house is the rental property and which is the owned property by looking at it. Rental properties quite simply don’t look as nice; renters aren’t as inclined to maintain the state of the house or the neighborhood. Doesn’t matter if they’re black, white, or Mexican; it doesn’t even particularly matter if they’re upper, middle, or lower class renters. They aren’t putting roots down – that makes a difference in… Read more »
“You’re arguing that affirmative action has benefits, and I agree. But the fact that it has benefits doesn’t mean it doesn’t have costs.” Again, I agree, but I said “what does it hurt?” with the net in mind. Even as it provides a bit of fodder for certain individuals, AA has a net benefit effect by raising minorities to positions of influence and accomplishment, providing positive examples for the entirety of society and eliminating spurious racist arguments. Obviously racism is a hydra, but this isn’t six of one, half a dozen of the other. AA can feed certain racist ideologies,… Read more »
@davenj: “I admit there are “costs” in the sense that those who wish to continue to be racist will rationalize in a different way, but that’s a net gain, not a net cost.” You say that like you can divide people into racist and not-racist camps that are static and without overlap. People don’t work that way. People can become more or less racist based on their environment and their experiences. Providing ammunition to racists isn’t harmless. They guy talking might not be convinced, regardless of the existence of affirmative action, but what about the people listening? You don’t think… Read more »
@doubletrack [i]A fundamentally feminist perspective? Whaaa? Feminists are pretty hot on these concepts called “bodily autonomy” and “consent”, and circumcision is not so compatible with either of them.[/i]
Ah, so that’s why prominent feminist Janice Raymond called for “morally mandating,” transition, including access to transition medicine, “out of existence”
Don’t get me wrong… I’ve [url=http://valeriekeefe.livejournal.com/33946.html]pointed out the irony[/url] but there are plenty of people in the feminist movement, myself and most of the people here excepted, who will throw principle aside to harm people they have gendered as male.
“Affirmative action empowers a certain class of racist and on the margin turns off a certain class of people to social justice. “Of course blacks are less intelligent. Even my opponents agree with me, though of course they won’t admit it. Affirmative action is a tacit admission that blacks can’t compete with whites on a level playing field.” Ever heard something like that?” This is certainly true. Affirmative action can be confusing to those who don’t understand its purpose, goals, or initial rationale. That said, the basic core of the viewpoint is that a certain group is less intelligent, capable,… Read more »
“However, as a solution in and of itself, colorblindness is woefully inadequate at addressing systemic inequality.” If we could do it, it would be fine (if we also dealt with classism while we’re wishing and implemented robust poverty remediation, but all THAT could be colorblind). We can’t, for a variety of reasons. “What does it hurt? There are already fingers on the scale, so to speak, so why would an attempt to balance said scales hurt?” Unlike a conveniently chosen metaphor, it’s impossible to push society in a single direction. Affirmative action empowers a certain class of racist and on… Read more »
“Does anyone deny that a universally colorblind system would be the best solution?” Yes, I do deny that. A plan or system whereby colorblindness was the OUTCOME would be the best solution to the problem of racial inequality. However, as a solution in and of itself, colorblindness is woefully inadequate at addressing systemic inequality. It attempts to undo a direct problem in an indirect manner. But the point of my quote was this: we already don’t live in a colorblind society. If we acknowledge that that’s the case, why would affirmative action be wrong? What does it hurt? There are… Read more »
“Why would affirmative action hurt, given the lack of colorblindness?”
That’s not really the point; I could list a few ways affirmative action can and does hurt. Does anyone deny that a universally colorblind system would be the best solution? But the best can be the enemy of the good at times.
“- The 40′s through the 80′s; the 60′s were when colorblind began fading and affirmative action took its place. (The 60′s are roughly in the middle for a reason.) And yes, there were -substantial- social and economic improvements in this era.” a. The ’40’s-’60’s weren’t colorblind. See: G.I. Bill, house-loan inequality, etc. b. Those “improvements” saw black men earning 50 cents on the dollar and a huge wealth disparity. c. Why would affirmative action hurt, given the lack of colorblindness? Also, seeing as how the earnings gap is now 64 cents to the dollar, how did it hurt? “- If… Read more »
@orphan, interested in your opinion:
How White Flight brought down the economy
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2010/10/part-two-how-white-flight-brought-down.html
“What do you define as “working”, though? You said it worked, but the political gains of the ’60′s never materialized into significant economic or social gains during your so-called “color blind” period.” – The 40’s through the 80’s; the 60’s were when colorblind began fading and affirmative action took its place. (The 60’s are roughly in the middle for a reason.) And yes, there were -substantial- social and economic improvements in this era. “Also, the assertions you make are factually inaccurate. School re-segregation is largely an economic phenomenon, and thus attributing it to a shift in civil rights philosophy is… Read more »
“Jim, don’t tell the Occupy kids… they think I am just a nice liberal.”
So far they don’t haven’t shown much interest in theory either! They keep giving the fish eye to every demand that they state some demands. Good for them. Very smart.
These people are real patriots. We love to make sacred cows out of veterans, at least lip service – after this they deserve the same respect as any veteran.
“Colorblind works if the whole system is colorblind, but it’s not.” That’s the crucial distinction. It has to be systemic. When an individual claims to be colorblind, it’s willful ignorance and it’s a dodge. Race is a construct, yes – and constructs do not simply vanish because we decide to stop seeing them. It is not a matter of belief. US society has dropped some of these disticnctions and become colorblind WRT to specific groups – Irish first, who were considered non-white so long ago almost no one remembers it, then Pakistanis and Armenian settlers in the Central Valley, and… Read more »
To clarify: Colorblind works if the whole system is colorblind, but it’s not. There are big gains to be had with colorblind policies when the racism is the direct, or at least the proximate, cause of the injustice. When black people were denied entry to the best schools because they’re black, it was a very good thing to change that. But the problem is that now, black people (disproportionately) don’t have access to the best schools because they don’t live near the best schools, because they’re poor, because (among other things) the justice system disproportionately targets black people, especially regarding… Read more »
Resegregation isn’t about race in and of itself, at least not much. But it is about money and class, and race plays into poverty and class. Which is not to say that undoing resegregation directly is necessarily a good solution.
“Colorblind is giving no preference or consideration of color. Pretty much what it says on the tin. It was the dominant civil rights philosophy from the forties until sometime in the eighties, promulgated by the civil rights leaders of that era; communities were voluntarily desegregating through this time period. Since its demise in favor of racial intervention as the dominant civil rights philosophy, at least as expressed through civil rights leaders, communities have begun voluntarily resegregating; particularly troubling is that the difference is particularly pronounced in new communities and suburbs.” What do you define as “working”, though? You said it… Read more »
“Resegregation” has as much to do with income and poor schools as anything else.
The two largest complaints that suburbanites often have about big cities are :
A. Crappy schools
B. Crime.
Having lived in both types of places and went to both urban and suburban schools I’d have to say they are right.
davenj –
Colorblind is giving no preference or consideration of color. Pretty much what it says on the tin. It was the dominant civil rights philosophy from the forties until sometime in the eighties, promulgated by the civil rights leaders of that era; communities were voluntarily desegregating through this time period.
Since its demise in favor of racial intervention as the dominant civil rights philosophy, at least as expressed through civil rights leaders, communities have begun voluntarily resegregating; particularly troubling is that the difference is particularly pronounced in new communities and suburbs.
It was the dominant civil rights philosophy from the forties until sometime in the eighties, promulgated by the civil rights leaders of that era; communities were voluntarily desegregating through this time period. Um, no. That didn’t actually happen. In the real world, you had figures like Martin Luther King actively designing affirmative action programs, the “black power” movement of the 70s, and white communities angrily opposing having their schools desegregated. Indeed, the change that came in the 1980s is that affirmative action was deemphasized and school desegregation gradually abandoned, with the result that schools and communities have voluntarily resegregated, because… Read more »
well mcduff you have called me much worse than barmy before. But I am getting a lot of stick for daring to challenge the existence of kyriarchy as I do when I challenge patriarchy’s existence.
I am not enslaved to academic texts, but the word is very specific and is presented as a ‘theory’ of power and I have only seen one or two sentences explaining it no more. if there is no ‘theory’ then I am sorry but I don’t buy it.
Things like capitalism and ‘power’ are theorised. This gives them credence.
Jim: Daisy, you’re a Maoist – I know, you know I know so don’t bother denying it; we can recognize each other like it was gaydar. I don’t mind theory as long as it k nows its place…..
Busted!
Jim, don’t tell the Occupy kids… they think I am just a nice liberal.
“Mental segregation leads to physical. Colorblind is the only thing which has ever worked.”
Physical segregation does the same, and colorblind policies perpetuate physical segregation.
How has colorblind “worked”, and what is your definition of “worked”?