Right, I've had time to think so some (hopefully) slightly more sensible remarks.
As a corollary, that it is extremely unlikely that racism could exist in a truly non-sexist society (since there is a sense in which racism is always-already inherently misogynistic), and vice versa. It's even harder to imagine sexism existing in a non-heterosexist society or vice versa. This doesn't mean that once we stop sexism, racism will magically fix itself so much as that we won't be able to stop sexism until we've cleaned up our act on race issues as well. On the same pattern, stopping sexism won't heal the ozone layer, but I have no doubt that the anti-environmentalist urge which impels us to harm the Earth in first place is linked in some way to and motivated by misogyny.
I see this has already been questioned above and you seem to be saying that you currently don't have the time to explain how you think the cures for sexism, racism etc are inevitably interlinked. Fair enough, but I would second the request for more detail when you do have time.
I had a realisation, thanks to our old friend Dissenter, I realised that one of the main roots of my problem with the whole idea of the patriarchy is the way many people seem to anthropomorphise it. The Patriarchy is a group of tweed-clad, middle aged men, sitting in a comfortable oak panelled room, the fire crackles in the grate, they sip their whiskies, from comfortable leather arm chairs they bend over a chessboard where they play with the lives of other people, whilst pressed up against the glass of the windows are the hollow, scared faces of all the rest. The problem with it is it makes it sound as if the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy. I look around the world and don't see such a conspiracy or any evidence that it ever existed (or could exist) and hence I tend to mutter 'balderdash' and dismiss the whole notion. I wondered if you had any thoughts - do you think 2nd wave feminism did in fact anthropomorphise the patriarchy (just as dead Dissenter took the Gaia theory and anthropomorphised the Earth) or is it just a rather odd impression I have picked up in my (presumably atypical) travels around LJ.
Finally, I wonder how biology fits into all this. As we research into ever odder corners of our behaviour, we are discovering that some very unexpected things have biological roots - everything from 'luck' to 'the god gene', and most certainly the inclinations for both altruism and selfishness which lie at the heart of our responses to discrimination. Society and experience overlays, richens and deepens these basic building blocks in ways that are so complex we cannot yet tease them apart. But since human biological evolution is by no means on the same timescale as social evolution it is obviously of great significance to know which parts come from which if you wish to change society.
I interpret most of your creed as saying that you believe that it will be possible to eradicate systemic injustice from modern Western society if we can develop the correct mindset to allow us to avoid the systemic modes of thought and hence actions that disadvantage various groups in our society. And that the endeavour is worthwhile even if practicalities render the completion of the project impossible. Please correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case then lo and behold, you and I are in agreement. We disagree over causes (I think) and we disagree over extent (I think) but in terms of both solution and the desirability of the solution we agree.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-27 07:31 am (UTC)I see this has already been questioned above and you seem to be saying that you currently don't have the time to explain how you think the cures for sexism, racism etc are inevitably interlinked. Fair enough, but I would second the request for more detail when you do have time.
I had a realisation, thanks to our old friend Dissenter, I realised that one of the main roots of my problem with the whole idea of the patriarchy is the way many people seem to anthropomorphise it. The Patriarchy is a group of tweed-clad, middle aged men, sitting in a comfortable oak panelled room, the fire crackles in the grate, they sip their whiskies, from comfortable leather arm chairs they bend over a chessboard where they play with the lives of other people, whilst pressed up against the glass of the windows are the hollow, scared faces of all the rest. The problem with it is it makes it sound as if the whole thing is some sort of conspiracy. I look around the world and don't see such a conspiracy or any evidence that it ever existed (or could exist) and hence I tend to mutter 'balderdash' and dismiss the whole notion. I wondered if you had any thoughts - do you think 2nd wave feminism did in fact anthropomorphise the patriarchy (just as dead Dissenter took the Gaia theory and anthropomorphised the Earth) or is it just a rather odd impression I have picked up in my (presumably atypical) travels around LJ.
Finally, I wonder how biology fits into all this. As we research into ever odder corners of our behaviour, we are discovering that some very unexpected things have biological roots - everything from 'luck' to 'the god gene', and most certainly the inclinations for both altruism and selfishness which lie at the heart of our responses to discrimination. Society and experience overlays, richens and deepens these basic building blocks in ways that are so complex we cannot yet tease them apart. But since human biological evolution is by no means on the same timescale as social evolution it is obviously of great significance to know which parts come from which if you wish to change society.
I interpret most of your creed as saying that you believe that it will be possible to eradicate systemic injustice from modern Western society if we can develop the correct mindset to allow us to avoid the systemic modes of thought and hence actions that disadvantage various groups in our society. And that the endeavour is worthwhile even if practicalities render the completion of the project impossible. Please correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case then lo and behold, you and I are in agreement. We disagree over causes (I think) and we disagree over extent (I think) but in terms of both solution and the desirability of the solution we agree.