I consider most "reverse -ism" accusations ungrounded and inappropriate. I define -isms as privilege plus power, so I would argue that a man who feels that gender roles such as heavy lifting are forced upon him is a victim not of sexism, but instead of prejudice and binary gender roles.
Of course, your questions are quite murky and have gray areas everywhere we look. You probably enjoyed making this poll. :)
I think "experience", in general, is separate from "receive the real impact of".
I have experienced several of the above because of other people's perceptions, but as a (ostensibly) straight white U.S. citizen over-educated male, it's impossible to actually be in the place of the intended targets of racism, classism, sexism, or heterosexism.
When I recently was asked to leave a bar where I was dancing (I presume because my jeans and t-shirt and age didn't fit in with the frat / sorority crowd), I had the luxury of going in the next day, dressed in khaki pants and a much-more acceptable shirt, and complain to the manager about the rude and unwarranted treatment I had received the previous night. When I've been taken to be gay (not a infrequent occurrence), and have experienced the stupidly heterosexist assumptions of supposed "allies" of gays, I've pointed out the errors in those assumptions (without a denial that I was gay), but I am sure the impact was different than if I had had to internalize it more.
The thought just hit me, though, of what does one call it when one is (overtly or otherwise) accused of being a "traitor" to one's race/gender/class/affectional orientation? I presume it only matters if sanctions that materialize (be they psychological or physical) actually have some real effect.
(Yes, I did get the "oh my god, you are on their side" stare today. Some guy at the coffee shop, when the woman he was talking with said there was going to be one man in a particular (I presume) women's studies class, blurted out something to the effect of "everyone will attack him!" She asked him why he assumed that, and he backpedaled. I quietly remarked that in our culture, it seems that when a problem is pointed out, even when what is being sought is a solution, men tend to see blame and an attack. Of course, I think I had already frightened him by pulling out the copy of Butler's Gender Trouble I've been reading.)
For most of my answers I put "other" mostly because yes people can be treated badly because they are male, straight, white. But these are mostly isolated incidents. I'm not sure what to call them, but they're not *really* sexism, heterosexism, and racism (respectively) in my book.
I selected "Yes" straight down the line because I believe that racism, sexism, classism, etc. are fundamentally epistemological errors that have a similar structure regardless of the context.
Because it seems to me that if you "don't buy it", then you're stuck in a situation where a man saying "All women are stupid." is only sexist IF that man lives in a society where men have political and economic dominance over women (i.e. a patriarchal society).
And that seems ridiculous to me. The statement "All women are stupid." is a false generalization about sex (and therefore an instance of sexism), regardless of whether the dominant social paradigm is patriarchy, matriarchy, or egalitarianism.
But if I'm understanding your argument, if a man living in a matriarchial society says "All women are stupid." he is not being sexist. o_O
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 08:30 am (UTC)Of course, your questions are quite murky and have gray areas everywhere we look. You probably enjoyed making this poll. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 07:22 am (UTC)as usual, i appear in the extremist minority with my stance, though.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 09:07 am (UTC)I have experienced several of the above because of other people's perceptions, but as a (ostensibly) straight white U.S. citizen over-educated male, it's impossible to actually be in the place of the intended targets of racism, classism, sexism, or heterosexism.
When I recently was asked to leave a bar where I was dancing (I presume because my jeans and t-shirt and age didn't fit in with the frat / sorority crowd), I had the luxury of going in the next day, dressed in khaki pants and a much-more acceptable shirt, and complain to the manager about the rude and unwarranted treatment I had received the previous night. When I've been taken to be gay (not a infrequent occurrence), and have experienced the stupidly heterosexist assumptions of supposed "allies" of gays, I've pointed out the errors in those assumptions (without a denial that I was gay), but I am sure the impact was different than if I had had to internalize it more.
The thought just hit me, though, of what does one call it when one is (overtly or otherwise) accused of being a "traitor" to one's race/gender/class/affectional orientation? I presume it only matters if sanctions that materialize (be they psychological or physical) actually have some real effect.
(Yes, I did get the "oh my god, you are on their side" stare today. Some guy at the coffee shop, when the woman he was talking with said there was going to be one man in a particular (I presume) women's studies class, blurted out something to the effect of "everyone will attack him!" She asked him why he assumed that, and he backpedaled. I quietly remarked that in our culture, it seems that when a problem is pointed out, even when what is being sought is a solution, men tend to see blame and an attack. Of course, I think I had already frightened him by pulling out the copy of Butler's Gender Trouble I've been reading.)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 09:36 pm (UTC)this is potentially a really good point.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-04 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 02:35 am (UTC)I selected "Yes" straight down the line because I believe that racism, sexism, classism, etc. are fundamentally epistemological errors that have a similar structure regardless of the context.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 05:58 pm (UTC)interesting. but i still don't buy it.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 06:23 pm (UTC)Because it seems to me that if you "don't buy it", then you're stuck in a situation where a man saying "All women are stupid." is only sexist IF that man lives in a society where men have political and economic dominance over women (i.e. a patriarchal society).
And that seems ridiculous to me. The statement "All women are stupid." is a false generalization about sex (and therefore an instance of sexism), regardless of whether the dominant social paradigm is patriarchy, matriarchy, or egalitarianism.
But if I'm understanding your argument, if a man living in a matriarchial society says "All women are stupid." he is not being sexist. o_O