[PEN-L:11420] Re: Gender and Hierarchy (was: Male Chauv

["James Michael Craven" <CRAVJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In a message dated 97-07-23 09:26:05 EDT, Anders writes:
> >Corporate hierarchies don't look the way they do simply because of the
> >inherent needs of capitalism or because they are "reproducing the power
> >elite":  they are gendered in a way that fits how Western society
> >constructs maleness.  That's why, as Maggie pointed out, it's good for male
> >corporate weasels to be aggressive but not ok for female corporate weasels.
> > That's also why in corporations, men in traditionally female roles tend to
> >be treated better than women in traditionally male roles.  For example,
> >female secretaries are expected to "mother" their bosses in a way that male
> >secretaries are not (for a wonderful analysis of these dynamics, check out
> >Jennifer Pierce's study of male and female lawyers, paralegals, and
> >secretaries in corporate law offices).
> >
> >This doesn't mean that if women were running things, we wouldn't have
> >domination, competitiveness, back-stabbing, etc.  But in our form of
> >capitalism, sexism isn't just a matter of how much men vs. women get paid,
> >it's built into the fabric of how power operates at a day-to-day level.
> >
> >Anders Schneiderman
> >Progressive Communications
> I agree.  Gender is as inseperable from the exercise of power is it is in all
> our other relationships.  Capitalism as exercised by women will still be
> exploitation, but it will not necessarily look the same.  In order to
> understand where feminist arguments fit within the heirarchy of discussions
> on economic issues, it's important to recognize this--not just trash all
> feminist argument as 'bourgeois' or 'petit-bourgeois'.  This is particularly
> insulting to working class women who are dealing with feminist issues of
> their own. Because we don't see women in positions where they dominate or
> exploit, society as a whole tends to come to the conclusion that women are
> incapable of being nasty--and are shocked when women are.  On the other hand,
> facing the assumption that I'll always be 'motherly' and 'nice' has stood me
> in good stead on occasion...............
> maggie coleman mscoleman@xxxxxxx
>
> p.s.  Using statistics descriptively for a moment: Caucasian women with
> college diplomas earn less, on average, than African American men with high
> school diplomas.

Response (Jim C)
I don't remember anyone, certainly not me, characterizing "all"
feminist arguments as petit-bourgeois. What was characterized as
"petit-bourgeois" was the notion of gender being exclusively or even
the essential form of oppression without reference to other forms and
bases of oppression.

The above-mentioned "statistic" (sources?) if accurate, contains
some potential built-in artifacts. College diplomas in what? What
percentage of those women are working--part-time and full-time--and
what percentage of those "African-American men" are working part-time
and full-time. Also oppression is about much more than level of
income or differential levels of income. Compare for example, what
percentage of Caucasian women with College Degrees are subjected to
random police searches or "accidental shooting by police" as they are
driving versus African American Males with High School Diplomas.

Non serious person could ever question the existence or seriousness
of various forms and levels of oppression that women face. No
question, typically poor women face additional forms of oppression
relative to and even by poor men; the same applies for African
American women vs men, American Indian women versus men etc. But
again I reiterate, assuming differences in kind and degree when
talking about various forms of oppression, the day-to-day conditions
of life and forms of oppression suffered by a white, tenured, female
professor for example only--not to point to anyone--or by a white
female middle manager are simply incomparable typically with the
conditions of life, the probabilities of death, and the ugly
forms/consequences of oppression faced by say a typical American
Indian male on a reservation or typical ghettoized African American
male or even a typical poor White sharecropper etc.

Gender, class, strata, race, ethnicity, religion, language, age all
cna be/are used as instruments of divide-and-rule and oppression. I
remember once a special article in Ms showing a woman U.S. Army
General and illustrating/celebrating new avenues and opportunities for
women in the military; terrific, "you've come a long way baby" now
you have an equal opportunity to become an agent of U.S. Imperialism
and join the boys in projecting U.S. Imperial power and terror
throughout the world--that is an example of Petit-bourgeois (or
worse) feminism--certainly not all feminism.

                               Jim Craven

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  James Craven             * " The philosophers have only         *
*  Dept of Economics        * interpreted the world in various     *
*  Clark College            * ways; the point, however, is to      *
*  1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* change it." (Karl Marx)              *
*  Vancouver, Wa. 98663     *                                      *
*  (360) 992-2283           *                                      *
*  jcraven@xxxxxxxxx        *                                      *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *