"My system of oppression has a bigger cock than your system of oppression"

R. Mildred of Punkass Blog came up with a truly inspired title for her post about those endless arguments about the relative priority of sexism vs. racism vs. socioeconomic inequality, "My system of oppression has a bigger cock than your system of oppression."

Comments

[SomeCallMeTim]

Term of art: "misery poker." (Not mine.)

[DAS]

:lol:

[The Continental Op]

But doesn't the phalloentrism of R. Mildred's title privilege sexism over racism and classism? Wouldn't a better title be, "My system of oppression is richer, whiter and has a bigger cock than yours?"

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Nah. R Mildred is mocking phallocentrism by using the claim of phallo-superiority a stand-in for all other silly, arbitrary hierarchical distinctions people try to impose on each other. That's why I think it's such a great title for the essay that follows.

Her point, as I understand it, is that a lot of subordinated people get caught up in dead-end hierarchical assumptions, even when they try to critique the hierarchies that are making their lives miserable. If you assume that reality has an absolute pecking order, then it makes sense to fight about which form of oppression makes bitches out of all the other forms of oppression.

OTOH, there's no a priori reason to assume that there must be a King Oppression that gives rise to all the other forms of discrimination and misery that we observe. (Maybe there is an ideal theory that can explain all oppression in terms of one major kind of oppression, but I haven't seen compelling evidence so far.)

[Alon Levy]

Well, there are several kinds of moonbats on the blogosphere. One kind is the totalizing kind that thinks only one sort of oppression is important; Twisty is a prime example of that. Another is the kind that pays lip service to one oppression but still concentrates on one and gets annoyed when people talk about the other; Nubian's going off in length about how feminism is racist is a good example. The third, which R. Mildred seems to espouse, is the synthesis kind, which goes against men, white people, the middle and upper classes, and straight people, all at the same time.

[Alon Levy]

OTOH, there's no a priori reason to assume that there must be a King Oppression that gives rise to all the other forms of discrimination and misery that we observe. (Maybe there is an ideal theory that can explain all oppression in terms of one major kind of oppression, but I haven't seen compelling evidence so far.)

That, and there's no reason to assume that historical priority is that important. Xenophobia seems to have evolved earlier than patriarchalism, to the tune of several millennia. Classism evolved somewhat later. Racism directed against an endemic immigrant minority (the general form of racism in the West except against African-Americans) and racism directed against an endemic non-immigrant minority (the form of anti-AA racism in the US) evolved even later.

But who cares? It's an academic curiosity; sociopolitically, it's about as relevant as the libertarian claim that property rights are absolute because 2,000 years ago it was possible to fence away unoccupied land. The radical right has its stupid nationalist narratives portraying The Country as glorious all the time; the radical left has its stupid cultural narratives portraying The Patriarchy/Racism/whatever as the most fundamental problem all the time.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I don't regard Twisty, Nubian, or R Mildred as moonbats. I don't agree with Twisty and Nubian's respective analyses, but I respect them both. R. Mildred is arguing that there are several independent hierarchies in our society that end up making the people who occupy the lower echelons of each pecking order suffer unfairly. I think that's about right. Rich people are a lot better off than poor people. Men have privilege over women. Straight people have advantages over gay people, and so on.

The average rich white woman has more power and options than the average poor black man. Even so, a rich white woman may face real disadvantages because of her gender. Her wealth and her race won't insulate her from all the problems that women face as a group--domestic violence, employment discrimination, heteronormativity, etc, etc. Not that any of these problems are unique to women, of course, but that's my point. Our society supports a variety of unjust hierarchies. It's like in poker. The luckiest people get Royal Flushes on the high card--all the relevant factors coincide to give them the overwhelming advantage. Everyone else makes do with with some lesser hand, which may rank lower for any number of reasons. Nobody denies that a Royal Flush of a low card still beats most other hands, but a person with a low-card RF still loses to a high-card RF.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

X-post with Alon.

I'm not sure that historical priority is the main criterion, even for progressives who argue that there's one King Oppression.

In general, I'm sympathetic to socialist economic critiques of our social institutions. Quite frankly, money is the best way to insulate yourself against all kinds of discrimination. It's not perfect, but it's better than, say, gender, race, or sexual orientation. There are, after all, a lot of straight black men at the very bottom of our society's power structure. It's equally clear that not everyone has an equal opportunity to make money in our society, let alone to inherit it.

So, I have some sympathy for progressives who try to find one kind of oppression that other forms of oppression are derived from. If I could end only one form of oppression, it would be class. Not because SEC as we know it is an ancient phenomenon, but because if everyone had comparable economic power, most privilege would be nullified. For example, an abusive husband is less likely to keep his wife in his thrall if she makes as much money as he does.

[Alon Levy]

R. Mildred is arguing that there are several independent hierarchies in our society that end up making the people who occupy the lower echelons of each pecking order suffer unfairly. I think that's about right.

Yeah, me too. But the whole attempt to combine different forms of radicalism into one super-radicalism smacks of moonbatness.

A while ago, when a few fundamentalist wingnuts were discussing whether women should be allowed to vote, I made the observation that thinking it's a serious discussion is enough to make you a wingnut. This was based on the earlier example of the pseudo-dilemma of whether to save a child or five embryos: even if you decide to save the child, you're still insane if you think it's a real dilemma.

My characterization of R. Mildred's post as moonbatty then comes from two sources. One is her displaying that characteristic in one of the endless Sex Wars posts (I think the one that set me off was the "high heels are patriarchal" one). Two is her displaying that whole mode of talking that is almost deliberately designed for group boundedness rather than effectively; in fact it likely evolved via a method similar to natural selection rather than designed, but as we all know, evolved things can sometimes look intelligently designed...

So, I have some sympathy for progressives who try to find one kind of oppression that other forms of oppression are derived from.

So do I. They're welcome to start doing that, as opposed to constructing a fictional narrative in which their pet oppression is the root.

If I could end only one form of oppression, it would be class. Not because SEC as we know it is an ancient phenomenon, but because if everyone had comparable economic power, most privilege would be nullified.

I know what you mean, but for a closely related system, it would be the last oppression I'd end. Oppression on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. is something that exists largely for reasons of conservatism; they're not integral to the current system. Class oppression is of course a symptom of extreme capitalism rather than mixed-economy capitalism, but whereas race and genders are distinctions that can be entirely leveled, class distinctions can't be.

For a concrete example, take unions. In principle, they're a reaction to corporate oppression, so a classless system wouldn't really have them; after all, there's no reason for workers to collectivize if they have no predatory employer to fight. But in fact any reasonable system has to have unions, because it's impossible to eliminate corporations and differences in wealth.

[Alon Levy]

In general, I'm sympathetic to socialist economic critiques of our social institutions. Quite frankly, money is the best way to insulate yourself against all kinds of discrimination. It's not perfect, but it's better than, say, gender, race, or sexual orientation.

Well, not always... especially if you have to work for it. In occupations paying more than $100-200k a year, what seems to be most important is the social networking thing - the old boy network, essentially. That network is heavily subject to existing prejudices against women, minorities, people with unapproved political views, nerds, and what not.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Alon, I think we're making similar points. I'm not saying that all race and gender inequality is a function of socioeconomic inequality.

As you say, sexism and racism also prevent people from getting better jobs, access to fair credit, and other things that might help them improve their economic situation.

I don't the R Mildred is arguing for one big super oppression. I think she's arguing for the same view that we share: We shouldn't assume that all oppression has a single common denominator.

One of the more interesting points in her essay is that progressives and radicals have bought into some of the warped values of the hierarchies that they oppose. Relative priority of oppressions isn't that important. It it's a subject that might interest theoreticians, but it makes no practical difference.

[Fitz]

“One of the more interesting points in her essay is that progressives and radicals have bought into some of the warped values of the hierarchies that they oppose. Relative priority of oppressions isn't that important. It it's a subject that might interest theoreticians, but it makes no practical difference.”

Or there’s the camp that wonders what’s the point of talking about economic “oppression” in a country were 98% of those under the poverty line have VCR’s to go with their color televisions. A much more prescient question maybe why they don’t have Husbands to go with their Wives, or Fathers to go with their children? Now the question of whether is this a function of class, a presupposition of sexism, a prime manifestation of heterosexism, or merely another bane of racism; seems to pale in comparison (for some) to the central tenet of whether those Fathers & Husbands have any intrinsic worth to begin with?

[Alon Levy]

Or there’s the camp that wonders what’s the point of talking about economic “oppression” in a country were 98% of those under the poverty line have VCR’s to go with their color televisions.

Which country is that? Wikipedia says that in the US it's 55%. Which, I presume, doesn't matter much considering that 11% of all households in the US - which probably means almost all households under the poverty line - are food-insecure.

A much more prescient question maybe why they don’t have Husbands to go with their Wives, or Fathers to go with their children?

By the same token, you could ask why a married couple in poverty doesn't decide to go polyamorous and join a foursome.

One of the more interesting points in her essay is that progressives and radicals have bought into some of the warped values of the hierarchies that they oppose. Relative priority of oppressions isn't that important. It it's a subject that might interest theoreticians, but it makes no practical difference.

If you believe Coturnix's argument about how the radical left is as hierarchistic as conservatism (which I don't), then it's not that surprising.

What I do think is that she's a little too zealous in speaking contrarianism to power. So she inflates the my-oppression-has-a-bigger-dick crowd, which is pretty small and insignificant. On the feminist blogosphere, which overrepresents radicals, the only two bloggers I know of who regularly engage in that kind of rhetoric are Twisty and Violet. In the real world, progressive activists seem to largely work together in parallel instead of argue over who is more oppressed.

[flawedplan]

What the hell I'll throw my two cents in; I believe childhood is the source of oppression and children the original victims.

Alice Miller argues the political ramifications of childhood determinism, and since few people escape childhood injustice you'd think we'd have a big tent here and common cause, but I've yet to see any attempt to apply her thinking on a large scale, since, according to the theory most who grow up in authoritarian systems want to forget how it was and instead identify with the oppressor, so they have nothing to offer politics, but status quo.

Which doesn't change the fact that the law permits parents to do all manner of horror to their offspring, who are disenfranchised by definition.