Feminism and Systems of Power.

[shawnaree]

I've been thinking about feminism using the paradigm set forth by critical race theorists such as Gloria Ladson-Billings. Mostly, I've been clicking around links to various feminist blogs and reading some of the FAQs about why we should be feminists, and what feminism is, and I found this quote:

Mr Shakes): Feminism benefits us all

Comments

[shawnaree]

Well, obviously the partriarchy has benefits. I don't think that's a point of contention for me. If the system didn't at least make people think it was good, it wouldn't have existed as long as it has.

From a patriarchal system, men get a lot of things, and so do women. What is different about a patriarchal system versus an equitable one, I think, is that in an equitable one, one's membership in a group doesn't dictate what benefits you recieve or what benefits are available to you. For example, when women were expected to quit their jobs when they had children, that was beneficial to women who /wanted/ to quit their jobs, and could be argued as being beneficial to women because it gives them more time to be with their kids, but... that wasn't a decision women were allowed to make-- it was an expectation placed upon them, either by policy or social pressure.

What direction I think would be most interesting to think of in terms of moving toward a more equitable society is to start thinking at this level. What sacrifices do we make to be a part of this system? What of these do we make and which are simply given for us without option?

We can't get rid of the patriarchy, and expect to replace it with a more equitable system, unless a vast majority of people agree to give up whatever they have now, in exchange for something else. So what are we-- I speak of feminists-- offering them -- people who aren't feminists-- in the way of education on the benefits of a more feminist system.

I wouldn't agree, as Ladson-Billings doesn't when talking about Brown, with the notion that things would be better if women were in charge. I also don't like the idea of trying to work within a system to change a system, especially when it isn't really possible to know the entirety of this particular system from where I exist in it. It's hard enough for me to think about my own privilege-- what I get from the system-- versus my disadvantage-- what I don't, and how that is all wrapped up in things that are other than choices I've made.

So, I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but that is perfectly okay with me. I'm interested to see where conversations about this post will go.

I'm curious about your thoughts about feminism, and not just devil's advocate. You say you're not arguing in favour of the patriarchy, so I'm wondering if you'd argue in favour of whatever system you think would be best to replace it? What does "patriarchy" mean to you, and what are the important points of contention you have with it, would be a follow-up.

[peaceofpie]

I guess part of the challenge I have with arguing this sort of thing is that I don't have a clear sense of what would be the best system. I don't think I'm qualified to decide that, and if I thought I was, my belief would probably be that the best system would be Oliverarchy. :D

But I think that it is a big problem when any one group runs the show. I guess one of the problems I see with both patriarchy and feminism is that both are systems in which a group believes they are more qualified to run the show, while simultaneously insisting that they aren't really trying to run the show. I tried on the idea of "Maybe it would be better if people could just admit that they really do want to run the show", but I don't actually think that's a better idea. It's a start, maybe, but wouldn't fix much. Honestly, I think what needs to happen is that people need to stop trying to run the show, and instead enjoy the damn show. ;-)

Does that make ANY sense? I mean...yes, I know it makes sense, but does it help? Does it answer your question? I'll own that I was kinda just being an ass when I started the conversation, because I was in an obnoxious mood at the time...but I'm not being an ass now. (I've been praying for the last hour, I'm in a go(o)d mood. ;-) )

[shawnaree]

The issue for me is that I can't answer the question "what is the opposite of patriarchy?" in a way that's satisfying for me. I don't think that flip-flopping places of power between two groups is really the best idea, and I don't think it would work.

That's what I think is so interesting about (some) feminists, those who aren't attempting to run the show, but rather are making small steps toward creating a place where the person/people who is/are running the show are running the show because they are qualified and interested. Not because of any particular gendered quality or identity.

I mean, I don't think men shouldn't be in positions of power. And I don't think that women need to make up 50% of Congress or whatever. And actually, to be honest, I think having a woman president would be /harmful/ to feminism, much in the same way I see "black president" being used as an excuse to stop talking about racism.

You're making sense, and I think I see where you're coming from. The issue for me is, someone has to run the show. Not because it's a biologic imperative, but because we're conditioned to believe it. If we stop being involved in the process of creating a system of power, then one will be created without us-- I guess is my (rather jaded) feeling toward the matter.

I'm glad you've been praying. Also, Oliverarchy sounds funny.

[peaceofpie]

And actually, to be honest, I think having a woman president would be /harmful/ to feminism, much in the same way I see "black president" being used as an excuse to stop talking about racism.

Oooh, you said that out loud! I was thinking that all along, but I didn't have the balls to say it out loud. And, I also think that if it really is harmful to the anti-oppression movement focused on ending oppression against the group to which the president belongs for the president to belong to that group, then that sounds to me like either the movement has a great big flaw that needs to be exposed...or the system of power has a great big flaw that needs to be exposed, and probably it's both. ;-)

someone has to run the show. Not because it's a biologic imperative, but because we're conditioned to believe it.
I think you're probably right, but I don't want you to be right, because then that would make your statement true and I would have to accept it. ;-)

Maybe patriarchy is an illusion, and that's why we can't see its shadow/opposite! ;-)

I'm glad I've been praying, too! God says to tell you "hey". :)

[shawnaree]

I think the issue with the anti-oppression movement that I've been exposed to is that it tends to focus on outcomes. Mostly, I think, because outcomes are measurable, but.

If we think that women will be oppressed until 50% of public officials are female, we're looking at the wrong thing (I think). We're trying to find a simple mathematical answer to a complex social problem.

[peaceofpie]

That is interesting, because one of my greatest issues with feminism and related anti-oppression movements is that I feel they DON'T focus on outcomes. I find that when I ask most anti-oppression activists "What would the world look like if oppression against [group] were eliminated?" and they have absolutely no idea, they've never really thought about that, they don't really believe that will actually happen, the best we can do is get rid of it little by little even though it will never really be completely gone...but since the goal itself is understood in negative terms anyway ("get rid of..." instead of "change it to..." or "create..."), people don't really seem to know what they're going for. I've never heard a feminist say that women will be oppressed until 50% of public officials are female, though I've often heard feminists say that they can't really imagine what it would be like if women weren't oppressed because they've never experienced that before and don't really believe it's possible to 100% eliminate sexism anyway.

And that makes me go, if your movement is about eliminating X, and you don't even believe that's possible, let alone have a vision of an X-free world that you're striving for, what's even the point? No wonder these movements create passive-aggressive activists and short-term changes that may actually be more harmful to the movement in the long run (but who could really know, since the long-term goal is "..??!!")