Quoting once again from Aqueertheory’s nutshelling of Julie Serano, I thought this was very interesting:
Serano contributes significantly to feminist theory and practice by providing us with a concise way of categorizing the different forms of sexism in Western societies. She argues that sexism is a two-fold phenomenon, consisting of “oppositional” and “traditional” elements. Oppositional sexism is “the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories” (13). A man should not have any of the “attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires” commonly associated with women, and vice-versa (13). Anyone who does not follow this schema, any manly women or womanly men, should be dismissed and punished for disobeying the divine, natural and social order that deemed the two genders to be mutually exclusive opposites. On the other hand, traditional sexism is “the belief that maleness and masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity” (14). This type of sexism specifically demeans all feminine persons (many of whom are females) by characterizing their activities as frivolous and justifying their exclusion from certain jobs and positions of social authority. Thus, according to Serano, sexism is a commonly held belief system that conceptualizes males and females as strict oppositional categories and sets up a hierarchy in which men and masculinity are considered superior to women and femininity.
Feminists and queer theorists have failed to recognize this dual aspect of sexism, which is one of the reasons why they often seem to talk past each other. Queer theorists have focused on oppositional sexism: they have analyzed and railed against binary gender norms, which push people to fit their identities and behaviors into carefully prescribed masculine and feminine boxes. On the other hand, feminists have concentrated their efforts on studying and fighting against the more traditional forms of sexism: the oppression of women and their social subordination to men.
(Via.)
Would the cisnormative version of this be the conflict between “gender feminism” and “equity feminism”/”difference feminism”?
I recognise these two types of sexism, but disagree that they are completely characterised here:
Additionally, men and women are assumed to have the attributes, aptitudes, etc., assigned to their gender. Those who do not are erased as well as dismissed and punished.
Coexisting with the ancient idea of women’s moral inferiority to men is an equally ancient idea that women are morally superior. See Pollitt. One of my criticisms of feminism is that many feminists adhere to this traditionalist notion. See Ehrenreich for example.
These fall down because they’re prescriptive, rather than descriptive. It completely fails to acknowledge the “modern” misogynist subset. Those men are angry at what they perceive women _are_ not what they believe they should be. That is to say, the “bitches are crazy” contingent.
The traditionalist and the oppositionalist believes that women are weak and that is as it should be. They both view sexism through the lens of the Patriarchy. An oppositionalist see’s weakness as a woman’s role, and a traditionalist sees weakness as the reason men are superior.
The “modern” misogynist sees women as weak and is disgusted by that fact. You look at modern misogyny, and it’s not anger at women for not “knowing their place”, but quite the opposite – anger at women for persisting in the place the Patriarchy built for them. The Nice Guy who thinks that women only love assholes because women are too dumb to know what’s good for them and only love the traditional (Patriarchal) Manly Man. The callous asshole who becomes verbally abusive every time his wife cries. The paranoid MRA who has utterly sworn off women because he finds them impossible to deal with.
The reason it’s important to remember these guys is that they’re the ones who truly _hate_ women. Oppositionalists and Traditionalists just see women as having a role to play – they’re very similar in that respect. So they see feminine stereotypes as a part of that role. Their attitude is loathsome, but they are fuelled by prejudice, not hatred.
The modern misogynist actually hates women because they not only believe in negative feminine stereotypes… but unlike the Oppositionalist (who reveres those stereotypes as The Way It Should Be) or the Traditionalist (who thinks women are childlike and don’t know any better), the modern misogynist thinks women _should_ know better. And he hates them for it.
Traditional sexists pick up their attitudes from how they’re raised. Modern misogynists get them from a string of bad relationships. They’re the ones who turn hateful and join the extremist groups of MRAs, or turn cynical and join the Pick Up Artists.
I don’t know if it’s accurate to say modern misogynists hate women more than in the past. I think hatred of women actually fits neatly into the “traditional sexism” category…the belief that women are inferior, and hating them for it; hating everything feminine because feminine is inferior and anyone feminine doesn’t deserve the good that they get, and they should know how to act inferior. Not acting inferior/feminine is a digression that is punished with hatred, violence, etc etc. Lots of men are burned by women in relationships; only a few of them turn into raving misogynists. The traditionalist thought pattern has to exist before the application of misogyny, otherwise the burned person would only hate/dislike the particular people who hurt them, not the entire gender category. I really don’t think this is a modern phenomenon. These types of men have always existed and I’m sure there is ample evidence throughout history. Offhand…Henry VIII, Euripides, Sts. Paul and Augustine, Freud, Nietzsche, and quite a few fictional characters from various time periods as well. I realize that’s awfully eurocentric and there are many more examples.
First of all thanks for the link!
@Daran: “Additionally, men and women are assumed to have the attributes, aptitudes, etc., assigned to their gender. Those who do not are erased as well as dismissed and punished.”
Actually I think oppositional sexists think assuming those attributes, and erasing those who don’t conform, is a feature not a bug of their philosophy. Which is why I think it’s such a helpful distinction. In particular it’s the foundation for cis-centric/heteronormative bias — “real” men are supposed to be this way, “real” women are supposed to be the other. Mixing, or, worse, wanting to mix is even less to their liking.
@Silenced is Foo: While the distinctions might be useful for parsing misogynist feelings (though it doesn’t always help to know whether you’re being eaten by an alligator or a crocodile) I think it is useful for coping with the hard feelings that often show up between feminists who are exposed to or more concerned about one kind than the other.
figleaf
So where, on the oppositional sexist-antisexist axis, lies the practice of erasing male victims in discourses about domestic and sexual abuse?
Daran:
I think you are reading the quote in the original post as if these two kinds of sexism are separable, rather than interacting, intersecting “threads” or phenomenon. I read the quote as saying that Serano was critiquing the separation of these two kinds of sexism and so asking the question the way you have asked it won’t get at a meaningful answer–assuming you agree with the critique.
Also, just to add my two cents: I don’t think the silencing you are talking about comes primarily from oppositional sexism. Rather, I think it roots itself primarily in the sense that men are superior to women: men who have been sexually abused/assaulted or have been the objects of domestic violence are not “womanly men,” in the sense that they do not necessarily present behaviors, traits, etc. commonly associated with women, but are rather men who have not lived up to the expectations of their own superiority. This does not mean that I think oppositional sexism does not play a role in the silencing you are talking about, just that I think it is not where the silence roots itself.
I’m not sure what gives you the idea that I think they are seperable?
I read it as positing that sexism has a “dual aspect”, and critiquing the exclusive focus upon just the one aspect of sexism or the other, by the two movements. That doesn’t mean that focusing on one or the other is problematic, only that an exclusive focus is.
I don’t agree, by the way, that either feminism or trans activisim do operate under these exclusive focusses.
As you may or may not know, depending upon how much attention to pay to me, I blog an awful lot about the generaly phenomenon of male victim invisibility. I think there are several gender norms behind it, including notions of male disposability, combatancy, culpability. invulnerability and privilege, and the corresponding contrary notions attached to femaleness. In the context of domestic and sexual violence, I think it is the latter two, culpability, and invulnerabity, that primarily lie behind the erasing of male victims in mainstream and feminist discourse. Privilege also applies in feminist discourse.
The invulnerability norm is manifested in the general unwillingness to recognise that men might be vulnerable to these kinds of violence (or others, but these in particular). For an example of the male culpability norm in action, consider the common feminist discourse of responding to male victimisation by refocussing onto men as perpetrators, the implication is that male victims do not deserve consideration because men are the majority of perpetrators, a discourse which fails to recognise men as individuals, and which blames victims by conflating them with perpetrators.
Combined, the two norms of invulnerability and culpability posit men as superior in the sense of physically and perhaps mentally more resilient, but morally inferior. Feminists, by and large fail to recognise the latter norm, and in fact, are significant perpetrators of it.
Your suggestion that men are traditionally viewed as superior, without regard to the complex and bidirectional nature of the relevent gender norms, seems to be a thinly disguised claim that men are privileged. In the context of male victimisation, this is particularly prejudical. Firstly it is only a privilege to be viewed as invulnerable if that is what you really are. Secondly generic notions of male privilege are used by feminists to dismiss demands for the male victims to be recognised, and is thus a contributor to the very system we are critiquing.
Daran:
Actually, no, it was not. I disagree with you about the nature of male privilege and what feminism had to say about male privilege, but that is not what I was talking about. As to the rest of your response to me, I agree with some of it and disagree with a good deal more of it, and I think I will leave it at that.
Pingback: Links « Stuff
Pingback: Breaking News! Men Want Sex, Women Want Love! « Kittywampus
Pingback: The Opposite of Oppositional Sexism « Kittywampus