Discrimination

If someone is discriminating against you... does it really matter if they mean to?

Feeney was a case about sex discrimination. The issue was whether a law giving veterans priority in hiring was discrimination based on sex-- because veterans were overwhelmingly male, even moreso then than they are today.

I think it totally matters why someone discriminates. But I think that not intending to discriminate isn't reason to discount, or ignore, or accept that discrimination. The effects are harmful either way-- and may be more harmful when you can't even point to someone's negative intent. I think many people today unconsciously discriminate, and show their biases through their actions without truly intending to harm women. I’ve seen a number of men who would state that they believe men and women are equal—and I believe that consciously, that is true. However, their unconscious prejudices show in unthinking actions in humor and behavior—and it is just as harmful when done unthinkingly as when it is done with the intent to show superiority.

I don't know which type of discrimination is more harmful or if they end up being essentially the same. Both are part of an overarching, unfair system that disadvantages women. I lean towards unintentional discrimination being worse, though. When people intend to discriminate, it tends to be more obvious-- and easier to fight. It's out in the open, and can be combated. People can be confronted with their beliefs.

When discrimination is unintentional, it can be harder to fight. If someone is resistant to believe they are discriminating, they are unlikely to make any actual efforts to change things. We don't want to believe we're capable of doing bad things, so people engage in denial and protest, get defensive, and shut down the conversation. And then they act like picks, to show that it's "normal" and not discrimination.

I think unintentional discrimination is so, so, harmful-- and that it hurts the people who have those beliefs too. Because it isn't always the supposed ally doing the discriminating-- it can be the individual who faces blatant discrimination every day, and who ends up internalizing it, and incorporating it into his/her worldview. And then... they begin to unintentionally discriminate against others themselves. And the cycle (because really, it's all a cycle, isn't it?) continues, with new people incorporating thoughts into their world views, and spreading it like some easily diffusing venom in the water supply.

So how do we combat unintentional-- and even potentially well meaning-- discrimination? I don't know. And it frustrates me, it frustrates me deeply. I'm young enough to believe that my naivete is not misguided, and that there IS a way to deal with all this, a way to educate others without offending them, a way to showcase the wonderful spectrum of humanity-- but I don't really know how, other than to be that annoying chick who interrupts a conversation to challenge others' blanket statements.

Do you have any ideas?

Discrimination: Sex v. Gender

One of the courses I'm taking this semester is feminist jurisprudence. Basically-- legal theory combined with a feminist point of view. Part of the course is to write a reflection paper each week that addresses the week's reading. My prof is awesome enough that she's ok with me posting my course products to this blog. :-) You'll likely be able to tell which posts are inspired by class, because they'll have some legal components.

Craig v. Boren was a supreme court case dealing with sex discrimination. There've been a lot of cases since dealing with sex discrimination-- and then later, talk about gender discrimination.
And that, I think, is a very interesting distinction to make.

My biology and psychology background shows some here, but sex and gender are two very different things—and neither of them is a binary. It’s easy for us to assume sex is a binary of male/female, but that ignores a number of intersex individuals. One of them most interesting examples to me has always been individuals with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, so common in one area of the Dominican Republic that the condition is commonly referred to as Guevedoche there. If you've read Middlesex, it's the condition the lead character has. Individuals with 5-ARD are genetically, chromosomally male—but appear as female until puberty. Compare to individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome-- genetically male, yet often with a typically female appearance for their entire lives.

What's really nifty is that people with both conditions may develop a female gender identity—and those with 5-ARD may either continue to be female gendered, or become male gendered, when puberty hits. Even more difficult is the fact that other forms of intersexuality have chromosome configurations beyond XX and XY, showing that sex itself is certainly not a binary. Gender is an even broader spectrum. While people predominantly identify with the gender that matches their genitalia, you can also find people who identify as genderless while others are genderqueer, feeling they encompass more than one gender or that their gender changes with time.

In the choice between using the label sex discrimination and the label gender discrimination, I prefer the use of gender discrimination. Gender discrimination covers a wider ground, taking into account not only the male/female divide, but also transmen and transwomen, who might not be protected if it is merely sex discrimination. Protecting individuals regardless of gender—and indeed, regardless of how we perform gender—is paramount, and I believe that it encompasses traditional sex discrimination protections, while sex discrimination captures only a very heteronormative slice of things that can fall under gender discrimination.

It's so easy to think of things through the hetero, gender=sex mindframe. And really, it's how we've been thinking of it for... almost the entirety of America's existence. But that's got to stop sometime.

That time should be now-- both in our legal parlance, and our everyday lives. Sex and gender aren't the same thing, and treating them as if they are diminishes everyone whose gender doesn't tidily line up with their sex.

The Wage Gap and Women's Choices

Some thoughts on the wage gap, women's chocies, and Clay Shirky's A Rant About Women, courtesy of my Feminist Jurisprudence class.

Compulsory Heterosexuality

One of the most simultaneously interesting and annoying concepts I learned about this semester in feminist jurisprudence was the idea of compulsory heterosexuality*.  At first, I was pissed off-- I don't like being told that my feelings are the result of some societally programmed false consciousness-- but at the same time, I do know that socialization has a huge effect on who we become as people-- nature creates a map, but nurture provides the force to guide us around that map.

So I ended up thinking more about compulsory heterosexuality, and how it might apply to me and to other women I know.

The idea of compulsory heterosexuality is fairly simple-- it's based on the idea that we are always presented being straight as a default and as inevitable.  And culturally, that's really true-- or at least, it has been in the past.  The end of every fairy tale is a heterosexual union, many people grew up never knowing any out queer* individuals, and it was assumed when everyone entered middle school that you had to have some sort of male heartthrob to crush on.  Some of this is changing-- there are definitely more out queer individuals and gay couples, and there exists a growing number of kid's books that lack the traditional heterosexual pairing.  It might be that the toddlers of today reach their consciousness in a world in which being straight is no longer the default assumption-- but in today's society, many people treat others as straight until proven not.

So, for someone of my age-- how much has compulsory heterosexuality affected me?  I don't think it has, all that much.  There definitely has been social pressure to be straight rather than gay-- both from family and from the peers I grew up with-- but I also grew up with social pressure not to date outside my race, and I certainly managed to do that in college.  I'm also given to a little too much introspection-- over-analyzing all my feelings, towards everyone.  Plus, I grew up with the idea that while being gay might not be socially acceptable, it certainly wasn't something bad-- yay fantasy novels?  Books were definitely my first introduction to the world of non-straightness, as they were to many other ideas and concepts.  I have dated men exclusively, and will be marrying a man.  I do not, however, feel as if I have entered into this relationship with no choice.  Instead, I have evaluated my life and my relationship choices.  I have made choices along the way regarding who to date, and I have always chosen to date men, though I have certainly not chosen to date all the men who were available to me for dating.

There's another side to the compulsory heterosexuality theory though, and that side suggests that women ought to give up relationships with men to invest more deeply in relationships with other women, including sexual relationships.  In this regard it lines up pretty well with the concept of political lesbianism.  I am pretty much the opposite of a fan of this aspect.  I find it to be completely ungenuine, and to be asking individuals to behave in a way that is unnatural for them-- just as a society that pressures everyone to act straight is asking some individuals to live in a way that is unnatural for them.  I am completely in favor of investing more in same sex friendships, but I think trying to force a sexual relationship out of a friend-bond is problematic and unfair to both partners.  Instead, I think it would be healthier if we could somehow remove the expectations of what gender someone should date, and encourage people to examine their emotional and sexual feelings on a case by case basis.

I do think that examining our views on sexuality is important.  It is important to know what shaped us, what expectations ourselves and others have had for us, and what desires we might have that we don't consciously know.  I do not think that heterosexuality is always a result of false consciousness though, and I think that both straight and non-straight sexual experiences can be equally fulfilling-- but that they are not likely to be equally fulfilling for any given individual.  Just like there is nothing wrong with not being straight, being straight ought not have any judgement associated with it.  And with a continually changing landscape, maturing individuals have a great opportunity to come to age more aware of themselves and their options than ever before.

What do you think about the idea of compulsory heterosexuality?  How have expectations shaped your romantic experiences?

*Compulsory heterosexuality, as a term, was originated by Adrienne Rich in her essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.
*Why do I use the term queer?  Because it's a broader and more encompassing term than "gay or lesbian".  Queer includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, those who are flexible, and those who feel no label fits, among others.  Queer can also include people who are genderqueer.

Today, I compared abortion to a couch

Hi.

If you're on this entry, you're probably here via The Antifeminist.  Please don't just leave.  Take the time to read some of my entries, and evaluate them.  I'm not some insane person who hates men.  The post you were directed to has, obviously, a rather flippant title, but it's actually a post about talking about major life decisions with your partner.  It's here, if you still want to read it, and it hasn't been altered in any way, despite the claims of The Antifeminist.  But please, while you're here, read some other posts.  Feel free to leave comments, though please adhere to my comment policy.  Feel free to email me, too, at lovelettersinhell@gmail.com and I'll get back to you.