Bigotry relies on classification. People who are sexist, racist, ablist, homophobic, transphobic, what have you, have convinced themselves that women, people of color, etc. are X or are not Y. That they are able to feel a particular way about an entire group because the group is homogenous in some way.
Whereas, these people feel that their own group is composed of individuals. Let’s take a white male who doesn’t think highly of blacks or women. He’s decided that blacks are a certain way, and women are a certain way. However, he doesn’t like all white men either. But the reasons he may not like someone in this latter group allow for more diversity within the group.
In my earlier post on regulated capitalism, there were some comments that suggested that capitalism involved individualism, which is flawed. (La Lubu has some interesting things to say on individualism, in comment 93 here and also here).
Certainly, while women, like men, have the right to try to excel, this should coexist with working as a team for objectives which would benefit all women. The lack of consensus around feminist objectives and the increasingly difficult balancing act that women face involving a longer workday and other issues are some of the reasons this is challenging, but also some of the reasons it’s necessary.
But I think individualism is something women cannot afford to write out, either.
I’ve heard suggestions within TWF that any step women are able to take is purely based on privilege, rather than initiative, guts, creativity, or anything else individual. But by asking women to think in terms of a homogeneous collective, aren’t we playing right into the hands of the bigots?
Let’s clarify one point. Obviously, class and other forms of privilege play a huge role in opportunity. But they don’t tell the whole story. Women from equivalent backgrounds can achieve different things, have different belief systems, make an impact in a different way. We are not the sum total of our body parts and family wealth situation. One woman in my law school class, had a dad who had been a sharecropper (almost sixty years her senior; her mom was one of about six common-law wives). Another woman’s dad was an auto industry tycoon. Now they work at the same firm and make the same income. The woman whose dad was a sharecropper, additionally, has had poetry published in major journals and has lauched a successful DV-focused pro bono program. Not everyone who came from her background has the ability to wind up working for a top New York law firm, but don’t we take something away from her by failing to acknowledge that she had some pretty neat individual accomplishments? Nor is this an isolated example.
Moreover, looking at the marriage example. Do we conclude, because some women really don’t have the economic ability/opportunity to get out of a bad marriage, that none of us can or should, or that we can’t pat ourselves on the back once we do? Absolutely not, in my book.
But, as is my tendency, let’s get rid of all the theory and look at the practice. What if we accept that we are indeed homogenous. And that any privilege we have is on the backs of another women. Any success we have in capitalism is perpetuating the system at a cost to other women.
OK, that’s the deal: what happens?
Well, I don’t much see the point for women to go to college, in that case. A four year degree, and certainly a grad degree, are only patriarchal tools to compete for MONEY or STATUS which would be individualist to aspire to. We can audit women’s studies classes and other humanities classes, but law, medicine, business, engineering, etc. are all part of the patriarchy. If we wish to do law or medicine purely pro bono, that is OK, but we cannot afford to go to law or med school if we can’t pay back our loans afterwards, so: let’s just forget that. We can get 2-year degrees, or none, and teach or volunteer our time.
Is anyone seeing a problem with this yet? We have effectively formed an even more entrenched underclass than already exists. Women would have zero relationship leverage, much less leverage in politics and industry. Even the beginnings of the media beginning to feature the Helen Mirrens, Hillary Clintons, Michelle Obamas, Mary Meekers, Cynthia McKinneys, Meg Whitmans as enigmatic and charismatic, if not sexbotty, would change – the only women given any media attention would be the look I used to aspire to in Vegas; as one customer put it: “all eyes, boobs and legs (and not necessarily in that order).”
Not a particularly healthy aspiration, I don’t think.
So why NOT individualism? Of course, that doesn’t mean we don’t recognize how lucky we are for being able to achieve it. Or that we don’t do as much as we reasonably can towards collective activism and giving.
But as women we deserve to step up to the dudes and announce we’re here. We’re not all one way. Just like them, some of us have the ability to lead, some of us have the ability to teach, some of us have the ability to create great art, music, literature. Some of us have the ability to make pots of money.
Some of us will be their bosses. Our names will be on the polls in national elections. We’ll be living in the mansions reserved for university presidents, and not because we’re married to them. We haven’t forgotten that this is all a privilege, but we’ve come to realize that shame and apology don’t help those who don’t have it, and may distract us from focusing on just HOW to do that effectively. Just like the guys, we’re not some sort of uniform breed or tribe who can be shunted off by pulling our guilt strings.
Or, at least that’s my hope.