noamnety (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-18-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. You're assuming an equivalency
between oppressor and oppressed classes.
"Black bitch" <-- black is used to put a person "in their place" by reminding everyone of their lower status/value in our society. Think about what the underlying message is.
So, in YOUR world view blacks have a lower status and value? Because the color of one's skin is simply a physical characteristic and has no bearing on who they are or what they are able to accomplish. You on the left seem to have real issues with a person's race. "Society" isn't saying that YOU are. Personally, it would never in a million years occur to me to look at a black person and think they weren't equal to me. Perhaps you should check your own prejudice. Code words and cute little quota laws can't erase what's in your heart. YOU said it, YOU own it. What a twisted world view you have.
"white bitch" <-- what place are they trying to keep her in? The top rung of the ladder? Is that the same kind of message? Hell, that's a place of privilege, which I took as the undertone in what they were saying - that she's overly privileged and acts accordingly.
So every white woman has now reached the top of the ladder by virtue of (once again) the color of her skin? If that's the case there's a whole lot of Wimmins Study curriculum that needs to be rewritten because those gals are STILL wallowing in their victimhood and might not appreciate you taking that away from them. But just so I understand, Jamie Foxx whose richer than I'll ever be, is a victim because of his skin color. While I, a middle class white woman, am better off because I'm white? What the hell happened to good old fashioned class envy?
Again, the sexism in their statements was completely contemptible and I wish we lived in a society where people were as likely to get fired for sexism as racism. But trying to argue that flipping the races of the oppressed and oppressor leaves you with an equivalent statement just doesn't work, because in our society, the status and history of those races is not equivalent.
Well, that's a relief! I thought for a minute I was going to have to take down my Ode to Kate Millet shrine! I'm still confused. Didn't black MEN get the right to vote just after the Civil War? Granted, it was kind of touchy in those DEMOCRAT states in the south, but women were oppressed for a whole 50 years after that. Even in those free African tribes back in the homeland (well, the ones that rival tribes didn't sell to slave traders) weren't/aren't women little more than chattel? But it figures...just like a man to usurp my victimhood!
Boiling it down to its simplest power structure: CEOs mocking their sweat-shop laborers is not equivalent to sweat-shop laborers mocking their CEOs.
Okay but what if the CEO is black? What if the CEO is a black woman? What if the sweat shop laborers are all white? Can they mock their boss, because now we've evidently morphed out of racial inequality and sexism (which appears to be more acceptable than racism) back to class envy. What if my CEO is a foul-mouthed bastard like Jaimie Foxx? Is it okay for him to call me "white bitch" because I'm white? Is that one of those times when oppressing another person is okay? That's a conundrum. Going from super heinous to just kinda heinous is the correct order racism, sexism, class envy...sexism, racism, class envy...or class envy, racism, sexism or...? I think I need to go back to college, I've forgotten Victimhood 101.
Cindie
