Damacles

In consideration of our last class period, and in consideration of its respective reading, I am struck by the precarious nature and risk of hypocrasy inherent in any discourse of stereotypes. Truly, such discourse is a double edgued sword; even the most conscientious liberal, in aspiring to inclusiveness, runs the risk of inadvertently promoting, or at least using, stereotypes. Indeed, in trying to hold back the blade, we may cut ourselves on the backswing.

Perhaps,therfore, it is in the nature of any minority studies class to inspire the student, however unintentionally, to balk at the accuracy of even the most innocuous of statements, to overanalyze them, to seek out ill-intent (which here, I believe, could be called, and subsequently criminalized as, carelessness) and thus charge hardheaded and sanctified into a philosophical mist. That said, let us explore the backswing, and hope vainly to avoid a concussion of progressive politics.

I first noted my own experience of the backswing when the text said that among humans, if one is not a man, then one is a woman, and vice versa. According to The New Scientist, chromosomally, one in one thousand people are born hermaphroditic, essentially either possessing both male and female reproductive organs, or demonstrating the genetic potential for such. Moreover, what, exactly, is meant by man and woman? If one considers traits not strictly determined by the presence of sex organs, such as behavior, dress, self-identification, sexual attraction, the apparently clean-cut categories of man and woman begin to gray, to the point of opacity. Many cultures indentify more than two genders, and indeed the Kinsey report cited at least eleven. Thus, such a statement is rendered not just empirically incorrect, but categorically self-condemning by virtue of is potential for stereotypical effect.

The author goes on to challenge this statement herself, citing that the two words do not merely denote, objectively, a biological difference. Rather, she says, the two are so charged with connotation that they denote a class distinction. Certainly, this distinction is obvious, and cultivated by the millstone of history, or there would be no need for us to explore a study of women today. What I found distressing, however, is that the author, in citing the victimization of women by connotation, fails to acknowledge the victimization of all those grey areas, those other nine genders who cannot strictly be called man or woman, who, lacking any word for self-identification, go unidentified. I ask myself, then: does women's studies mandate only the study of women as a downtrodden minority to the exclusion of all others? Does it include just women, or that demographic which is stereotypically non-masculine, though still defrocked of the laurels, if not the barbs, of chivalry?

Thus the backswing catches me in the head. Bells ring.

I note also, in class discussion, the one-sidedness with which some of our classmates approach inclusion. Certainly, in any discussion of minority (by minority I cite here not the demographic weighing-in of one group over another, but rather the phenomenon of the other as described by Monique Wittig) one must be mindful of one's words with regard to said minority, but does mindfullness of one validate carte-blanche oversight of the other? I cite, for example, the statement that "men don't worry about what they look like." Clearly this is a categorical statement, the sort that would rarely be applied to the minority of discussion without significant backlash, and I doubt that I was the only one to balk at this.

The sword quivers. The front blade bemoans its dryness, while the back thirsts for impending blood.

First, it applies an unproven and all-encompassing attribute to a wide range of people. Second, by inversion it states that those who lack that attribute, though they may normally be included in such a group, should be henceforward excluded or at least held under closer scrutiny. Essentially, stating that "men don't worry about what they look like," equates to stating that "those who worry about what they look like are not men." This begs the question, "what are they?"

BAM! Another blow to the back of the head. The rear blade licks its lips.

These, and countless other examples of lopsided sensitivity, force me to wonder exactly how sensitive we need to be, and indeed if rampant sensitivity is practical for academic discourse. Taken to its extreme, sensitive discourse could mandate a spiel of qualifiers so long, so intricate, that not three fully sensitive statements could be made in the class time alotted. In every statement we make, there is the threat of backswing, of lobbing off the head of one group in attempting to preserve the head of another. For practicality's sake,we must establish the parameters of sensitivity, choose our words carefully but not so carefully as to drag discourse into the realm of gratuitous word-bartering (as I have). I, a self-trained inclusive liberal, must needs edit my own dialogue to be both inclusive and pratical. But how to do it?

One might consider the virtue of dispassionate discourse. However, it is passion, albeit misguded, that has led us to the point of imbalance we are at. Passion for one's own purposes, passion for one's religious doctrine, for one's business interests, have long inspired those who could to marginalize those who havn't. We cannot suppress our passion for a virtuous cause and retain any hope of meeting our goals. Rather, we must temper our passion with justice, exactly the justice for which all the oppressed cry out. It limits our repertoire of retaliation, but without justice we reduce ourselves to exactly that against which we rebel. We must not be lured into the mistakes of our predecessors, as those mistakes have birthed our current state.

There is a delicious lure in intelligently discussing the secret mechanisms of oppression: humor. For women- indeed for anyone who has been the other- it can be gratifying to pass jokes among one's peers that denigrate the majority. These quips are inevitably purposeful; in addition to simply entertaining, they serve also to apply those surrepticious means of oppression to those who have so masterfully and widely applied them to us, they harden our resolve against accepting such oppression as has been enacted against us, and demonstrate the absurdity of those stereotypes that the majority typically embraces. There is vindication here, certainly, vindication in comraderie and vindication in feeling the sting from the hilt instead of the point. But vindication is justice free from virtue, and virtue is eactly what we are here to discover. The humor is purposeful, but cross-purposeful as well.

I do not decry the value or propriety of humor, nor am i standing up and exclaiming in true non-conforming conformist fashion "that's reverse discrimination!!" Because its not. None of us has come to this class for an opportunity to cut the big guy, but to examine the sword. With that in mind, we must vigilantly remember that whether one cuts with the front of the blade or the back, one still does damage.