Sexism -- is division of labor the key?

[davewitley]

Cindy wrote:

>> You know what I think might be going on here?  It seems that your 
> argument is focusing quite a bit on achieving equality and 
> fundamental fairness *between groups.*  In other words, it sounds 
> like you're saying that policies should be evaluated based on how 
> they positively or negatively impact women *as a group* instead of 
> women *as individuals.*  Or in the case of race, how policies 
affect 
> a minority group *as a group* instead of minorities as individuals.
> 
> If I'm reading your remarks correctly, I think this focus on group 
> advancement could be where we have a difference of opinion. 

I may be a bit behind here, but I'd like to briefly comment.

There is another important difference between Judy and Cindy, IMO, 
which is that Judy is a pessimist and Cindy an optimist, based I 
suspect on their respective experiences.

The danger for the individualist of ignoring the group aspect is that 
choice may be more theoretical than real:  If opening up opportunity 
for women in an area results in a decline in pay and conditions for 
that area, freedom of choice for women who need decent pay to survive 
has *not* been achieved.

The danger for the pessimist is that if an advance only achieves a 
small proportion of the result it was intended to, they may dismiss 
the advance as not worth having and thus lose the even the partial 
benefit.  This is crucial if partial results are springboards to 
further advances, less so if they are being presented as final.

The pessimist in me believes that it is one of the fundamental 
mechanisms of human behaviour that those who are in a position to do 
so, whatever their sex, race or whatever, will seek ways to identify, 
contain and exploit an underclass of cheap, or, better still, free 
labour to 1) maintain them in the style they would like and 2) ensure 
their self-esteem by having somebody to look down on as inferior.

Part 2) is important because it means that mere technological 
developments in labour saving machinery are not enough to solve the 
problem.

While gender, race and other solidarities are often very useful 
vehicles for this purpose, they are not absolutely necessary, so if 
members of oppressed groups have to be co-opted to maintain the 
overall system of helotry, they will be.

David, goodness me, I sound almost *Marxist*