Subscribe to Breaking NewsThe Oppression Game
One of the pleasures of identity politics is watching groups argue over who is the bottom of the bottom. People, their voices tinged with furious anger, trying to explain why their group deserves the title wretched of the earth. Of course once you start engaging into this title match, logic and sanity leave the room. Logic leaves because comparative oppression is usually played by those who know very little about what it means to be down-trodden. Sanity takes a hike because let’s be honest: what type of person puts stock into winning something that announces loser status?
When Teams Clinton and Obama were fighting it out during the primary, the oppression game was in full swing. Charges and counter charges of racism and sexism were in the air (morning Geraldine Ferraro). According to the good people at Rasmussen Reports, more Americans think race is a bigger obstacle to overcome than gender. Of course where you stand on this question, might have much to do with your race and gender, but it still strikes me as a false argument. Discrimination, whether it is triggered by gender, race, sexual orientation, keeps that “perfect union” a bit more illusory.
Um, duh. Talk about filler.
But there is a gross political double-standards in effect. There is effectively a zero-tolerance policy in the media and most political circles with blatant racism, which is further pursued in the MSM even when ‘unconscious’ or allegedly ‘institutional’. In contrast sexism (against men & women) and homophobia (including gender expression) are perfectly acceptable to express, indeed common, in many formal (e.g. media, political) contexts, especially if you dress your bigotry up as a matter of faith, ’science’ or provocative ‘common sense’.
The privileged position of race chills debate because it becomes difficult to attack often violent misogyny and homophobia among non-European ethnic groups. Any attempt to do so makes you automatically ‘racist’ in the view of more than a few commentators. It is not always about who is “bottom of the bottom” in this debate, but rather an issue of being morally and ideologically consistent. My equality is not negotiable out of racial or religious ’sensitivity’.
Is that the whole story? Really? Two paragraphs linked to a headline front and center of the main page?
I agree with Kate, is there anymore meat to this story? What about how these messages serve to cause fights/friction intragroup?
I was expecting a bit more breadth…