In his article, Chris Barker makes an interesting observation about gender, culture, and race. "...what it means to be a woman, a child, Asian or elderly is formed differently in different cultural contexts...It matters whether we are black or white, male or female, African or American, rich or poor, because of the differential cultural resources to which we will have had access."
When I was in Ecuador, I experienced a difference of 'treatment' within the culture, because of my race and gender. I am a white female. In Ecuador, everybody in my apartment complex spoke to me in the formal tense. However, the janitor at our apartment complex, Javier, was black. All the people in the apartment complex addressed Javier informally, even though he spoke to them formally. At first, I did not take this language differentiation seriously, but then I realized that the language difference had racist roots. After coming to this revelation, the difference in language choice between Javier and me became infuriating. Whenever I saw Javier, I made a point to speak to him formally. Whether this helped or not, I am uncertain, but I like to think that I helped a little in combating the racism Javier faced daily. Javier was one of the kindest people I know, and he was always in the best of spirits. Perhaps, he did not find the discrimination bothersome, or perhaps he was just used to it. In Ecuador, being black makes you a lower part of society with less cultural resources. Maybe it is not like this in parts of Africa, where the culture is predominately black...
As a female in Ecuador, I experienced discrimination. Walking down the street to the bus stop every morning meant putting up with whistling from men on the streets and with honking car horns from men driving by. Being white, I was an especially good target for men to whistle at, as I looked foreign, and I was assumed to have money. If you ask an Ecuadorian men why they always whistle at women, they will tell you that it is a compliment, because you are pretty. To me, it was degrading. It made me feel like property. I do not see myself as property (whether attractive or unattractive- that's irrelevant), and I do not see my vagina as a reason for people to whistle at me and try to make me feel like coveted property.
Ecuador was an amazing, dynamic culture. It is a developing country, so many of the issues (such as racism and sexism) are more visible and blatant to the eye. Living in Ecuador allowed me to better observe similar issues in our country. I am sure that many of the girls in our class have been whistled at in America and have taken offense to it. I am also sure that others in the class have observed differences in treatment in America due to race. As Chris Barker says, your gender, race, and class are important, because they can increase or limit the cultural resources/respect that a person gets. I believe that this is true of every culture in the world, not just of the U.S. and Ecuador.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Gender and Race: the 'ideal'
The reading by Nakano-Glenn was very interesting to me. Colored men are taken as the universal racial subject, while white women are taken as the universal subject of gender. The author then points out how colored women are left out of both categories, making them "invisible both as racial and as gendered subjects." I found it interesting that white men are also left out of the 2 categories. However, unlike colored women, white men are not considered "invisible".
When Nakano-Glenn introduces the issue of class, she discusses Asian immigration. In America, middle and upper class Asian immigrants, who are educated and wealthy, are naturally 'whitened', while lower class, non-educated, Asian immigrants are naturally 'blackened.' It is as if society automatically believes that white people are richer and more educated than black people. In my opinion, it is these stereotypes which allow white men to be left out of gender and race discussions, while not becoming invisible. It is as if the white male status is assumed to be 'ideal.' But is it?
Last May, I met a man from South Africa. He explained to me that on a job application in post-apartheid South Africa, a person is required to put their gender and race. Black women get the most points, followed by black men, indigenous women, indigenous men, white women, and finally white men. Therefore, it is much easier for a black woman to get a job than a white man. The question in my mind was: is that job policy ethical? Assuming that white men have the 'ideal status' in society, this policy could be ethical to make the job search more fair. However, what is the 'ideal status' and what makes it ideal? Are white men 'ideal' because they supposedly face the least discrimination or are their other factors? Should the people who are born into this 'ideal' status genetically (by being male and white) be given fewer points on job applications to make up for a culture's natural discrimination against women and people of color, even though they have no control over their race and sex? Does anybody really know who experiences more discrimination, a man of color versus a white woman? Is this South African policy taking the issue of race and gender too far or does it really help to create equality?
After reading the article by Nakano-Glenn, I immediately thought of South Africa and the racial, gendered, job policy. The South African society has attempted to turn the 'ideal' upside-down to make the "invisible' more visible. Is this good or bad?
When Nakano-Glenn introduces the issue of class, she discusses Asian immigration. In America, middle and upper class Asian immigrants, who are educated and wealthy, are naturally 'whitened', while lower class, non-educated, Asian immigrants are naturally 'blackened.' It is as if society automatically believes that white people are richer and more educated than black people. In my opinion, it is these stereotypes which allow white men to be left out of gender and race discussions, while not becoming invisible. It is as if the white male status is assumed to be 'ideal.' But is it?
Last May, I met a man from South Africa. He explained to me that on a job application in post-apartheid South Africa, a person is required to put their gender and race. Black women get the most points, followed by black men, indigenous women, indigenous men, white women, and finally white men. Therefore, it is much easier for a black woman to get a job than a white man. The question in my mind was: is that job policy ethical? Assuming that white men have the 'ideal status' in society, this policy could be ethical to make the job search more fair. However, what is the 'ideal status' and what makes it ideal? Are white men 'ideal' because they supposedly face the least discrimination or are their other factors? Should the people who are born into this 'ideal' status genetically (by being male and white) be given fewer points on job applications to make up for a culture's natural discrimination against women and people of color, even though they have no control over their race and sex? Does anybody really know who experiences more discrimination, a man of color versus a white woman? Is this South African policy taking the issue of race and gender too far or does it really help to create equality?
After reading the article by Nakano-Glenn, I immediately thought of South Africa and the racial, gendered, job policy. The South African society has attempted to turn the 'ideal' upside-down to make the "invisible' more visible. Is this good or bad?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)