Okey-dokey. This is a pretty hotly contested theory, in both Marxism (where it originated) and in feminism. It seems to me as though it is a concept that needs some discussion. Beware: academic jargon/lingo awaits. Keep Wikipedia open in another tab (they have a great series on Marxist thought).
The basic theory of false consciousness arises in Marxism. The idea is that the capitalist system controls the proletariat (and perhaps other classes) by misleading him/her about the very nature of the capitalist system itself through institutional processes. The proletariat does not know the true manipulation of the capitalist system over his/her life, but is lulled into a false consciousness. People believe they know what’s going on, but they really don’t, and so people do things to support the system – the very system that oppresses them – without having that intention in mind. This is a theory linked to other Marxist theories about the value of social relatinoships, alienation of labour, class struggles, dominant ideology and cultural hegemony (another favourite of mine, the theory that one class can rule a diverse society). Feminists have latched onto this theory and attempted an unsure union between Marxism and feminism that didn’t really seem to completely come together. In jumped radical feminism, for whom false consciousness is not simply about labour-power and commodification of labour. It is about the traditional category of “woman” constructed by society to control and subjugate individuals by prescribing and proscribing behaviours that reinforce the domination of the hegemonic patriarchy.
Now, I am officially coming out as a big-time fan of Marx. 
I think he’s brilliant. I wish I had a tenth of the brilliance of this man. However, he’s been heavily criticized, and so especially has his theory of false consciousness, mainly on the point that it paints the general masses as gullible and unthinking and easily manipulated, removing individual agency and autonomy. Personally, I think this is a mistake on the part of Marx’s critics. I do not believe Marx’s theory to be incorrect just because it failed to be presecriptive. I think Marx’s true value comes through the descriptive nature of his work.
Now, I happen to think that Marx is right about false consciousness. I think that people are easily manipulated as a group – group-think, mob mentality, etc. from first-year psychology, all of this seems like points in favour of Marx. It seems like when people are in groups, and being addressed as a group – particularly a group that is not in a position of social power, they do lose segments of identity. Especially when individual members of groups are treated by the hegemonic ruling class as simply members of social group X rather than taking into account the complex and multi-dimensional nature of identity. Yet, this is how it happens. Based on membership in a group, many people think they know everything of significance there is to know about a person. I think that’s part of why I’m a feminist – I don’t want my identity, as I know it (very complex!), to be lumped in under the heading “woman.” This struggle is, for me and many other women, a battle for self-determination and personal identity. And so, in my opinion, false consciousness is something that compromises these things. The argument shouldn’t be whether or not false consciousness exists, as critics hold. It should be about how to overcome this obstacle to greater personal empowerment and individual identity. False consciousness is something we are prone to as members of oppressed social groups, and it is something that needs to be paid special attention if we individuals are to break free from labels that hedge us in.
so, in terms of feminism, feminists have labelled pretty much everything to do with femininity and traditional feminine roles as behaviours subject to false consciousness. I agree. Where I think radical feminists have gone wrong, however, is by labelling EVERY woman who participates in these activities a femme-bot of patriarchy. Here’s the catch: behaviours that support patriarchy… well, they support patriarchy. I don’t think there’s any way of getting around that. If I think really hard about why it is I participate in a particular practice, and I decide that I happen to really enjoy doing that particular thing, then I have to accept that this thing I enjoy doing is marking me in a certain way. It is marking me, under our unequal society, as an unequal member of an oppressed group.
I am a woman. It is not my fault I was born with specific physical characteristics to which society attaches the label “woman”. I do not like being associated with negative things just because I have been assigned the name “woman”. Yet, I am what I am, I am embodied in the way I am embodied, and I do not have any reason to change the way I am embodied. I am comfortable with my embodiment. I may not like the way my embodiment marks me to others, but that is not sufficient reason for me to surgically alter my embodiment.
As women, I think it is important to recognize the ways our behaviours support patriarchy. It is important so that we can decide what to do about that. Once again – till I’m blue in the face! – feminism is not about making women into men. Feminism is about taking away the negative associations with being female. I think there are some behaviours that should be abandoned, like female genital cutting for instance. But primarily, feminism isn’t a struggle against a set of behavioural dictates handed out by patriarchy. I would hope that feminism is more than that. I would hope that feminism is about breaking down ideologies that divide people into distinctive groups and oppress them.
Do I believe that some women are under the spell of false consciousness? Hell yes. Do I believe all women are? No I don’t. Do I believe all women who participate in traditional feminine patriarchy-supporting behaviours are experiencing false consciousness? Again, NO! Are they nevertheless supporting patriarchy? Yes, they are… Is it better to not do anything that supports patriarchy? Not necessarily… and I’d like to see you try. Make money? you support patriarchy. Own a house? you support patriarchy. Own a car? yep, again, supporting patriarchy. Do you put down other women for their more blatant participation in patriarchy-supporting behaviour? guess what – you support patriarchy.
Under an equal society, I would be free to wear whatever I wanted to wear, because there would be nothing negative attached to the wearing of lipstick of high heels or pencil skirts or corsets. I would be free to have children or not without any snide remarks about my womanhood. I would be free to do whatever I wanted to do without negative attachments placed on me for either being too feminine or not feminine enough. That is what my feminism is about.
have at it!
in a truly free and equal society – people would still have the right to be ignorant or have differing worldviews…
therefore even then people are liable to judge you…and have unwarranted negative things to say about you
sounds pretty much the same as it does now then – huh… then, like now, you’d be free to do what you’d want and people would be free not to like it…
I know nothing about Marx or Marxism but this I get: greater personal empowerment and individual identity. I see this as a higher consciencness issue myself that includes all humanity. To put it crude I would say a patriarchy or any kind of ‘archy’ is NOT in the best interest of the individual human.
I would hope that feminism is about breaking down ideologies that divide people into distinctive groups and oppress them.
This is what it’s all about!
well, mike, that’s a bit of a simplified view.
(and aside to the main point I want to make: I don’t think people have any right to be ignorant. I assume you are using ignorant in the correct way? Why would one have a “right” to not know something? that’s a weird thing to say. what do you mean by that?)
yes, having differing world views – that’s kind of the point. I don’t care if people do not like me based on my personality, or my haircut or my politics. I care if people don’t like me because I’m a woman, white, heterosexual, non-christian, middle-class. I think that’s a pretty major difference between your comment and my post.
I don’t think I’m free. I am free to do what patriarchy allows me to do. I’m free to choose behaviours from amongst a range of options set out for me by patriarchy. I’m free to play by its rules. I’m free to abide by its laws. I’m free to learn its curriculum. That’s not freedom. that’s a lack of choice.
I’m anticipating and objection here… I can see what’s coming… “we all have to abide by laws and rules, you’re describing anarchy, you just want to do whatever you want to do without anyone else’s rules.” well, yes, of course. don’t we all? But I still want to live in a society that has order. what I don’t like about our society as it is now is that the structures that give our society order aren’t working for the whole big segments of the population, because the rules weren’t made with them in mind. The rules serve one group of people: white capitalist patriarchy. Any choice we make has to be made within that framework. adding more choices under the framework isn’t enough. the framework must be changed.
HI L>T!
thanks for wading through my post. I’m glad you found a couple nuggets in there amongst all the Marx lingo that you could sink your teeth into. Now you can say that you know something about Marx! False consciousness!
False consciousness is something I think about all the time. I apply it to so many situations. I love it when I have a moment of breaking free from it myself. It’s what people commonly call “light-bulb moments”, I think.
I’m kind of tired of talking about differences. I mean, differences are important of course. But, everyone’s differences are equally important, are they not? so if we can accept that, then why can’t we accept that there is something common to all of us – humanity! Why can’t we have a society built on humanity, instead of built to serve an elite few and oppress the rest? is it impossible L>T? Will there always only be delineations and people using that as an excuse to treat others without humanity?
nihilism!
well, i don’t think it’s simple at all – at least not oversimple…
the simplistic view is that if you truly had free choice that would remove all biases from everyone else…(which, of course, as you know, i believe that you and everyone else already have free choice…)
a world that allows free choice will allow for different world views – which allows that the view of say, the taliban, fundamentalist christian, etc.. – is permitted when there is the possibility of free choice… to suggest otherwise is to misunderstand or misues the word “free”…
this of course implies that there will be some people likely to hate you because of some the following factors: “woman, white, heterosexual, non-christian, middle-class.”
that’s what people miss about freedom….allow people to be free and invariably some of their free choices will be freely disapproved of by some other free people… and, in fact, some things that might not really be choices (say, race, sex) might be disapproved up…. stupid, yes – but a consequence of free choice is that some may choose what we would describe as stupid views…
so, seems to me you are thinking more of a perfect world than a free world….would i want to live in a perfect world – depends on who gets to design it – cause i suspect that the perfect world of you or i is apt to be at least a bit different than the perfect world of the taliban or jerry falwell… so, i’m thinking i’d pass on the chance to live in a “perfect” world…um, should the offer ever come up….
so – perhaps people hate me, you or anyone else because of views, gender/sex, age, race, ethnicity, orientation, – or whatever – unfortunate – of course – but that is a logical consequence of everyone having a free choice – one can either try to carpet the world or put on sandals…
Excellent post!! I also love Marx and hate having to justify it espeically to students from communist countries that think their experiences prove Marxism doesn’t work. Read him and learn. Most communistic countries have highly exploitative and oppressive governments. That’s the antithesis of what Marx was on to.
I also believe that the masses really are in a bit of a media-inspired fog (it used to be religion-inspired, but I think it’s shifted slightly). That’s part of the reason I write. It’s important to get people thinking for themselves again. A false consciousness exists, but for many it can be overcome.
oy vey, not the “you silly ex-communists, stop complaining and start embracing my idea of socialism exactly as it is ’cause it’s all good, i LOVE it and you just don’t understand, go read some marx” song-and-dance. a bit paternalistic, don’t you think – speaking of the patriarchy and false consciousness?!… you see, the problem is we did read marx, for “scientific socialism” class, and believe you me that when this stuff is drilled into your brain and nominally put into practice while the reality you live is one of the most grotesque and oppressive social situations that you could imagine (and you, sage, probably can’t imagine) you have to question it all and you do develop a kind of allergic reaction to it.
but all that aside, especially in the context here one should be aware of some of the feminist critique of marx – i personally think marx is quite outdated at this point. and i’m a leftist/progressive ex-communist (which label sounds pretty damn horrible, sorry) who would still ask you to justify marxist doctrine to me, though i’ve been known to take “marx’s side” on occasion, too.
sage, i’d say you might consider why you get “tired of having to justify”… if you don’t want your theories to be questioned and you don’t think other people’s experiences are valid things to learn from, maybe you don’t believe it’s all that important for people to think for themselves.
(more) ontopic: this is precisely the kind of thing that makes this “false consciousness” subject so complicated. i’d have to agree with mike… ultimately, one does need some guidelines in order to decide what’s good or bad – and this is a major stumbling block because people won’t automatically agree about that even in a perfect world where everyone is free; unless the perfect world means complete uniformity (which isn’t actually desirable/perfect), we’ll all still have very different experiences to base our views and decisions on.
i, too, define feminism as a movement to end oppression based on sex and gender. but for it to work one must at least define oppression – so the question of what’s just and what isn’t arises once again.
the answer, as i see it, is for us all to stop normalizing our own experiences – basically to learn to see other people’s experiences as valid, and to criticize or praise them based on the same basic criteria we’d like others to apply to us. i call this “solidarity” with people and i think it’s what we should be thought more… because it’s a way of relating to others and thinking about the world around us so that at least we’ll contribute the least possible to any kind of oppression.
ps: bringing it down to earth a bit, i also don’t like throwing “false consciousness” around. at all. but i’d definitely call the “sport corsets are totally fine” stance one small example: i mean, it’s a corset for playing sports in, for god’s sake! it is the definition of not empowering. and when you add the fact it’s being pushed on you by nike… well…
I just want to say thanks to everyone for commenting. I can’t reply to anyone just now, I’m feeling horribly nihilistic at the moment. I’m feeling a bit like nothing we ever do is going to make a difference, there is no way to break down the matrix and see through the current system because we’re all so entrenched in it and clinging to our own experiential-isms too much to see any truth about anything and that there’s no such thing as “the truth” in any case and that nothing’s there when we die anyway so who gives a shit.
I’ll hold off on any responses till tomorrow, I think.
be well.
Two writers who really fleshed out the concept of false consciousness for me were psychologist R.D. Laing and cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris. Though under-appreciated today, both did tremendous work in this arena, Laing from a microsocial perspective and Harris from a macrosocial one.
I take issue with a couple of your specific points. I don’t fathom how having a job or owning a house or car ‘supports patriarchy’ (as opposed to supporting, say, ‘corporate capitalism’). It seems to me that any definition of patriarchy which could make such notions true would have to be so nebulous as to be virtually useless and/or tremendously misleading.
I confess I’m not a big fan of the concept of ‘patriarchy’ as bandied about in many feminist blogs, as it is generally used to obscure the fact that gender assigns penalties and privileges to both sexes. I distinguish between what I refer to as gender egalitarian feminism (embodied by your statement that “feminism is about breaking down ideologies that divide people into distinctive groups and oppress them”) and women’s perspectives only feminism, which at best ignores the ways gender oppresses men, and at worst denies that it does. I completely embrace GE feminism. WPO feminism, uh, not so much (though I’m not oblivious to the experiences which can drive women to espouse WPO feminism).
For example, your idea that in an equal society, you should be free to wear what you want to wear is laudable. Would you extend such freedom to men, i.e. respect them even if they wear “lipstick or high heels or pencil skirts or corsets” without ‘snide remarks about their manhood’? (You don’t know me, so you may think I’m being snide or saracastic here, but I am not. I certainly don’t deny that someone raised in America — including me — may find it difficult to respect a man who wears ostensibly ‘feminine’ clothing without at least some gut-level aversion. Conceptually, though, I certainly think that people should be able to wear what they want to wear, regardless of gender.) In short, do you envision an egalitarian society where men would also be able to do whatever they wanted to do without negative attachments placed on them for either being ‘too masculine’ or ‘not masculine enough’?
i can’t hear the word “nihilism” with chuckling and thinking of the big lebowski and esp. john goodman’s reaction to the nihilists…
anyhow, i think the bhagavad gita is the best “medicine” for a sense of futility – that is, the view that the best way to spend one’s life is by doing what one feels is right – to use right effort – but not be attached to the results…which, oddly enough, is a different version of what i heard a million times as a kid – do your best and let god take care of the rest… the difference being, of course, that the bg’s advice still seems relevant to me – who is decidedly ambivalent about g*d – her nature, his existence and their role in the world….
Hi ballgame
in regards to my comments about consumerism/capitalism supporting patriarchy, oh yeah, I think so. Capitalism and patriarchy go hand in hand, along with white supremacy. capitalism reinforces patriarchy, through the economic oppression of women: devaluing women’s work, for example, to the extent that women make 2/3 what men make for the same work. Who do you think owns those corporations that consumerism supports? Generally, men, and white men at that. That is patriarchy in action. But, aside from that, because we live in a patriarchal world, pretty much everything we do has to do with patriarchy. Even me arguing against patriarchy reinforces its rule.
your second point, about gender roles oppressing both sexes, doesn’t fly with me. Gender roles are scripted for both sexes; that doesn’t mean that gender roles oppress men. Some men are oppressed, but not because they are men – because of other things combined with being men, like sexuality and race. Masculinity is taught just as femininity is taught, but the difference is that femininity is a set of behaviours that are inherently oppressive, and masculinity is a set of behaviours that inherently signify power and are inherently beneficial. Men are taught, as part of masculinity, to be independent and strong and self-assured and confident and rational individuals. Women are taught to be the opposite of these things. Men are only oppressed by masculinity when they deviate from it. Women are always oppressed by femininity. The big difference I am trying to make here is that not all men are oppressed by masculinity, but all women are oppressed by femininity.
Yes, my idealistic world includes freedom for men to do as they please without consequence. thanks for asking.
Mike,
thanks. I’ll take up your suggestion. I’ve got a copy of that text somewhere here…
well, we all know I’m an idealist. It would just be so nice if we could all disagree with one another based on something other than our fears and biases and ignorance and prejudices. It would be so nice if no one actually hated another group of people, and that no one tried to obliterate that group of people or limit their participation in society. I don’t think free choice would remove biases at all. I don’t mind if you freely dislike me – just have a reason for doing so that has nothing to do with my membership in any group. I just wish that biases weren’t the basis for disagreement and hatred. I wish people didn’t hate each other at all.
Hi Sage,
thanks. I think you’re right, Marxism has been twisted by communistic regimes that were anything but what his vision was about. that’s the trouble with theories. they get interpreted in any number of ways once they leave your hands.
yes, media-inspired fog. Our consumer culture is so easily influenced by slickness and flashiness. We are spoonfed information in little doses so we’re oblivious to the meaning of the information, and then quick! change the focus! keep the “information” on overload, treat everyone like they have ADD and give it to them nice and fast so they don’t have time to think about it! they can only react quickly, blink, it’s gone, onto the next thing, blink, that’s gone. like that goddamn ticker on CNN.
hey Ruxandra,
thanks for your comment, and the link. I’ll have to give it a thorough reading a little later on. I’m familiar with some of the feminist critiques of Marx, but this link looks pretty extensive.
I do think Marx has been misinterpreted, and taht the real value of his work isn’t prescriptive, but in his descriptive analyses of the way things are. The way communism has been put into practice in real life has been a complete disaster, I fully agree with you. I’m not sure communism could ever truly work, because there are always power-hungry greedy people who are in control of these nasty regimes and live in palaces of gold while everyone else scrimps to buy necessities on the black market. And god forbid anyone complains about it, or points out that the situation isn’t how it was meant to be. But my god, it is a wonderful idea, communism. equality, egalitarianism. yum. too bad it hasn’t been implemented well. I think the best we can hope for is socialism. (how’s that for realism?)
Sure Marx is outdated – but so is Descartes and PLato and Aristotle and Mill and Locke and Bentham and Darwin. Yet we still use these theories as bases for democracy, morality and society. There is still something useful to be found.
I love your description of solidarity. what a gem of wisdom.
I also loved your post about sportscorsetry. Gag. Me. With. A. Spoon. (did you have that saying growing up? we used to say it all the time here.)
a few thoughts:
tg said: “Masculinity is taught just as femininity is taught, but the difference is that femininity is a set of behaviours that are inherently oppressive, and masculinity is a set of behaviours that inherently signify power and are inherently beneficial. Men are taught, as part of masculinity, to be independent and strong and self-assured and confident and rational individuals.”
inherently beneficial – uh – i don’t think so – perhaps in some specific contexts – the business world – the political arean – yet how beneficial is the repression of emotions, win at any cost attitude, the pressure to be invulnerable and strong, the pressure to support one’s family, the pressure to achieve more etc… to men’s psychological, emotional and spiritual health… and even physical health… men have shorter life spans, suffer more from alcoholism, etc… many men do not fully participate in their family lives missing the rewards that offers because of their perceived need to be successful and powerful… men, like women face forces that try to shape them into something that is not always positive – men like women have the choice to bow to these pressures and buy into these attitudes – please keep in mind – i am certainly not arguing that men face an equal amount of oppression – or even that i would characterize men as oppressed…
my point is – anytime people have pressure to behave, feel and act a certain way based on the group to which they belong – it can be damaging in some way – of course, a person can always choose to ignore that pressure…not to say it is easy…
secondly – i wish that people would not discriminate and hate to – but i don’t think that will ever happen – best we can hope for is to cultivate a society that minimizes the impact of that and to develop as individuals to transcent that kind of ignorance…
That would be wonderful, but I think the question that’s missing here is, how would we place that into society? Right now it’s just wishful thinking. Tg, i remember reading your post about the anonymous person who resisted your views and wanted things to stay the same. I think there would alway be that “let’s keep our heads in the sand because change is so dangerous” attitude. How could we take an active stance?
Mike, I agree with your point about men being repressed by the masculinity being taught. I have known a few guys who cut themselves off from good things because they thought becoming the cold, hard businessman was the best thing to do. My dad was dissatisfied with his job and refused to admit it. If anything was bothering him, he would never say so, then blow up over a minor thing, and direct his anger at the nearest possible target when he got home- me.
Sorry to go off on a personal tangent, but what do you think about men’s oppression, TG?
ps – what i find odd about this post – when placed next to the previous post – is that in the last post, you were boycotting a product just because the message *might* be interpreted as implying one need to be a mother to be fulfilled as a woman – yet in this post you say – if an activity supports the patriarchy and i want to do it anyhow, i am going to do it… seems like you are putting more importance on a peripheral issue (the way the product is marketed) than the actual activity (wearing makeup) – by extension, of your thoughts in this post – wouldn’t you say – well, i don’t like that ad, but heck, l’oreal makes a great product, so i’ll use it…(if indeed l’oreal makes a great product)
Wow, could I sound more condescending?
@ ruxandra, It’s not, of course, that my students are silly or stupid, but that they seem to have been taught a very skewed version of Marxism that somehow allows for governmental oppression of the citizens. If they are well versed in Marx’s writings, I’m not sure how they can come to this conclusion, how they don’t sit up and say, wait a minute, this isn’t how Marx thinks the government should be treating us. But instead of criticising their government for misusing Marx, for stealing from them under the guise of equality, they end up criticising Marx for coming up with this untenable theory that has caused so much suffering.
Governmental force, oppression and exploitation, the ability for those in power to take from the powerless is precisely, from my reading of him at any rate, what Marx was so vehemently against. Therefore to have experienced the communism ruling some countries today, is not necessarly to have experienced Marxism.
I tire of justifying Marx’s worth like I tire of justifying Freud or even Jesus. They all had moments of pure brilliance but get trampled on because of the way their theories are put into practice and used by dominant and/or powerful groups. Even if they’re no longer current, they all had such a significant impact on our lives we surely can’t just toss them in the dustbin.
I was raised Catholic and later came to see some of the negative aspects (understatement of the year) of the church. But I don’t blame Jesus’ ideas. Much of what he said, I believe, is bang on, but the church used his words for their own purposes which were entirely opposing the main thrust of his lessons.
The other issue raised here is the question of human nature. Is it possible to really have a Marxist society when people are so naturally greedy? Similarly is it possible to follow Jesus without being naturally judgmental? And to address Mike, to what extent can we really let go of our desires? I’m an idealist too, so I think it is possible for the world to change, but not without a major paradigm shift in the thinking of those in power and all those who are able to vote for those in power, to put it mildly. And although we need the world to change, all we can really do is start with ourselves. Like Roxandra says, to contribute the least possible to oppression, and furthermore, to try to refrain from judging or condemning others because that just sets us apart from one another further, and to work on reducing how much we desire or, at least, how much we act on our desires.
there is a different between desire and attachment to desire…
i struggle with that concept – but i believe there really is a difference…
kind of like – imho, the difference between pain and suffering… if, say, i trip on the sidewalk and break my leg, it’s gonna hurt…there will be pain – unavoidable if one is human…if however, i start to say – geesh, i am a loser – clumsy – i always screw things up – i am getting old, can’t even walk right – if i didn’t hurt myself, i could go out for a walk – etc… that is what i would call suffering – this can be avoided
btw – sage – in no way would i say i am at the level of spiritual or personal development to say i have achieved this…but recognizing this difference is important – and i think the first step…many incorrectly describe hinduism and buddhism as fatalistic or nihilistic…i think this is largely because they largely miss this subtle difference…
i.e. desire vs. attachment to desire…
think of attachment to desire as a positive quality going bad…i.e. love of one’s country turned into xenophobia and jingoism… love for a person becoming stalkerish and obsessive…
@ mike, I completely understand what you’re saying. Yet even letting go of attachment to desire is hard in our consumerist must-have culture. I agree, because it’s perhaps not entirely attainable, not by most at any rate, isn’t to say it shouldn’t be pursued. (And even my language here is one of desiring to reduce my desires!) As I said, like following Marx or Jesus, I think it’s possible, or at least a better road to travel in intention, but it’s certainly not the easiest path to take.
@ruxandra – sorry I misspelled your name up there (just the second time).
Mike: I agree with much of your 12:21 comment. Well said.
TG: I strongly suspect that the notion that women make 2/3 of what men make for the same work is, in fact, false. Do you have a cite? I suspect that ratio is simply average women’s wages to average men’s wages and doesn’t weight for type of work and length of experience.
In fact, this quote from an article entitled “Womenomics 101″ (h/t Jill@Feministe) suggests different ratios and indicates that it is not gender, per se, that accounts for most of the female wage gap:
In short, a simplistic view of the ‘wage gap’ phenomenon conceals the reality that much of it is connected to women making choices which nature affords them and which, practically speaking, men don’t have. (For the record, I am not arguing that workplace bias against women doesn’t exist, and if you were to argue we should have more family-friendly workplace policies which would inevitably disproportionately favor women, I’d agree with you.)
desiring to end one’s desires – that’s a hoot…which i have heard b4 in buddhist literature…
remember – the role of a zen master is to confound the rational mind into a state of pure experience
Boy oh boy, you guys are keeping quite the discussion going..
Mike:
as far as masculinity goes, yes, some men don’t find it helpful in the context of their lives. Yet, masculinity is a structure that is beneficial to men IF they adhere – and sometimes even when they do not, for example, most women want a man who will be “sensitive.” Masculinity is not to be strayed from in men’s primary relationships, however – male friendships are traditionally homosocial, because associating with women for purposes other than sexual or family can be construed as being too much “like women,” which masculinity is most certainly not. However, masculinity is set up to benefit men. Men who participate and rewarded socially with power. Men who do not are punished.
Women who adhere to femininity, however, are participating in behaviours that are set up to oppress them. They aren’t really rewarded for doing this, because they are seen as inherently less powerful. Women are ridiculed for participating in femininity. When women do not participate, they are ridiculed as well, for not being feminine enough. Women who gain any degree of power usually walk a fine line of looking and acting partly feminine – but not too feminine, and acting partly masculine – but not too masculine.
the difference as I see it is that masculinity is meant to imbue power and femininity is not. Both involve a lot of social pressure. Both are learned sets of behaviours. Both are behaviours that have negative aspects. But only one set is inherently oppressive.
I have to admit, the argument that “men are oppressed by gender roles, too” really irritates me. I hear it from every single man in any of my feminist theory classes, all except one. god bless you Sean. Masculinity is a structure that is set up for the benefit of men and that affirms male domination. Whether an individual man likes masculinity or not, if he walks the walk, he is rewarded with social power. Femininity is not like that.
Jess:
thanks for your comment. As I said to Mike, masculinity can be repressive for some men, but it is not oppressive.
I think a lot of the resistence to the idea that masculinity is beneficial to men comes from the fact that most men don’t FEEL powerful. Most men feel an inordinate amount of pressure to “be a man” and all that entails. I don’t deny that there is a lot of pressure on men. But men are rewarded for participation in masculinity in ways that women are not rewarded for participation in femininity.
I think you bring up a really good point, though, about how some men feel resentful towards the women in their lives. I’ve been reading my friend Geo’s work on men’s anti-rape groups, and he has written a whole section on the anger men feel towards women. In that context, he talks about how many men are angry with women for rejecting them sexually, because it is an assault on their masculinity, and that can translate to being angry with ALL women. I think also that some men feel anger towards the women in their lives specifically, because of all the pressure that masculinity puts on them to provide for their family – particularly if the woman is a stay-at-home wife and/or mom, and her work in the private sphere is not given the same social value as waged labour (Marx again). That pressure can also translate to anger with dependents.
And I should stress once again that many men are oppressed – gay men, disabled men, non-christian men, men of colour, poor men, old men. but men are not oppressed for being men. Being a man is always a benefit in this society.
Mike again:
I think you are missing something. I do not think there is something inherently wrong with traditionally feminine things, like having babies and wearing makeup. I think there is something wrong with the way these things are presented to the world as being the only way for women to be real women. I think there is something further wrong with the way these things are devalued because they “belong” to women, and the way that women are devalued for participating in these activities. What I take issue with is not the wearing of makeup, but the negative connotations around femininity practices. IF these practices did not signify inferiority in any way, we would not be having this conversation. If wearing lipstick was akin to, say, driving a car or riding a bike or chewing gum, there would be no reason for me to object. IT isn’t the actual practice, it is the way that practice is a signifier for something else. (not Marx – Derrida.)
So, what I object to is the marketing of certain products in such a way that associates them with the dictates of white capitalism-patriarchy. Does that mean it’s better to not wear makeup in order to overthrow this world order? Well, I don’t really think that’s going to be enough. If every woman in the world stopped wearing makeup, there would still be plenty of other things to keep women oppressed. the wearing of makeup is not the problem. it’s that the wearing of makeup signifies something else: female inferiority.
Sage,
thanks for clearing that up.
yup, paradigm shift.
letting go of desire. Desiring to let go of desire. Desiring to let go of the desire to let go of desire. … mmm eastern religions. I think there’s a lot of really good lessons to be learned there.
Ballgame,
No, I don’t have a specific citation I can provide you a link to. 2/3 is a common bit of feminist economics. I have read this in numerous articles in various chapters of various books about feminism and socialism and economics. Could be new research shows otherwise, and thanks for pointing that out, because it seems things are worse than we thought.
However, it’s not really just that women earn less than men because they take time off from work to raise and have babies – which of course contributes to the practicality of the reason why women make less than men, get less tenure than men, retire later than men, etc. When women have children and take time away from work, they don’t go back into the workplace on the same footing they left on necessarily. (I don’t know how long parental leave is where you live; here in Canada it’s 1 year.) Others have taken over their work, and sometimes it means that women returning to the workplace have to start at the bottom again, with crappy shifts or new and undeveloped accounts/clients. So taking time off to do the devalued and wageless (or at least less-waged; here in Canada women get 50% of their earnings from the previous year through Employment Insurance. Any time taken above 1 year is not paid) work of mothering means starting all over again. The higher up the woman is in the workplace, the less time she is likely to take off. Hence the gap you speak of. Also, the longer a woman is out of the workplace, the more her career-related skills and knowledge deteriorate, especially when you throw her into a quickly changing technological workplace. Many women take several years away from work to raise children until they go to primary school. That’s a lot of time not practicing career skills. Add on top of all this the high price of day-care, and the income tax breaks families get per dependent, and for many families it makes more financial sense for the woman to stay home – especially if she already earns less money than her husband! All the while, men generally take no time off when they have children and continue working and practicing their career skills, which can lead to workplace advancement and higher earnings.
Now, we know that more than half of marriages end in divorce. How does that leave women in this situation? It leaves them with primary custody of the children the majority of the time because “children are better off with their mothers”, and deteriorated career skills, the need to work and so the need for child-care which we already know is very expensive so there’s often not a lot left over after paying that bill, sometimes alimony and sometimes child support and sometimes both, legal bills, and a legal system (made by men) that doesn’t punish non-payment of these for a long time. I read a stat not long ago that when men divorce their income goes up significantly, and women’s goes down significantly. (again, no citation, sorry.) Women are in a precarious financial position if they have children and take time away from work to raise them. They are also in a precarious social position if they “allow a stranger to raise their children.” Sounds like a rock and a hard place to me.
In addition to the above, women are also discriminated against who don’t even have babies. Because women have the physical capability to have children, and the overwhelming social pressure to do so (which makes your use of the word “choice” a bit suspect in a post about false consciousness – not to say some women don’t autonomously choose to have children, but I certainly know a lot who think that having children is simply what women do), women are seen as risks, as less than ideal, as not dependable employees. When it is assumed that women will have children – and take time off from work to do it – it is assumed that women will not be as productive for the organization as a man would be, and so hiring a woman would actually be a financial liability for the company, who then has to hire and train someone to replace her when she leaves, or others will have to take on her work, or whatever. So women don’t even get the chance to play in the boys’ club because of the perception that they will have children. That has an impact on women’s economics.
so from your quote, basically, women have the “choice” to not become mothers and risk being bad and unfeminine women who devote their life to working and still make 10% less than men for the same work, or to have chidren and make more than 75% less than what men make for the same work. great set of options.
so, after that long tirade/rant, that’s what I think about that!
TG: I agree with much of what you just wrote about how crappy things can be for a parent in the workplace. As far as ‘how things are where I am’ (U.S.), things are significantly crappier than in Canada (as is true in so many things *sigh*). Companies are only required to grant 3 months of unpaid leave (and I’ve seen reference to this mandate only applying to companies with more than 50[?] employees), FWIW.
I’d quibble with a couple of your angles: a person taking off from work to rear children isn’t merely being ‘perceived’ as being less productive for the company, they ARE being less productive for the company. It would certainly be better if things were structured so people could better integrate their private lives and their work lives, but from a bottom line analysis, a company which sees a greater risk in hiring someone who may soon become a new parent is seeing things accurately and not acting from some unthinking bigotry. (Digression: this is also true for U.S. companies in trying to ditch older workers who are more likely to incur health costs, since here in my lovely country most health insurance is provided through the workplace and not through a government single payer mechanism. Canada 2, U.S. 0) I also wouldn’t put air quotes around the word ‘choice’ when it comes to women and getting pregnant. Raising your own children is a lot of hard work, but it is also generally a tremendously gratifying experience which single men simply can’t choose, by and large.
But those are quibbles. I appreciate your response, and that you did not try to defend the ‘women get 2/3 of what men get for the same work’ meme, which I think is a bit of a shibboleth.
Less ‘quibbly,’ I adamantly and emphatically dispute your notion that the American concept of masculinity is inherently beneficial and its concept of femininity is inherently oppressive. Saying masculinity is benign because it’s rewarding if you conform to it is like saying Catholicism has never been oppressive because, after all, the Inquisition only went after those who didn’t conform. When you confuse ‘patriarchy’ with ‘corporate capitalism’, you’re making the logically incorrect supposition that ‘since the wealth/power elite are all white men, therefore all white men must be part of the wealth/power elite.’ I’d be curious if your views about these things are in any sense falsifiable, and if so, what kind of evidence you would deem as admissible to the discussion.
(BTW, I’ve also seen that stat about women’s income declining after divorce, and strongly suspect that — in addition to some of the factors you mention — it is at least partially related to a person’s income returning to what it was prior to the marriage; i.e. women tending to choose mates who make more money than they do.)
Ballgame,
you said, “I’d quibble with a couple of your angles: a person taking off from work to rear children isn’t merely being ‘perceived’ as being less productive for the company, they ARE being less productive for the company.”
This isn’t what I was getting at. Anyone who takes time off from working at a company is less productive for the company. What I was getting at is that since all women are PERCEIVED as wanting to have children, or being in a perpetual state of possible-motherhood, women who don’t even want or have plans to have children are being discriminated against in the workplace based on an oppressive gender stereotype. So not just women who are mothers or do become mothers are affected; so are women who are not mothers.
you also said, “I also wouldn’t put air quotes around the word ‘choice’ when it comes to women and getting pregnant.” I know you wouldn’t, because you didn’t. Have you been reading my blog very long? very simply my view of “choice” is more complex than simply that people do things because and only because they choose to. I think social constructs influence people sometimes to the point of coercion, and that things that seem like free choices sometimes are not because of a lack of options as they are presented by those social constructs. Hence, the post about false consciousness. Of course, you are welcome to disagree, as Mike does here with every post I write, but at least understand where I’m coming from.
you said, “When you confuse ‘patriarchy’ with ‘corporate capitalism’, you’re making the logically incorrect supposition that ’since the wealth/power elite are all white men, therefore all white men must be part of the wealth/power elite.’” I do not confuse the two concepts. I say they are married together, and serve one another, but primarily the rule is patriarchy, which capitalism reinforces. Also note that I readily admit many men are oppressed. Just not by gender. I’m not saying masculinity is without its downsides, or that it’s benign – far from it. I obviously don’t think much of masculinity – it is sexist, racist, and homophobic. But masculinity is still set up to benefit men by giving them power over women. There are rewards for being masculine. There are no rewards for being feminine.
“[women's income declining after divorce] is at least partially related to a person’s income returning to what it was prior to the marriage; i.e. women tending to choose mates who make more money than they do.”
which is ridiculous, women if they were childless would *likely* advance their incomes if they were to remain in the workplace (if they were at all good at their job or even just stayed with the company and had pay increases concurrent with rises in inflation). And it’s not exactly hard to choose a mate who makes more money than you as a woman, since men make more money than women do on the whole at any class level.
[...] you know, the more I think about this false consciousness stuff, the more I think that where it applies most clearly is to the ruling class, those benefitting by social structures that oppress others. (I know, this isn’t a new insight and is represented in Marxist literature.) Internalized oppression is a phenomenon that isn’t to be taken lightly, which is kind of what this post is playing around with, but also important is to recognize that those who are benefitted by patriarchy, in this case, but also by other oppressive systems notably racism and heterosexism do not realize that they benefit, or that the structures are the way they are. [...]
wow, there’s so much good stuff to pick up on here for discussion but as far as i’m concerned thinking girl is taking care of most of it
so i think i’ll just make a couple of points.
first off, sage, i’m glad that you saw where i was coming from (i don’t mean literally, heh) and i appreciate your response. regarding marx – and this is a general response to both you and thinking girl on the subject – the way i see it is like this: yes, there are good parts to his theories and even moments of brilliance, and we should make use of those like we make use of other theories, as tg argues. but we should also criticise them as much a possible and this can’t be stressed enough when this particular theory has been so ridiculously/disastruously/monstruously put into practice – the fact that it has lended itself to such practice has to mean something and we should analyze that. i think tg has given part of the answer: in the real world, people are still greedy and power-hungry and corruptable, so egalitarianism imposed from the top down won’t work as long as this is what we have to work with as far as the people who will continue to make up society. that’s why in this context – the only one that i can see, personally – the major issue is with talking about a “marxist society”. (especially since marxist theory is more descriptive than prescriptive as tg says.) and yeah there’s a similarity there with talking about a “christian society”; and of course lots of people take issue with imposing christianity on society, with the way it has been imposed and exploited – even if they do agree with the basic tenets of christianity (which not everybody does/agrees on!). anyway, that’s half of my point. the other half is that even descriptively marx was actually very wrong in several crucial ways (and here’s where my views really depart from tg… and this btw is a large part of the feminist critique of marx): the economic dimension to sex-based oppression is significant, but it is not completely neccessary and sufficient to uphold patriarchy. though i don’t agree with ballgame otherwise, i too would disagree that the patriarchy is synonymous with the capitalist system. i think they do have a lot of intersections and they strongly rely on each other, but i also know from personal experience that even in a non-consumerist society (i won’t call it non-capitalistic because though it was “communist” it really wasn’t, it’s true) – anyway in a context where most people were non-consumers and did not profit from any capital-based privilege (at the most, we were all nonpersons with no rights and no freedoms), there was still sexist oppression and patriarchy to be found. and btw this is also true in general as far as gender issues within economic class strata in a capitalist system. i also really believe that the idea of abolishing private property completely is one of the stupidest theories thought up yet, but that’s kind of a tangent here. anyway, based on all of this the way i think about marx is similar to the way i view the feminist “foremothers” who were also racist. thing is, in spite of their good thoughts on women’s rights, their view of human rights is simply outdated, and has been for a long time. and while our views and theirs converge somewhere, somehow, and we must admit that they did some good work and had some good points, we would never, now, worship at their altar because they were also very wrong and harmful. basically, that’s my opinion about marx, too…
secondly, i wanted to mention bell hooks’ definition of feminism – “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” and to point out that this means for men, too insofar as such things apply to men, too. and so to ballgame i would say that yes, as a radical feminist (of the “radical” meaning going to the roots of the issue kind) i also think about how gender roles restrict men’s freedoms… because for instance guys suffer a lot of pressure to be the providers in their families, to be tough and stoic in the face of all hardships, etc., and are punished in many ways if they stray away from all that. and so personally i think that oppression exists for men in some ways even in a patriarchal system where the privilege is by definition male. tg has said only “repression” applies. i think not necessarily – but everything else she’s said is valid. the key idea here – a basic one for feminism – is that it’s “masculinity” and “femininity” that are used for the purpose of oppression (i.e. gender – something socially constructed and sanctioned – superimpsed onto our biological beings), to hold up the patriachal system in a miriad of ways. it’s “masculinity” that’s considered superior to “femininity”, not just the fact of being male over that of being female. for instance, just being biologically male doesn’t automatically offer you “male privilege” in the patriarchy – what’s called “masculinity” does; in fact if you’re male and choose “femininity” you will be harshly punished (i.e. oppressed, and by gender), just as you will if you are not heterosexual as patriarchal roles demand. but at the same time patriarchal rules dictate that only if you’re male will you have complete access to “masculinity”… and though both gender roles are restrictive and punitive, a large part of “male privilege” and other aspects of the patriarchy is that by definition men will have complete access to power (if they conform), while women don’t. i think that’s also what tg is getting at with “there are rewards for being masculine, but no rewards for being feminine.” i just wanted to point this out: “men” can actually be oppressed by gender, too; but the really important point that feminism-as-an-end-to-oppression is trying to make is that the whole system is messed up: the power structures and value systems based on rigid/binary gender roles, which in the patriarchy just “happen” to privilege the “masculine” over the “feminine”. the other really important point that this kind of feminism gets at is that sexist oppression is closely interconnected with other oppressions – you can’t actually detangle them but gender oppression is a common thread running through all other oppressions of groups of people (based on class, race, etc.). which ties in with what i was saying about marx above.
other than these additional points, i totally agree with tg’s approach to this immensely difficult topic and with her individual points from the post and the comments.
sorry for the rambling.
ps: tg, as far as i know there’s no expression equivalent to “gag me with a spoon” in romanian – so no growing up with it but i do know it.
* sorry, too, for the grammar/spelling errors like “lended” and “corruptable” – i wrote my long rambling comment in a huge hurry!
hey Ruxandra,
thanks, that was great! good explanation of how you feel about Marx, that’s helpful. And what you said about patriarchy and capitalism being exclusive though interwoven was exactly what I was trying to spit out when I said “they are married together, and serve one another, but primarily the rule is patriarchy, which capitalism reinforces.” I was thinking exactly about communistic regimes where capitalism isn’t the ruling economic theory but where patriarchy still exists. thanks for bringing that out.
ruxandra: I don’t agree with everything you wrote, but I think your point about “masculinity” (as opposed to ‘maleness’) being privileged over “femininity” is a key point, very well articulated.
(OT: Marvin Harris devotes a short part of his book, Cultural Materialism to analysing how Marx’s insights became corrupted in practice in a segment entitled, “Lenin’s Sin Against Science,” which I think you may find intriguing.)
I’m glad somebody else is willing to just come out for Marx (and again, not the oversimplified, popularized version).
excellent post…
thanks Professor! and Renegade!
In the last paragraph you expressed perfectly what I never put into words but feel everyday.
thanks Nikki – and welcome!
[...] Thinking Girl: Regarding Feminism and False Consciousness [...]
[...] controversial topic of false consciousness. False consciousness occurs when (in this case) women “believe they know what’s going on, but they really don’t, and [therefore they] do things to s… From where I sit, choosing to wear a burqa looks like a classic example of false consciousness: [...]
[...] It is the multiplicity of kinship that is at stake. Butler also invokes the Marxist concept of false consciousness by linking the LGBTI desire for marriage recognition as seeking a model of state-sponsored [...]