Ideologies of Oppression

Post Reply New Topic

Certainly, a lot of those "isms" don't belong on the same page as racism, antisemitism, sexism, and forms of homophobia. Linguisticism? Adultism?

No, being offended is never mentioned, but would you agree that people feeling entitled to take offense at the words or actions of others is the frequent result of being placed in an oppressed class? For example, if I made the statement "many teenagers today seem complacent and unmotivated," couldn't a teenager in the room stand up and accuse me of Adultism, even though I wasn't referring to him or her personally but just making a general statement that may or may not be true, but certainly not an act of oppression.

Oh, your right. Heightism is already in there.

Anyway, that reminds me of a paradox. Everyone thinks short people have it rough, so they treat them differently. For example, in John Steinbeck's book "Of Mice and Men", there's a short bully named Curly. If he wins a fight, people are impressed. If he looses, people tell the winner they shouldn't pick on people who are so small. It's a win-win situation, which means it's unfair.
People tip-toe around my feelings instead of insulting me upfront, which I suspect happens because I'm short.

You don't have to modify your definition, but I thought I would mention the irony since it came to mind.

Perhaps, but I did not make any suggestions on that page for dealing with oppression. In fact, I agree that passing laws is only effective to a point. The rest comes through accepting and practicing inclusion.

By putting them on that page, I am not trying to establish equivalence. As a sociologist, I begin by treating each social construction (or ideology) separately. I don't assume that they are related. Afterwards, people can begin looking for similarities.

I find that associating oppressive ideologies often begins in people's real experiences. For instance, a person victimized by racism may meet (or read about) someone victimized by, say, sexism. They then see aspects of their experiences in those of the other person.



In my Social Problems classes, I find that the people who are most often offended are white males! It happens almost every semester. It is the people who occupy positions of power in a society who sometimes react the strongest when it is threatened.

When I think of short people, I usually remember watching reruns of the old Andy Hardy movies with Mickey Rooney. He was short, but very popular (especially with Judy Garland).

I really don't get the problem with the term "disability" or the term "abnormal." The vast majority of people are at the center of a bell curve of various traits and people that are for whatever reason several standard deviations from the center are going to have a hard time totally fitting in with society as a whole when the majority of people that are at the center of the bell curve.

As with all words, it is usage, history, and interpretation. Disability focuses on what people cannot do. Abnormal has generally been used by psychologists and psychiatrists to refer to people with mental disorders or mental illnesses.

Not surprising. They probably feel, individually, that they use whatever power they have beneficently and and not to harm or oppress anyone and thus are offended at the insinuation that they might, though I suppose this is is the usual reaction of the powerful.

Yes. Also, white males have the least to gain and the most to lose from any structural changes.

I just added several additional categories of oppression to the page:

http://ideologies.neurelitism.com

Yep, we males have brought it upon ourselves.

Has anybody theorised that the "autism epidemic", so called, might have something to do with a crisis in adultism?
Could the increasingly frequent medication of "difficult" children and/or the increasing frequency of diagnosis of disorders in children in the last 30 years have something to do with a crisis in the relationship between the classes child and adult?
Has anything been written about such a possible perspective/analysis?
Was thinking about the vast numbers of women diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and mysterious physical ailments, the appallingly invasive "treatments" for difficult, "hysterical" women,( hysterectomies, cliterodectomies etc), aswell as the widespread prescription ( to women primarily) of laudanum, and other opiates/tranquilisers, in the era leading up to womens "emancipation", the vote etc.
As if severely repressive measures were introduced in an effort to suppress the growing dissatisfaction of women, or protect the status quo.
Could the "autism epidemic" be a sign of something similar, as children show increasing restlessness in their assigned role? In fact it may be a kind of political repression. Not only neutralising the infant trouble-makers who give children a bad name and threaten adult authority, but also frightening lots of other children into behaving "normally".

PS: I just watched "The Omen", 1975,( for the first time since discovering Aspergers/introversion/AS ). And thought of Rosemarys Baby and The Exorcist. Scary children huh?! !

IMO, there is sufficient evidence from diverse cultures to lend additional support to a basically neurological basis for the attributes observed on the spectrum. However, I still have a lot of questions.

As a sociologist, I have become interested in exploring possible social structural or cultural contributory factors, but I have not seen much in the literature on that subject. Most of the pre-1980s stuff on autism, etc. is psychodynamic and Freudian.

I also don't know if Emil Kraepelin's recent resurrection in the DSM-III, DSM-III-TR, DSM-IV, and DSM-IV-TR explains all the variance either.

#1 dogma of Postmodernist "sociologists": Old white heterosexual males are always evil except if that old white heterosexual male happens to be a Postmodernist "sociologist."

I don't personalize it. To me, what is "evil," if you want to use that word, are the ideologies, not the people.