Tumgik
#Systems of Oppression
capricorn-0mnikorn · 6 months
Text
I've come to hate the phrase "learned helplessness"
So often, it's used as a form of victim-blaming whenever someone says: "I can't do this."
"Yes you can. That's learned helplessness. You're just not trying hard enough."
'Learned helplessness' is like the 19th century religious commentary on 'weak moral fiber' rephrased in the jargon of 20th-21st century psychology.
Every time I hear 'learned helplessness,' I want to ask: "Okay then. Who the hell was the Teacher?!"
9 times out of 10, at least one of them is the person saying "Try harder."
169 notes · View notes
anti-zionist-jew · 14 days
Text
Perfectly said. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are not the sole problem. They are a symptom of the problems
80 notes · View notes
Text
"Mainstream gender" as a system of oppression.
Imagine mainstream gender as a line. On one end of the line is "man," and on the other end is "woman" – this is the gender binary. The connecting line itself is representative, loosely, of "non-binary" gender. (I think this image is suitable, and if others disagree, I think that's more representative of how arbitrarily the binary is defined, rather than this image of it.)
This gender spectrum, dubbed "mainstream gender" because it's what the institutions of society use, only applies to certain groups – the group that controls it, really. White people.
Black people cannot access mainstream gender because they are barred from it via hyper-masculinization that borders on animalization. Black men are viewed as hyper-aggressive and predatory. To the white masses, the concept of "soft" Black masculinity is as real as the transatlantic slave trade (i.e., vague notions of it existing, but no personal experience with the implications, so it floats in the periphery until it's brought up again by a Black person). Black women, regardless of how much they lean into "traditional" femininity, will never be viewed as feminine. Black women will always be viewed as loud, aggressive and "man-ish," the latter contributing to transphobia that impacts both black trans women and black cis women.
By contrast, East Asians are hyper-feminized. East Asian men are stereotyped as soft and small and are portrayed as having little sexual appeal (and those who are viewed as sexually desirable are seen as exceptions to the mainstream; sexy despite their femininity). East Asian women are equally unable to escape femininity and are hyper-feminized to the point of infantilisation, both of which contribute to hyper-sexualization and fetishization. The hyper-femininization of East Asian people also lends itself to transphobia targeted at East Asian trans men (recall: the 2016/17 obsession with smol bois).
But not only is mainstream gender a tool of white supremacy, it also (obviously) is inherent to patriarchy (or, patriarchy is inherent to mainstream gender).
The binary is defined and propagated by men. So while all gender rules are arbitrary and constantly changing, "man" is always strictly defined, and the relief of "man" becomes "woman." This is evident both in masculinity being viewed as "gender neutral," as well as the sense of authority men feel over women's gender, commenting on makeup, how women dress, etc. As a result, the gender "woman" is inherently centered around "man."
In de-centering men, lesbians lack the rules to adhere to mainstream gender. That is why lesbianism is often described as a gender experience because lesbians operate on a new gender spectrum, specific to lesbians.
However, different from race, sexuality is not a visible barrier, and it can take work to exit from mainstream gender. Terf "lesbians" are not lesbians because they cling to the relief of "man" to define their gender; they're gay women. Similarly, white lesbians who prioritize their whiteness will continue to exist within mainstream gender. This also explains why white non-binary people are "like that." While they do not adhere to the binary of "man" and "woman," in participating in the system of whiteness, they remain within the confines of mainstream gender.
63 notes · View notes
thetooclevermartian · 3 months
Text
i was thinking yesterday about how we can see how unnatural colonialism and systems of oppression are because we can see how much violence and force they require in order to maintain control. when we take a step back and look at how much desperation there is to maintain that control over the populace, and the extreme measures of violence it takes, it becomes obvious. these systems have tells, and if something cannot continue without violence and force to maintain control, then it probably is a system that benefits a few select and exploits many.
things like colonialism, incarceration, hell, even the gender binary- they all require a hell of a lot of control over the populace, and that control is maintained through systemic violence.
39 notes · View notes
moonfirebrides · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
@TweetsbyBilal
96 notes · View notes
solarpunkcitizen · 2 years
Text
90 notes · View notes
limetarte · 3 months
Text
Let’s stop calling socio-political issues, systems, systems of oppression, power and harm, beliefs. They are not beliefs. They do not define anyone and they are not a part of anyone’s identity. We’ve all been brainwashed at the end of the day, and knowing you were, doesn’t make you better, more worthy, truer nor is it a part of who you are nor your identity. It’s false that systems of oppression (white supremacy, racism, ableism, genderism, sexism, classism, sizeism, elitism, ageism, sexualitism, etc.) are beliefs. You are not defined by your knowledge about those things, you are not defined by how much you educate yourself, you are not defined by what you know is wrong nor by those systems. Systems are simply not a part of anyone, they aren’t. You aren’t them, you never were and never will be. Believing a bunch of ableist things and that it’s okay, isn’t “being ableist”, it’s having internalized ableism, a system of oppression linked to every other one, it’s having been brainwashed to the point that you think that, but it still doesn’t define you. Same thing with knowing that ableism is wrong, recognizing ableism, it doesn’t define you, it’s not a part of who you are and it doesn’t make you any better. Let’s stop defining people by those systems, because it’s white supremacy, wrong and simply not okay and false. Nobody is inherently anything, nobody was born to not care, nobody was born believing in those things, they were all taught. People are taught to equate their worth with what they believe in, with the systems of oppression they have internalized and been victims of, people are taught not to care. Everyone can learn, no matter their age, no matter how much of the disgusting systems of oppression they have internalized, everyone can learn and unlearn. Everyone. Even the most right wing folks can. Even the ones who refuse to listen, even the ones who say they don’t care. They were taught to refuse to listen, they were taught not to care. They were taught lies, but that doesn’t make them liars, no matter how much lies they might be saying and spreading. I’m not saying that it’s okay, I’m not defending this, I’m defending the people, not the systems. The systems are still very wrong, oppressive and harmful, but systems and people are not the same thing. Beliefs are personal things, not systems of oppression you have internalized. You are worthy, you are enough, you are worthful. You always were worthy, you always were enough, you always were worthful. You are simply not your actions, you are not your inactions, you are not your mistakes. Your actions and inactions are not you. You are not your knowledge and your worth isn’t defined by your knowledge. 🩵💙
6 notes · View notes
newsfromstolenland · 2 years
Text
it's truly beyond me how social workers and social service workers can be so okay with working for the oppressor. I mean, I know how it happens. I knew people in my SSW program who would absolutely work for child services or police departments without a second thought. it just kinda horrifies me.
everything I learned as an SSW student and from my own lived experience contributes to my conviction that there are some jobs in my field that I just won't take, that I would rather sleep on the streets again than do.
so I guess I just want to say, fuck anyone in my field who works for oppressive institutions, who contributes to the very systems of oppression that we had to study in school. being a social worker or social service worker doesn't automatically make you a good person or make any job you take into a noble cause
I know for a fact that SSW students in ontario learn about how social workers and social service workers have contributed to colonialism, so there's no damn excuse for that shit
95 notes · View notes
odd-god · 2 months
Text
1. There are good things in the world
2. There are bad things in the world
3. Generally, people are people. They're capable of great kindness and great maliciousness.
4. At present, societies are beset by many ills.
5. Most of these ills come from the privilege and elevation of one group or more to the detriment of all others.
6. Even people at the top of this shit civilization have been known to revolt and/or kill themselves - despite having "everything".
7. The more outside of the status quo you are, the more of a minority you are, the worse time you're going to have.
8. There are still good things in the world and your life.
9. Many are overshadowed by the spectrum of oppression one faces on the daily.
10. Many people suffer due to the systems in place.
11. All we can do is live or die the best we can.
4 notes · View notes
dipperdesperado · 1 year
Text
we need to have a real conversation about hierarchy
Hierarchy is a complex issue that can be found in many different settings. It is often viewed as a tool of oppression and is therefore a contentious topic. Interestingly, people seem to be more willing to accept hierarchy than other forms of oppression. This may be due to a number of factors, such as the belief that hierarchy is necessary for order and stability, or the idea that some individuals are simply better suited for leadership roles than others. Whatever the reason, it is clear that hierarchy is deeply ingrained in our modern worldview. Even in revolutionary projects, where one might expect to find a rejection of traditional power structures, hierarchy rears its head.
Hierarchy can be best thought of as a pyramid. The tip holds the brunt of the social power, while the foundational bricks hold the least. Emphasis on social power. Going back to our conversation about power, the foundational levels of the pyramid have the greatest power potential, (or “potential energy” that can be transformed into a kind of “kinetic energy” of collective action) due to their position in the system and sheer numbers. However, the social system that is in place funnels their power to prop up the tip at their own expense. Their collective power (“power with”) gets drowned out by the tip’s “power over”.
Hierarchy, if nothing else, is problematic because it acts as the glue for other forms of oppression such as power, domination, and coercion. It’s the space that codifies and justifies those relationships, all the way from the personal to the systemic level.
This is what makes hierarchy the most dangerous form of oppression. It is seen as ultimately pragmatic, even if it necessitates stratification by its very nature. It begs questions from those that exist under it, while not allowing space to explore those questions safely. Hierarchy occupies a space similar to capitalism more broadly; though it’s hard to deny the inherent issues from any rational perspective, there is a question of “what else is there?” Any system that can continue to justify itself, even when the agents in that system understand that it’s against their best interests, is one that has reached a spooky level of maturity. Hierarchy is seen as “realistic” and “pragmatic”, the same way that capitalism is.
This probably makes hierarchy sound like a pretty bum deal. I mean, it is. There is something truly sickening about all of the social engineering that occurs to create a system that leads to toil of the many for the comfort of the few. That’s hierarchy in a nutshell. Even more disturbing is that there isn’t any real reason that everyone can’t be comfortable. There’s nothing inherent to the materiality of the Earth that requires unsustainable appropriation. Maybe we all can’t be on the level of those who ascend the pyramid in a hierarchical system, but that is excessive by any metric you could measure. People have to come to the understanding that it is against their best interests to live vertically. Imagine being treated like you’re too unwise to have agency over your life. That’s the reality in hierarchical systems.
At this point, you might be really interested in the answer to the “what else is there” question. Even if you don’t fully buy into the idea that hierarchy can be good, you might not feel like you have any other options. I mean, from a societal perspective, the concept of civilization as we know it has been hierarchical from the get-go. It’s been around much, much longer than the current Big Bad, capitalism. Simply put, if hierarchy is a vertical solution to organizations, then the way out of it is horizontal.
If people organize in horizontal and cooperative ways rather than hierarchical and competitive ways, there is the potential for an egalitarian relationship for everyone involved.
This is important to bake into the work being done in the present because of the rule of means-ends unity. Basically, where we want to go has to be aligned with how we get there. If we want a stateless, moneyless, classes, solarpunk society, but we recreate states, monies, and classes, then our end result will never be achieved. Recreating oppressive systems to fight oppressive systems just leads to more oppression, even if our goal is genuinely abolitionary and liberatory. Sadly, hoping for stuff while not taking the necessary actions for it to happen won’t get us to where we want to go.
All in all, hierarchy should be questioned at every turn. Not for silly reasons like “being a rebel” or an uninformed “dislike for authority”. Hierarchy is a breeding ground for oppression; any perceived gains are drowned out by the human cost. Human societies that will be able to reach their full capacities will by necessity have to be horizontal, decentralized, and systems-oriented, rather than vertical, centralized, and uniform. We should strive for the balance between order and chaos, hitting the sweet spot of emergence. That way, we can have our cake and eat it too. We can organize big societal projects like social programs, while allowing everyone to have the room to live in the ways that they see fit, exploring and creating individually and collectively for the betterment of themselves, their community, and society at large.
11 notes · View notes
elinaline · 2 years
Text
And also queer as in strange but in a bad way. I'm fucking autistic.
6 notes · View notes
anti-zionist-jew · 2 months
Note
Is it racist to criticize Black crime rates?
It's just history right?
You want to do this? Let’s open that can of worms then.
Why did the war on drugs begin? What was the entire point of criminalizing specific things throughout the history of the United States that target poor communities? Why are Black people at a disadvantage from the start? Oppression.
Why were interest rates (something used throughout the modern world) deemed usery for a specific people? Oppression.
These are actually both very similarly related. The oppressive systems create the situation and then criminalize and demonize them. It’s what Israel is doing to Palestinians, and has been for nearly a century, too.
It boggles my mind how you can want to deny this history. We were put into situations where we had little control or options, and then they weaponized it against us. That is the very definition of oppression. Those are the very systems that need to be torn down the world over.
12 notes · View notes
sensible-tips · 1 year
Link
Mindful Monday
In order to resist, reject and reconstruct a society in which maleness > other gender identities, we must first become aware of the privilege we have as men.
6 notes · View notes
thetooclevermartian · 3 months
Text
too many people think that feminism and liberation movements are about fighting for an equal right to give or receive violence.
for a simple example, it's like when a man states, "so if women are equal to men now, does that mean I can hit them?" no. that's not how that works, because the point is to lessen violence experienced by all people, as much as possible. you shouldn't be hitting anyone. within feminism, this means removing the violence of the patriarchy to lessen the violence committed against women and femmes in particular because they face the most violence under a patriarchal system, though removal of the system benefits all.
for a more complicated example, when the settler colony of israel was first established, they advocated for their right to be able to colonize for themselves, to ethnic cleanse and commit genocide just like the western nations that helped create the ethnostate do. zionism used Jewish liberation as a scapegoat for that cause, claiming equal right to commit violence as part of their "liberation". the reason that this isn't real liberation is because it a) comes at the cost of others' freedom (Palestinians) and b) Jews still face discrimination and prejudice and systemic injustice. at the end of the day, all forms of liberation are connected, so if Jews were truly free after WWII, then Palestine would also be free.
this is the thing that frightens oppressors the most- that they will be treated like they have treated the oppressed. to them, there is no version of events where they remove systems of oppression and don't face violence or punishment or some sort of revenge. their fear has them continually attempting to tighten their control over society. but that fear also makes it so they can't look past anything else. they can't see through the wall they've built to know that oppressed people have always had to find their own humanity in a world that sought to deny it at every turn. they can't understand that the point of resistance and liberation movements is to make it so nobody has to do that. it's to make it so that nobody else has to face the violence that is occuring in this world. it's what "never again" means. recognizing the humanity of all people, especially the people who have been deemed less than human, is a necessary step for liberation.
14 notes · View notes
skeletonpandas · 3 days
Text
People who are unwilling to sacrifice their comfort temporarily or switch to an unproblematic version of whatever they are currently using (at no cost, we don't shame people for being broke here)...give me the ick. For some reason they are often of the feminine persuasion which doubles the sensation for me. I guess if I am looking at this realistically they are also usually white.
It's like. They don't know "right to comfort" is a tenant of the same system that oppresses them.
And...related unrelated.
I have been reflecting on...how I'm not sure how fair it actually is to judge older generations for being unaware of their own red flags when the internet is the main reason most younger people freed themselves from generational trauma in the first place. Unless your library was real good and or you traveled...you were just always in your bubble of existence. How good are those odds, to wake up to how you participate in the problems in this world?
And to counterbalance that -- all the younger generations who grew up with the internet, where then...is the excuse?
Just thinking deep thoughts.
My own lived experience is that even tho I'm a child of the internet and I generally consider myself more self aware than the average bear, I really only graduated to the healing stage until I reached a level of financial security. Which only happened through luck and circumstance...which only further proves that poverty is as much a tool to keep the common man down as anything else.
1 note · View note
healingwgabs · 10 days
Text
I’ve been trying to say this but cognitive issues but before we pathologize individuals as unhealthy, disordered, dysfunctional, dangerous, and abnormal for their reactions to abuse, we should at first be assessing their environments as such
Mental illness is real of course, however, it’s true that toxic environments can mimic symptoms in ppl n if removed from certain environments, symptoms would be gone. And it’s important for adequate assessment to discern for this. Getting a diagnosis in these situations would be a form of medical gaslighting
And it’s also true that being raised in abusive/unhealthy, neglectful, not ideal environment, systems of oppression, bullying at school can play a role too mixed with a genetic/biological/temperament vulnerability or sensitive personality can lead to the formation of mental/personality disorders over time as a form of complex trauma (distinct from CPTSD) and that these people deserve support and interventions that meet their needs and goals. These are the circumstances where terms like “trauma oriented _______ “(enter condition here) have arose from. The degree of stress/trauma that is required to trigger someones genetic predisposition “diathesis” will vary from person to person. For some (mental health disorders) it may not take so much (not a complex trauma) and for others it may take a bit (a complex trauma).
It’s also true that some people are born with mental health disorders (least common)
Transformative social justice like advocating for policy changes in government is so important in addressing all
0 notes