Exclusions and intimidations
Fragility of monocultures
Ideological imbalance in inquiry
Technocratic discourse and public policy
Complicity in the hurting of bodies
Inadequate models of humanity and ecosocial complexity
|Previous slide||Back to first slide||View graphic version|
= exclusions of both persons and discourse alternatives, including:
women, less masculinized males, identifiable gay males
less structured and dichotomizing discourses, non-universalizing discourses
discourses that do not make extreme evaluative claims about certitude, etc.
discourses that use +fem metaphoric frames
discourses on topics that do not bear on power hierarchies
discourses that subvert claims for the necessity of abstract reasoning and control hierarchies
= complicity in the legitimation of:
physical abuse of women, children, gay people, cultural/racial others
legal restrictions of the human rights of " " " "
denial of resources and educational/social opportunities to " " " "
based on categorization discourses, and evaluations in terms of conformity to masculinized notions of intelligence, ability, competence, etc.
= Note the need to sustain "contradictions" between political solidarity discourses and category-deconstructing discourses in opposing masculinism and the whole gender-caste system of unequal power relations. Thus categories like "Black people" "Gay people" and even "Women" or "the Working Class" serve a need to create political solidarity through discourse in order to resist oppressive conditions, but these categories are themselves still gross oversimiplifications of the complexity of human diversity with respect to all the traits that go to define any such category. By and large such simplistic categories are the characteristic tools of oppressors, and intellectually it is their deconstruction in favor of a less politically freighted, less stereotyped awareness of separable variability across all human traits that seems most humanely progressive.