Please understand that this article is not directed at anyone particular person or persons. I’m not saying that any individual should be charged with the task of championing the cause of women’s equality in geek culture. I merely wanted to point out the possible dangers of adopting a gender neutral dialect, when gender inequalities still evidently preside in both our cultures and societies.
The Gender Blind Myth
What the Civil Rights Movement can teach geek culture about its attitude towards gender.
Talking purely in hypotheticals, it is can be difficult to gain an appreciation of just how dangerous the fallacy of gender blindness can be. To ascertain a better understanding of the possible implications of removing gender from our dialect, I decided to draw a comparison to the civil rights movement, particularly the removal of race from law that spawned from pivotal civil rights case Plessy V. Ferguson (163 U.S. 536).
From a distance I understand that comparing two glaringly different events seems preposterous, but upon closer examination I think you will find that these two instances are actually quite similar. Both Black and Female Americans had similar rights movements, with the civil rights movement actually helping to inspire the Women’s Suffrage movement. Yet despite all of the progress that has been made, both parties still suffer grave social injustices and prejudices. Perhaps most pertinent to our discussion, despite our very evident ability to identify both gender and race, we continue to perpetuate these fantasies of social neutrality.
In 1896 Plessy V. Ferguson (163 U.S. 536) the landmark United States Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation abiding by the doctrine of separate but equal. While this case failed to address the social inequalities that presided in our country at the time, many look to Justice Harnlan’s dissenting opinion as the spark that ignited our civil rights movement.
Many see Justice Harlan as a revolutionary, a civil activist, a saint. However, upon examination of the language provided in his opinion, I think that you’ll see that his reasoning isn’t as pious as history often remembers him; Justice Harlan states:
“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.”
At first glance it’s easy to see his opinion in a positive light, but what is he really saying here? While it may appear that Harlan is preaching for a colorblind legal system as a means of creating social equality, in reality he’s placating his fellow Judges. Harlan’s opinion actually appears to be plea for the concession of civil rights given the limited risk it would impose on the current social structure. Harlan even goes on to allude to the continuation of white supremacy when he says:
“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty.”
Sadly in many instances, Harlan was correct in his assumption. By removing the language of race from the law, the legal system has become almost powerless to address the current social inequalities that still exist.
The problem with adopting a colorblind legal system is that it’s based off the assumptions that we as a society can become blind to color, that the societal inequalities and prejudices that revolve around race will dissipate due to the laws ignorance of its existence. However, as we’ve already discussed, we are incapable of being colorblind, and in many ways we as a society still harbor racial injustice. Thus removing race from the discussion is not the solution. Not talking about race or having the law incapable of addressing it doesn’t change the fact that racial inequality still exists.
The same understanding can be applied to our discussion of gender in geek culture. Removing the discussion of gender, or opting for a gender-neutral dialect doesn’t change the gender inequalities that exist. Nor does it change the interaction of males and females, and it doesn’t steward progressive change. Inequalities, social biases and every other nasty social and cultural issue will still exist whether we’re inclined to discuss them or not.
I’m not saying that we need to proclaim our masculinity/femininity from the mountaintops. Regardless of how you classify your gender (male, female, transgender, ect.) this facet shouldn’t define you; but we also shouldn’t pretend that it isn’t a part of who we are, that it doesn’t help mold our cultural identity, that it doesn’t harbor some significance.
Talking about these issues can be uncomfortable, unsettling and sometimes rage inducing, but lying to ourselves and living in politically correct bubble won’t change the world. Instead of shying away from these topics or perpetuating extremist hate-filled banter, why don’t we try being honest with ourselves and address these topics, asking what is that really matters to us and how we can make it better.
Comments