Oppressors and the Oppressed - Reciprocity

One of the most talked about topics of the era is oppression in all its different faces, be it sexism, racism, poverty, inequality in a work place, xenophobia, class discrimination, etc etc.  It is widely understood as a bad thing yet the majority of the public are indoctrinated by it, we say things which some people may not bat an eyelid at, but others will whole heartedly rip into you regardless of whether you meant to be offensive or not.  Similarly, we become more aware each day that things which were once considered to be acceptable are now unacceptable. Fundamentally we can agree that oppression isn't a positive thing, that ultimately equality enlightens people, enlightenment leads to freedom, and thus equality is freedom.  Another thing which we can all agree is positive, freedom - be it freedom of speech, civil rights, human rights, etc etc.  However, recently a new discussion has arisen, and that is as to whether oppression can be reciprocated, whether the oppressed can also be oppressors. 

In the last two weeks the question of whether a male can be raped was brought to light with the allegation that Shia LaBeouf announced that he was raped during an art installation.  Regardless of the individual circumstances of this particular case, it brought a much more important question to hand, whether sexism, and sexual abuse, is able to be reciprocated. (NB: I am not here to discuss the Shia LaBeouf case, there are plenty of articles which focus solely on that). One side of the argument argues that, no, a male cannot be subject to sexism or sexual abuse.  This is backed up with legitimate argument of male privilege across society, with legitimate arguments on the nature of sexism throughout history being predominantly a one way occurrence, and with legitimate argument that, in terms of sexual abuse, men are generally able to withstand coercive sexual abuse from the opposite sex (although, it may be noted, this is not always the case). The other side of the argument is that, yes, a man can be subject sexism, or sexual abuse.  This is much harder to defend with solid historical, and cultural, evidence as ultimately yes, males have been the oppressors, and have a certain standing of privilege.  This can be closely related to racism, in the sense of white privilege, colonialism, and segregation. But, this does not mean that it cannot be reciprocated, due to lack of publicised evidence. 

I make the point again, I am not denying that the white male is privileged, i am not denying that throughout history it has been predominantly a one way occurrence. However, take an advert for example.  One advert shows a female model half naked advertising some commodity, we can agree that this in itself is sexism - the objectification of women is a huge problem in the modern mass media.  However, here is another advert.  A male, topless with well defined, 'sexy', abs, advertising some commodity.  Why is this also not considered objectification? Both are as sexist as each other.

Another example is the integrated norms and beliefs that society holds upon women AND men.  Admittedly created by male sexism, women are seen to be the weaker, more emotional, softer gender.  However, similarly this puts a stereotype on men to be the strong, less emotional, harder gender.  Why? Why should this be? Is it weak to be emotional? No, of course it isn't.  It links well to homophobia, the stigma attached to being homosexual creates fear of being logged into that stereotype. It creates an innate feeling of inequality.

Talking about racism it is much harder to find cases of reciprocal racism towards the white race in a western society.  But go into an oppressed mixed race, or ethnic minority, community and there are deep set feelings of hatred towards the white race.  Understandably.  But this does not condone oppression towards the oppressor.  Why should it? Two wrongs most definitely do not make a right.  It just makes them feel better.  And although this is important in itself, surely equality and understanding is much more more fundamental?

I could write for hours on the subject, and for a deeper understanding of my thoughts a longer discussion is needed.  But for now, the basis is there for thought.  Iris Marion Young, in the chapter Five Faces of Oppression, discusses the idea that an oppressed group/individual doesn't necessarily have to have a material oppressor. That society itself, through cultural imperialism, has ultimately acquired a set of norms which marginalise and discriminate naturally.  It is a good read and i would recommend it to anyone interested in my thoughts, and oppression in general, as predominantly they are rooted there. 

Discrimination is discrimination, and can be from anyone to anyone, from any group to any group. Whilst it faults a person/group it is discrimination. It happens all the time, from material oppressors and from society's norms in general. Looking objectively upon discrimination and oppression, it occurs both ways, and is rooted deep within society and culture. I don't deny that it occurs, and has occurred throughout history, predominantly one way. But this does not mean it cannot be reciprocated.