Tcahr Issue 35

eZine lover (@eZine)

Published in 

Tcahr

 · 5 years ago

  

 
                                      ----- 
                            )  )-0----)000(----0-(  ( 
                           ( ----------------------- ) 
                       +-0-=0+  T + C + A + H + R  +0=-0-+ 
                           ( ----------------------- ) 
                            )  )-0----)000(----0-(  ( 
                                      ----- 

   "To aid in the incubation, breeding, and release of butterflies in Asia." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Vol. 02, Iss. 11          A Conversation with my Sister: 
                           Identifying the Oppressiveness of Mainstream Ideals 
                           by BMC 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
My sister and I are alike in many ways; we are both strong-willed and 
ambitious, traits that commonly show themselves as stubbornness and 
single-sightedness.  There is also a positive side to this, as is seen by the 
successes we have achieved against the odds.  I, at age twenty-four, am about 
to receive an English Honours B.A. after having finished high school a year 
late with a 50% average and later entering university as a mature student.  My 
sister, at age thirty-five, is a first-generation cattle rancher and also 
mother of three eight-year-old triplets.   We have both worked hard for what we 
have achieved, and both of us have a strong sense of being different from our 
peers.  I find myself to be a socialist, a pacifist, and an advocate for the 
rights of animals, and I consider my sister to be a feminist.  Perhaps the 
primary reason that we have a difficult time fitting in with people around us 
is because many of our values are incompatible with "mainstream ideals of 
truth."  My sister says that the treatment of women in the rural area she lives 
in is particularly inequitable, and, as a result of this, she has had to 
struggle to be treated with respect and dignity ever since she bought her first 
quarter of land in the late 1980s.  In my life, I find the struggle for 
equality for all people and animals to be pushed back by those who maintain 
ideals of capitalism and individualism.  Unfortunately, I believe that my 
sister and I, while resisting many mainstream values, are also victim to such 
mainstream ideals; since these ideals are instilled in people through 
institutionalized socialization, it is difficult to understand all of the ways 
in which we are brainwashed.  Certainly, the government, the education system, 
media, the family, and other agents, from subtle to blatant, work against our 
knowledge to pacify us while we continue to be manipulated as tools of the 
ruling class. 

My sister and I are both very stubborn in the sense that we would never admit 
that we had allowed anyone to influence our judgement in any way.  We are both 
distrusting of authority and prefer to develop our own ideas of what is right 
and wrong.  However, when influenced in subtle ways, we are unable to detect 
that our perceptions are being altered, and this makes the very fact that there 
is a standard, mainstream ideal of truth dangerous.  Speaking for myself, I am 
unable to analyze how I have been affected by the ideals of truth created and 
promoted by the ruling class, although I am sure that media and other agents 
have had a greater effect of me than I am aware of.  As far as my sister goes, 
we attempt to mutually like and respect each other, but often find that our 
views conflict.  I recently had an extended telephone conversation with her in 
which we discussed topics of game hunting, marriage, and the importance of 
gender roles in relation to envelope labeling.  While we agreed on many points, 
the conversation made me feel like I had realized something for the first time 
– that my sister believes in certain mainstream ideals that I do not – 
specifically the ideals of capitalism and individualism. 

We began our conversation with some mundane talk about the weather and whatnot, 
and then she asked me a question that I did not expect to hear: "So what do you 
think about that gopher hunt?"  Since I don’t own a TV or read the newspaper, 
I had no idea what she was talking about.  However, I did not want to get into 
a conversation about the politics of killing animals with her.  She is a cattle 
rancher, remember, and my unwillingness to talk to her about this topic goes 
back to a big fight we had where she accused me of attempting to destroy her 
livelihood by not eating meat, thereby causing beef prices to plummet.  My mom 
begged me to never speak to my sister about her profession again, something 
that I was more than glad to do; there’s no way that I can stop my sister from 
killing cows, so why bother fighting about it?   

I told her that I hadn’t heard about the gopher hunt.  She explained, "A bunch 
of activists are making a stink because they’re killing gophers," and she 
wanted to know what I thought about it. 

"You know what I think about it," I said. 

She proceeded to tell me that some radio host said they should come to 
Saskatchewan and kill the gophers here instead.  For a moment it seemed like 
she was looking for my approval of this comment. 

I said, "I think killing for any reason is wrong.  You know that." 

To this she asked if I thought it was okay for farmers to kill animals on their 
land.  Of course, that condition was covered in my "for any reason" clause. 
She asked me what I thought about gophers destroying the crops and livelihood 
of farmers.  I, in turn, asked her what she thought of farmers destroying the 
livelihood of gophers by killing them. 

Before changing the topic, my sister got the last word in by informing me that 
"people have to look at these thing from all sides, not just one."  I took this 
to mean that she believed that I had to look at this from the point of view of 
the farmers.  After all, I have nothing to personally gain or lose from the 
interaction between farmers and gophers.  I believe that if one were to truly 
look at this from all sides – farmer and gopher – that one would have to look 
for a solution that minimizes the suffering and maximizes the sustainability of 
all parties.  This radical step of considering another living mammal to have 
rights would mean the immediate cessation of the practice of slaughtering 
gophers.  However, mainstream ideals discourage us from thinking of the rights 
and needs of others, and instead encourage people to maximize their own profit 
at the expense of others.  In the case of gophers, which are not protected by 
law, this means that a farmer is socially justified in killing them if the 
gophers’ presence is a detriment to the farmer’s earning potential.  Of course, 
the farmer is encouraged to discount the needs of others in order to survive in 
a sink-or-swim, capitalist economy. 

The killing of gophers is also wrong for a score of other reasons, another 
important one being the human conceit that pieces of land can be owned and 
ruled in any way we choose.  This is institutionalized in the form of legal 
recognition of property ownership.  The individual ownership of land ignores 
the fact that land supports a biological community, and an individual making 
decisions about the land is not required to take the needs of other creatures 
of the land into consideration.  All of the land’s dwellers share the water, 
the topsoil, and the plants that grow in the earth.  Also, the individual 
ownership of land is colonial and discounts the fact that all Canadian land was 
forcefully stolen from the First Nations of Canada.  In short, it seems that my 
sister’s prescription is to view the situation from all sides – while viewing 
it only from the perspective of one property owner.  

"You know what happened the other day?" my sister asked.  Apparently Uncle 
Franklin was visiting her place and the conversation turned to talk of 
marriage.  It seems Uncle Franklin believes the time has come when my 
eight-year old nieces have to start thinking about getting married.  The 
institution of marriage is something I disagree with in the first place because 
the practice is rooted in the tradition of men trading marriageable women 
amongst each other as bargaining tools for gaining wealth and power.  While I 
do think that in some instances the act of marriage can be less benign than 
that, the matter of the conversation with Uncle Franklin was anything but 
benign.   

My sister informed me that my uncle told my nieces that they should try to 
marry wealthy men so they don’t have to worry about money in the future.  While 
my sister and I both agreed that this was not an appropriate thing for him to 
say, our reasons for thinking this differed.  My sister said that, in response 
to his comment, she told her children that they should not marry rich men but 
generate their own wealth, which would enable them to marry any man they 
choose.  While I agreed that she must have seemed feisty by reversing the 
gender roles, she missed the true problem entirely.  What is so offensive about 
Uncle Franklin’s statement is the very notion that people, not women in 
particular, should marry for money.  By extension, this means that one’s wealth 
is the sole measure of one’s success; for one to marry someone wealthy means to 
become wealthy and to be wealthy means to be successful.  For that reason, my 
sister’s comment is just as offensive as my uncle’s is.   

I attempted to warn my sister that she was falling into the trap of capitalism, 
believing that the value of one’s life work is determined by the thickness of 
one’s wallet.  I told her that if this were the case then we should consider 
lottery winners to be society’s greatest successes.  While she would not say 
that she considered a lottery winner to be a success, she would also not waver 
from her position that wealth equals success.  I prepared to hang my head in 
sorrow for my nieces who were sure to grow up to be as capitalist as the rest 
of my family is, but my sister suddenly changed the topic and gave me something 
else to worry about. 

My sister said, "Oh, and you’ll never guess what…" and I held on tight to the 
arm of the couch because I knew I was in for a patented, unstoppable, L. C. 
rant.  But it was on this last topic that my sister became the most lucid and 
philosophical.  

My sister and her husband, D., recently took out a lease on a plot of 
government-owned land.  When dealing with the Rural Municipality Office, my 
sister was the primary signer of the lease and her husband was the secondary 
signer.  The primary signer is considered to be the chief contact person, and 
this was to be one of the responsibilities that fell to my sister as primary 
signer.  She told me that she believes many women in her area are stupid and 
passive, and that she has always found it incredibly difficult to be treated as 
an equal to the male farmers, who generally run their entire farm, and have 
stereotypical views of women.  When choosing to be the primary signer of the 
lease, she assured me, she did not intend to suggest that her husband was not 
her equal in their business partnership, but that there was no reason why they 
should buy into the same gender conventions as anyone else does.  I found this 
to be a commendable break from mainstream ideals of the way things should be 
arranged, and I commended my sister for it.  However, the RMO does not seem to 
have the same opinion on this matter as my sister and I do. 
- 
When my sister and her husband began to receive letters from the RMO regarding 
their new plot of land, all of the mail was addressed to "D. and L. C.."  My 
sister told me that she was incredibly disappointed with it, and that since she 
was the primary signer, the envelope should have been addressed to "L. and 
D. C.."  

"It’s not fair," she said, "that my name is listed last on every envelope."  I 
agreed that it wasn’t.  She went on to say that it might not seem like a big 
deal, but it is one, "especially when your name is the one that’s listed second 
all the time."  I interjected. 

"Oh, it is important – very important," I agreed, ready to join in the 
conversation about this deconstructionalist idea.  I agreed with her that, 
although there is no expressly stated reason for why the male name is listed 
first and the female name is listed second, there is a difference.  One person 
is given priority, and the other person is seen as a subsidiary of the first. 
The envelope might as well say "D. C. and wife."  If men are always listed 
first and women are always listed second, it seems to be an indication that 
women are only considered after men are, and women are treated as secondary 
citizens.   

"God, I hate this so much," she said.  "Do you think I should call the RMO or 
human rights and file a complaint?" 

Yes!  The thought of it provoked a great deal of excitement in me.  I told her 
that doing this might initiate a change in the RMO’s policy, perhaps even 
making changes that would be observed all across the country.  "This could be a 
great step," I told her.  I said that this was a situation in which she could 
effect social change, pushing the movement for women’s rights further ahead. 
She does have the strength and the tenacity to do such a thing.  Suddenly, she 
revealed her true intentions to me. 

"Next time we lease," she said, "I think I’ll just put my name on it.  That way 
everything will work out the way I want it."  I was a bit confused.  Then she 
told me that the only reason she really wanted to have the lease in her name 
was so that the neighbours would be able to see her name on the map of who owns 
what land.  In this way, she planned to finally get some respect and show her 
independence off to the neighbouring farmers.  She’d show them all that she 
wasn’t like the other women in her area. 

I understand why she would respond in this way.  Writing off the other women in 
her area is a sure way to get on-side with her male neighbours.  Trying to earn 
recognition for herself while discounting other women in her area is an easier 
struggle and will be met with greater rewards.  However, this is the capitalist 
model of success – earning privilege for oneself without showing concern for 
the needs of others.  While seeming to champion feminism, my sister is 
ultimately concerned with the needs of only one female (and her nuclear 
family).  Yes, I believe that my sister is determined and charismatic enough 
that she could form a women’s organization in her municipality and meet with a 
moderate amount of success.  The problem with this is that she would be putting 
herself further on the line, and the majority of the benefit would not fall to 
her.  She would probably lose a lot of the support she has gained from male 
farmers in her area, and life would prove to be more of a challenge for her 
than it currently is. 

We had spent about forty minutes on the phone together, and we decided to call 
it a conversation and say goodbye. 

It is difficult to say whether my sister’s practice of capitalism is rooted in 
belief that the individual’s struggle supercedes that of the many, or if her 
belief is a decision she has come to upon the realization that her success as 
a farmer hinges upon her success as a capitalist and an individualist.  I do 
not want to discount her life experience at all – in fact, I am impressed by 
the status she has achieved in her community and within my family.  I only wish 
that she was able to break from more of our society’s conventions – both by 
understanding how the tools of socialization affect her, and by being able to 
live in a world where one is not condemned for fighting for certain causes. 
In the meantime, we both do what we can and try to be civil to each other on 
those topics we disagree about.  My sister has always told me that family 
members are not as good as friends because you get to choose your friends, but 
while my sister and I are different in just enough ways to make us 
sometime-adversaries, we have enough beliefs in common with one another to 
make our occasional conversations semi-tolerable.  Maybe when we grow up we’ll 
have more beliefs in common, or maybe it is the world that needs to grow up in 
order for us to be able to do that. 

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

       Read more of BMC's writing at N-Com (http://www.neo-comintern.com) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 The Committee Against Human Rights -- http://maq.port5.com 
 TCAHR Manifesto -- http://maq.port5.com/disman.html 
 The Polymemetic Textfile Project -- http://maq.port5.com/polymemetic.txt 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
tcahr@hotmail.com                                                Copyright 2002