Canadian Sexism

Premises

  1. Premise: All societies are sexist in different ways.
  2. Premise: Canada is a highly-urban, extractivist arm of the British Empire, and in addition to its English and French population, the English of which maintains an ongoing, fairly creepy (unreflective), idealist, rivalristic, anti-American nationalist discursive project, its settler population largely consists of the merchant class diaspora of war-torn and industrializing countries. The indigenous population has been highly influenced by this culture as well as missionary Christianity. In aggregate, this sociological foundation influences the Canadian brand of sexism.
  3. Premise: Sexism is carried out by both women and men, though they have distinctive roles in its functioning.

Canadian sexism

  1. Work networking occurs through male collective association contexts.
  2. Females have traditionally served as social reproducers, including managing and conducting a large sector of unpaid imperial social-service carework volunteerism.
    1. The Canadian government protects a healthy number of holidays, assisting social reproduction.
    2. However, today most socio-biological reproductive work also has to be subsidized by other populations, including both immigrants, and intergenerational labour (by grandparents), as the structure of costs v. socially-average wages in Canada is based on working-age (age 20-68) households with two adults in paid employment.
  3. Liberal Canadian feminist identity valorizes a mytho-poetic “Strong Woman” construction, which means a woman who avails herself of some part of the repertoire of rights and obligations proper to bourgeois females, or mature (desexualized/queered) females under state-protected security, including moving about freely in public spaces, particularly while volunteering, in paid employment, and consuming; novel reading and aesthetic appreciation; household, neighbourhood, or poverty management/reproduction; and gender-segregated communicative freedom and freedom of same-sex micro-assembly.
    1. Under this liberal model, and perhaps due to its high level of urbanization, the “modern” Canadian femininity variant consists of  adopting the habitus of flamboyantly gay male culture, permitting practitioners commercially-compliant, aesthetic and cultural appreciation/critique, in addition to more typically-feminized carework and human-relations management.
  4. In Canada, the sexual availability signal is simple, one-on-one cross-gender fraternization. There is no secondary tier of sexual availability signalling beyond such fraternization, for example an additional verbal negotiation and agreement. It is always assumed that one-on-one cross-gender socialization and networking is primarily for the purpose of sexual intercourse. So, women and men generally cannot and do not socialize as friends or work together in a dyad in Canada. A desegregated “friendship” or desegregated working dyad in Canada would require submission to or perpetual negotiation of the baseline Canadian open sexual access expectation.
    1. It is unclear to me at this stage how people of the same gender signal sexual availability to each other, given the heavy reliance in Canada on same-gender socialization to police the sexual-access boundary.
      1. However, it could be an aspect of Canadian sexism that, for example, same-gender sexual solicitation (or boundary assertion excluding sexualization) is accomplished through an additional tier of egalitarian verbal communication that is not available across unequal genders.
      2. It seems also clear that Canadians rely on group socialization and work environments to permit non-sexualized, gender-desegregated interactions. Through group or chaperoned interaction, Canadians avoid signalling the sexual availability they assume to be an inherent property of cross-gender one-on-one interaction in that society.
    2. A norm is a norm. If the prohibition on non-sexualized cross-gender fraternization is not observed (For example, in the case of a cross-gender social or work interaction between two people.), but the female privately and/or publicly objects to the Canadian sexualized-relationship norm itself (in the case where she comes from another culture where women and men are able to engage in non-sexualized social or working relations without chaperones), her objections to the norm are categorically disregarded by Canadians, and she is simply considered a norm violator; to Canadians her objection to the sexist norm is indistinguishable from deviance.
      1. Her only alternative to silently submitting to the Canadian sexualized relationship norm in one-on-one cross-gender interactions is to levy a sexual-harassment charge upon the individual man (“friend”/colleague), requiring the female to defect from her social/professional relationships, and put her own social and/or professional capital on the line.
        1. This legalistic, antisocial, and personally-damaging line of “remedy” is enforced by the community, including women, as the only way to intervene on the norm. They will not allow the social norm to be publicly reconsidered. This approach is in accord with highly-delimited and institutional liberal conceptions of social change, as well as the general devaluation of women’s work.
        2. In Canada, it is imagined that only through such individual “Strong Woman” acts of self-sacrifice, or strict adherence to group/chaperoned unsegregated social interaction, can men’s natural, free sexual being be contained for and within the collective good.
        3. With this Canadian-sexism consequence tree, this incentive structure, the community maintains the cross-gender relationship sexualization norm.
        4. This collective norm maintenance is likely reinforced by its benefit to reliable, predictable, calculable social reproduction, undergirding and stabilizing the market.
  5. As in many other jurisdictions, attachment to a lineage of male protection secures women (a lower quality of) social credit and social cooperation in Canada.
    1. In the patriarchal protection racket, a husband is no substitute for a father. Effectively dispensing with the protection of a father, like divorce or death, an exercise of patrilocality strips women of individual identity and much social credit and cooperation.
    2. While patriarchal networks can provide reduced-quality economic cooperation to women attached by marriage to the network–as a way of directing additional resources to the patrilineage, attached females do not cooperate substantively down or across the patriarchy (as is typical in patriarchies, where new-female blood is expected to relieve senior females of the patriarchy’s highly-dehumanized, super-exploited roles).
      1. The only possibility for women seeking to acquire social cooperation in Canada is through building exclusively-female networks outside the patriarchal networks.
      2. In patrilocality, offspring are culturally regarded as property of the patrilineage. The possibility that the liberal Canadian state could support the outsider mother’s claim on the offspring, and potentially, her removal of the offspring, is constructed as a permanent, existential patriarchal community threat. Thus a female relocated to a Canadian patrilocality is collectively, primarily perceived within the patrilocality social network as a latent existential threat if she produces an offspring, particularly a male.
        1. Although natural to the patriarchal culture, this is an extremely creepy and alienating cultural phenomenon, from the relocated female perspective. She must countenance not only suspicion and barely-suppressed hostility in social interactions across the patrilocality, but also endless assertions of primary patriarchal ownership of the offspring, and heavy, instrumentalist (with an eye toward state appeal) documentation of the patrilineal relationships. While it may incentivize some degree of placating behaviour, patrilineage-securitization also produces alienation between the introduced female and the patriarchy network (both male and female), and depletes trust, credit, cooperation, and recognition.
        2. Patrilineage-securitization in a patrilocality can stress the marriage partnership, as that relationship requires copious, substantial trust; and much emotional work is demanded within the marriage to prevent that ambient paranoid securitization from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    3. Recognizable, performative butch-lesbian professional identity is respected in liberal Canada as an alternative path to economic cooperation, as long as it is associated with management initiatives exploiting and/or expropriating working women.

 

Hypothesis: Little influenced by democratic republicanism, but commercially-compliant, Canadian sexism is a liberal-Anglo ideal type.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s