This comment was from NickMostly on the post Patriarchy Shmatriarchy
I recall someone once making the argument that boys are rougher and girls are gentler and this was just nature. And then I read a study where researchers observed the way people handled newborns, being qualitatively more physical with infant boys and more cuddly with infant girls.
When the US invaded Iraq stories came back from soldiers about Iraqi men walking hand in hand through the streets. This was seen as aberrant by the US soldiers, and they told the Iraqis they should refrain from the practice.
Then there is the Canadian couple who chose to keep their child’s genitals secret for the first five years of their life. There was a great outcry when the story was publicized, with much hatred, including death threats, leveled at the couple.
There is much that we do that appears to come naturally. The fact is that we are largely incapable of determining what is natural and what is not, because our existence is steeped in gender roles from the moment of our birth. Literally from the day we are born, our genital configuration determines how we are treated which in turn normalizes the stereotypes with which we are raised. What appears to be natural to us may in fact not represent some innate characteristic but instead a social more we’ve observed and adopted as an unassailable truth.
Let us speak no more of what is “natural” because it only serves to divide us. Instead we should focus on identifying and reducing suffering in this world, whether it is the suffering of men or women, and whether or not that suffering is of our own creation. I believe we can strive for equality while also celebrating our differences, but only if we abandon this quest to see ourselves as the more oppressed and in so doing, demonize the other as our oppressor.
–
photo: selesnick / flickr
Vocalyze
“I believe we can strive for equality while also celebrating our differences, but only if we abandon this quest to see ourselves as the more oppressed and in so doing, demonize the other as our oppressor.”
It is too late for this. The Oppression Olympics is enshrined as the primary instrument by which government decides which kinds of suffering are deserving of public support.
This is one of the main reasons why MRAs are angry at “the other side”. They dispose of 600 academic University departments, 2000 institutions, 20,000 programs, and billions of dollars annually to promote and support their mission. But nothing is ever enough. When MRAs propose the first academic University department in history to study solutions to male problems from a male perspective, “the others side” did everything within its power to ridicule, weaken, and scuttle the project.
In the 1986 movie “The MIssion”, Hontar explains shocking civilian casualties by saying “We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus.” Altamirano responds “No, Señor Hontar. Thus have we made the world.”
Regarding the horrors that are engulfing men, boys, and fathers, MRAs say “thus have THEY made the world.” And we don’t even have to specify who THEY are.
I promise not to take over the comments in this bit. I swear. But I couldn’t figure out from your comment whether you were in agreement with NickMostly or not.
I believe AZ is rebutting Nick’s last sentence which AZ quoted.
Nick’s last comment seems to be calling for peace between MRA’s and feminists by both sides stop acting like men or women have it worse.
But, what are we supposed to do when clearly men or clearly women suffer more from one problem? Not advocate for fixes because we will be seen to be playing the blame game?
However, the last sentence is overly simplistic. To my mind (and to AZ’s too apparently), what Nick is doing is reducing MRA’s LEGITIMATE complaints about the radical feminist core which perpetually resists helping men in jeopardy and male victims of violence as “the blame game.”
He also is spitting mud in GWW’s eye about her theory that men are more oppressed. The simple fact is that millions of men fall far lower between the cracks (with most of society turning a blind eye) than do women. Where it can be demonstrably shown that men suffer more they should have more resources. Stating that is NOT ” this quest to see ourselves as the more oppressed and in so doing, demonize the other as our oppressor.”
Most MRA’s here (including GWW) deal in fact-based studies which show men dominate the bottom of the power pyramid at about a ratio of 9 to 1. That’s not playing the Blame Game as Nickmostly seems to suggest.
Exactly right AZ. When we look at where society most successfully oppresses with the harshest results (loss of life and limb) men are by far the more oppressed. Men dominate many of the metrics which show black oppression and disenfranchisement over women on a 9 to 1 scale or more:
destitute homelessness (i.e. not having access to emergency shelter), suicide, incarceration, victims of violence, parental rights, education, health, mental health, bodily integrity.
The list goes on and on. In counter point to this, the help we provide to women (even when men are vastly more the victims of various issues) typically dwarfs the help for men.
VAWA was specifically written to exclude male victims of violence. Feminists routinely fight male studies, fathers rights, and ban inter-personal violence researchers who show DV has gender symmetry when it comes to attacking.
The fact that many more men are in jeopardy, and that A) society largely doesn’t care and B) help is routinely fought AGAINST by the radical feminist core are iron-clad truths, not a blame game.
“Men dominate many of the metrics which show black oppression and disenfranchisement over women on a 9 to 1 scale or more” (quoting myself, lol how sad)
I wonder if nickmostly thinks that when blacks use the same metrics that show male disposability to make their case for aid if they are also playing the blame game. lol
“There is much that we do that appears to come naturally. The fact is that we are largely incapable of determining what is natural and what is not, because our existence is steeped in gender roles from the moment of our birth. Literally from the day we are born, our genital configuration determines how we are treated which in turn normalizes the stereotypes with which we are raised. What appears to be natural to us may in fact not represent some innate characteristic but instead a social more we’ve observed and adopted as an unassailable truth.”
The converse could be said just as easily stated but more importantly is what this notion means for “gender warriors” everywhere. If there is no way of pulling apart what is “natural” (and by that I’m taking it as meaning biological) from what is learned (from the environment and through socialization) then what can be said about how we all come to be who we are? The intellectually honest answer would then be that nothing can be said. One can’t go just positing some thing to fit into a gap (see God of the Gaps Argument) in our knowledge wherever it may suit our personal agenda. That’s not a sincere search of knowledge at that point….it’s just dogma. If this is true then it just means that more serious, rigorous, scientific research needs to be done in these areas to see if we can come to any conclusions about why we all behave the way we do.
“Let us speak no more of what is “natural” because it only serves to divide us.”
Actually it’s really important to find out why we are the way we are no matter what the answer to that question may be. I say that, at the very least, we should never stop asking the question “is this natural(biological) in nature or something else altogether or a mixture of things”?
“Instead we should focus on identifying and reducing suffering in this world, whether it is the suffering of men or women, and whether or not that suffering is of our own creation. I believe we can strive for equality while also celebrating our differences, but only if we abandon this quest to see ourselves as the more oppressed and in so doing, demonize the other as our oppressor”.
This is all fine and dandy but if we don’t know the cause of suffering how will we find the cure? If we didn’t know that disease was caused by microorganisms how would we ever have developed drugs to combat them or sanitation measures to save lives? If we can’t ask “what is natural” then we are eliminating a very real possible explanation for the way we are and, in turn, creating a myopic knowledge set.