Is patriarchy really to be blamed for sexism and female oppression?
I hear a lot about patriarchal oppression within feminist circles, and in my opinion, I think it’s largely a load of hooey.
This is not to say that I don’t believe that patriarchy has been around for the vast majority of our species’ time on this planet–of course it has. And this is not to say that I believe women haven’t suffered from oppression throughout the course of history, or that strict enforcement of gender roles isn’t harmful to individuals.
But the feminist interpretation of patriarchy as a system of oppression of women…it seems to be kind of wilfully detached from the reality of human history. It seems like a concerted effort to marry the idea of patriarchy with the concept of oligarchy into a single two-headed, double-penised beast known as Patriarchy Theory. This marriage of two completely disparate sociological concepts is, to feminists, a self-evident truth, simply because the majority of the agents of the oligarchy are, and always have been, male.
Oligarchy is indeed a system of oppression, where the majority of real power and influence is held by a small network of individuals and families, who depend on the subservience of everybody else. While it may not always include barbed wire, machine guns and a police state, it is designed in such a way as to suck resources from the masses and funnel them, and the power they afford, to the members of the elite.
Because those elites have such power, they are able to influence legislative policy in such a way as to maintain and increase their power. And yes, the US is an oligarchy–it may be a democracy, where individuals are able to cross lines of class between modern serfdom and the top tier, but the 500 richest individuals in the US hold as much wealth as the bottom 150 000 000 combined. That, my friends, is oligarchy.
Oligarchical power structures, by their nature, tend to be self-perpetuating. As the saying goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, usually until someone says something about peasants and cake, something snaps among the masses, and the pitchforks come out. Given how well off even the least wealthy members of western civilization are (children aren’t dropping like flies for lack of a loaf of bread), that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. Oligarchy is the root of classism, and classism is the root of much of racism, and yes, sexism as well.
Patriarchy, however, is not an inherently oppressive idea. It is simply a way that the base-unit of society–the family–was organized. And it’s been the way that societies, large and small, have been organized pretty much since the dawn of time, and for good reason. Families were led by a male head of household, major decisions lay under the aegis of those family leaders, and lines of descent passed through males. That is, quite simply, all patriarchy is. And up until very recently on the continuum of human history, it was the most beneficial system for both men and women. And contrary to what feminists would have you believe, in the west patriarchy is mostly a dead system.
♦◊♦
Feminists often point to capital P Patriarchy as the culprit behind all sexism, all oppression of women (though they’re finally admitting that “patriarchy harms men too”, which is something of a victory for common sense, however small), and the “Othering” of women by men. The way they approach the stark reality of most of human history is from the standpoint that men somehow consciously or willfully constructed and directed femininity for their own benefit, and that women just kind of had to go along with it because they were physically weaker. They presume that masculinity developed under the influence of men alone in such a way that it became attached to characteristics of agency, like strength, action, and virility.
Look at it this way. You have a rich man. This is his primary characteristic open for discussion, and he has all kinds of agency–he has flipping great wodges of money to purchase whatever he requires, servants to do his purchasing for him, to cook his meals, clean his house, maintain his vehicles, drive him around, and because he’s wealthy he has friends and hangers on who “bask in his glow”. Until his money is gone. And then he becomes C. Montgomery Burns on an episode of the Simpsons, unable to even dial a phone, standing in the supermarket for 15 minutes wondering if there’s a difference between ketchup and catsup. He can’t fix a doorknob. He can’t microwave a Mr. Noodles. He can’t even find his own clothes. He had agency, but it was dependent on his wealth.This is a very tempting way to live a life. It really is. If you didn’t HAVE to ever clean your own gutters or change the oil in the car or go out and risk your life killing and gutting an animal or defending your village from the assholes down the valley, why would you?Men were, in many ways, all through human history, a servant class, not a class of oppressors. This is because even in the earliest stages of human evolution, we had an instinctive understanding of the ultimate equation. 10 women + 1 man = 10 babies, and that switching the numbers around pretty much meant the end of the whole shebang for us.Dangerous work was the work of men, and it still is. Physically taxing work was the work of men, and it still is. Going out into the big bad dangerous world to get resources while women stayed safe was the work of men, and it still is. Those among our ancestors who were born without some pattern of these gender roles in their brains would have ultimately been unsuccessful wrt passing on their genes. The woman who decided to go hunt mastodon rather than staying home in the cave was much more likely to end up dying young.And as has been demonstrated through genetic research, individual women were much more successful throughout the whole of human history at passing on their genes. 80% of the females who have ever lived had children. Only 40% of the males who have ever lived have done the same.Because all those small innate gender differences feminists view as insignificant now, were generated and reinforced by one HUGE difference, and that is that females, not males, are the limiting factor in the perpetuation of any species. A human settlement survived through the toil and sacrifice (often of the lives) of its men, and through the safety of its women and children. This is simply the way things had to be throughout the majority of human evolution, and when they weren’t, natural selection selected those individuals out of the species.
♦◊♦
It’s so easy to sit back in the comfort of our cushy lives right now and think that going outside the house to work is fulfilling, action-packed, exciting, kick-ass and an avenue to agency. But for the vast majority of our evolution, leaving home base meant taking your life in your hands–it was dangerous, physically taxing, and often ended in death. I lived in a wilderness area for 18 years. I know whereof I speak. We used to bring the dog on walks in the woods so we’d have something to throw at the cougars while the rest of us ran away.
Masculinity and femininity have indeed been bred into us, to varying degrees depending on the individual. Women developed a type of agency all through evolution. They had more reproductive agency than men have ever had (some social scientists estimate that double-digit percentages of men are raising children not their own, without their knowledge). And they had a kind of secondary agency, through the direction and manipulation of men. While a man used a scythe to get grain, the tool a woman used to get grain was…well, a man. While a man used a spear to defend his home from invaders, the weapon a woman used was–yup, you guessed it–a man.
I would guess that the average man has always had much less agency, even now, than most people believe. Is it agency if you HAVE to do it to survive? Is it agency if you’re doing it at the behest of another person–whether that person is partner or child? And while feminists are busy deconstructing those aspects of masculine and feminine gender norms that have been restrictive and costly for women, women, on the whole, still seem perfectly fine enforcing male gender characteristics that are of benefit to them–utility, self-sacrifice, disposability and resource acquisition–and feminists don’t seem that interested in changing this. In the advancement of women’s interests, they’ve dismantled most of the benefits men enjoyed under patriarchy, while leaving the costs and responsibilities untouched.
Feminists are infamous for looking at the past through the lens of the present. To take what the domestic and public spheres look like NOW, and apply that to their vision of history. But the nature of work outside the home was a very different beast throughout most of history than it is now. Feminists don’t ask themselves what it might have been like to hew coal out of a tunnel by hand for 12 hours a day, or to cut hay by hand for 16 hours in the August heat before mosquito repellent or sunscreen were invented, or to split an entire winter’s worth of firewood in the month before the snow fell. The majority of men’s work in our past was as different from public sphere work today as a cauldron and a laundry mangle is from a digital, front-load washing machine. And because most of the few dirty, dangerous, physical jobs left out there are still the domain of men (and one which feminists are perfectly happy leaving that way), feminists have no yardstick by which to measure what being a man might have been like in the past, or that women were privileged to not have to put their hands to men’s work.
♦◊♦
On the microscale of society, men and women could be said to have oppressed each other–the whole concept of marriage could be considered a two-way street of oppression (if one were a “glass is half empty” kind of person, I guess) where both parties benefitted from their oppression of the other. A kind of cost/benefit arrangement where, human nature being what it was, could certainly lead to one party contributing more than the other and benefitting less. Sometimes that was the woman, but I’d have to say that it was probably just as often the man. But while marriage used to be a cost/benefit arrangement for both parties, women now reap disproportionate benefit while men pay disproportionate costs. And while women now work outside the domestic sphere, the 93% workplace death gap demonstrates that even feminists are just fine with men continuing to embody utility and disposability for the benefit of women and society.
The application of the concept of Othering to gender norms is…a wilful blindness to the reality of human evolution. Othering is the offspring of colonialism, and last I checked, women had never had their own society where they were going along minding their own business, and a bunch of men invaded and took over. This simply isn’t how it happened. Symbiotic gender roles evolved through an interaction between the importance of women as the limiting factor in reproduction, the extremely dangerous world we inhabited for the majority of our evolutionary past, and genetic paths of least resistance. Given the nature of what our world was like, patriarchy was simply the most functional, successful way humans stumbled on to deal with the world as it was, no more diabolical or purposeful than the way ant colonies or wolf packs organize themselves. Like democracy, it’s the worst possible system, except for all the others. And when you consider the nature of the labor, sacrifice and demands placed on men in the past, I would guess that most women saw male authority as a fair trade for what they got out of the deal.
Patriarchy was, essentially, a collective, evolutionary human survival strategy. Arranging society that way created stability in a turbulent world–a world where a single loaf of bread could mean survival or starvation–and allowed us all our best chance to pass on our genes. And for most of history, people were too busy just surviving to tinker with such a successful system. This, I believe, is why gender roles are typically so much more strictly enforced in places where life is hard, cheap and soon over. Those roles offer both women and men living under extremely severe conditions the best chance of surviving long enough to create another generation. In other parts of the world, our lives are safe and relatively easy, and everything is much more relaxed.
That most oligarchical oppressors have been men rather than women is a result not of men being oppressors, but rather the result of men’s gender roles, which are themselves a result of the path of least resistance in the way societies tend to organize themselves due to our biology and the fact that, up until very recently, almost no one had any time, energy, wherewithal or luxury to challenge their roles. The oligarchy does, indeed, have an interest in maintaining the status quo for as long as the status quo benefits the oligarchy. For the majority of human history, oligarchies depended on patriarchy to maintain stability and generation of resources, but any feminist who believes the world would be a kinder, gentler place under female rule would be advised to read a little about Elizabeth Bathory. Oppressors gonna oppress, no matter their gender.
If we’re going to build a better society for everyone, we’re going to have to let go of the idea of Men as the main oppressive force in Women’s lives. It simply isn’t how it was, and it isn’t how it is, either. Am I arguing for a return to patriarchy? Absolutely not. I’m a bisexual, slightly genderqueer, divorced mother of three who writes dirty books for a living. I’m not interested in having my gender enforced, thanks. I have agency (inasmuch as my children allow it 
), and I’m not prepared to hand it over to anyone, even if it means I’d have an easier life. We as a society no longer have the business of bare survival as the dominant force in our lives. In the distancing of humans from the task of basic human survival, we are freer to explore our humanity, and consider the happiness of individuals as more important than just getting by.
BUT. And this is a big but. I understand the reality of the natural world, and how different that is from what my life is like in a house, with heat, electricity, hot and cold running water, cars, frozen pizzas, toaster ovens, plastic, easy work, an overdraft and streets that are safe to walk on. I realize that in nature, life is hard, cheap and soon over, and that very, very few animals ever die of old age. And were we living in a post-apocalyptic dystopia where life outside of walls was as dangerous and brutal as most of raw nature is, and where hay would have to be cut by hand without mosquito repellent or sunscreen? I think I’d absolutely be okay with letting the men have their “agency”. Being stuck at home ain’t that bad if it means the gruelling, dirty work of survival belongs to someone else, and you get to stay alive.
Something to think about.
Originally appeared at Owning Your Shit.
—Photo istolethetv/Flickr
About GirlWritesWhat
WRT rescuing. While it is unfortunately true that there are morons who will drive smack into the back of an ambulance standing on the shoulder of the road with its lights flashing, most EMT work does not involve personal risk, except for possibly straining something important getting somebody out of an awkward situation. I saved a guy’s life once at an accident with no risk to myself but blood-borne infection which, fortunately, did not occur. I am not a hero. I knew what to do because I’d stayed awake for that class in Basic thirty years earlier. Big deal.
The Guardsman in the tree is a hero because he was taking a risk. That was a serious flood. Since there was no information about how he got there, the risk taken in getting there cannot be assessed. My point is that nobody seemed interested. That refers to the issue of male disposability. If he’d been killed in the process, his buddies would have had a nice funeral for him. Were that a woman doing it, and dying in the process, the big deal would be “Look what a WOMAN did!” Trying to make the point that men are socially expected to do this stuff and women are not. That can be seen by, among other things, how the reaction to the situation differs depending on the lineup.
If anybody wants to change this, one of the indicators would be an increase in grim statistics for women, like dying at work as often as men. I don’t think anybody wants to see that. But if we don’t see it, we haven’t changed anything substantial. Careful what you ask for.
Let me make the point again, we can’t spare many women. Men…that’s different. We can spare them. See the US after the Civil War. Tough on the dead and crippled guys, and their families, and the women who couldn’t find men, but within a generation, things were back to normal. If bad stuff is going to happen, it should be the guys taking the lead, and taking the hit. They’re better able, and they can be spared.
The only way around this is to postulate a world where no bad stuff happens.
Richard says:
“If bad stuff is going to happen, it should be the guys taking the lead, and taking the hit. They’re better able”
They’re better able to die? We don’t have a mission to repopulate the world anymore.
Where male deaths are easily (or even with a little work) aviodable, they SHOULD BE.
Everybody has a right to life.
Your view is just another spear in the arsenal of corporations squeezing men’s blood for profits. It also feeds into the shrill feminist message to exclude male victims (and their children) of DV, and exclude help to males in other areas of life (like parental custody).
All you are doing is enabling anti-male sentiment like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc
The sentiment that men are disposable is leading to corps using men as tools until broken, aren’t allowed due process, aren’t allowed to have parental rights, aren’t allowed help services or aid. This isn’t the stone-age, the human species is not in danger of dying out.
Your mentality is aiding and abetting intense bigotry against men in all spheres of life.
Men have just as much value in society as women. Every man is valuable to somebody:
http://media.nbcphiladelphia.com/images/654*491/Little+Soldier+Girl+-+Paige+in+Formation.jpg
If we can make accomadations for women to enter the workforce, recognize gay marriage, and do all these other social changes to recognize that we’re in 2012 (not 1812) for other people, we can do the same for men too.
Holy crap.
“Men” has already been assumed and played upon. Who said otherwise? The point is that women are marginalized.
Please explain to me how Michelle Obama is marginalized? I’ll point to her telling Obama to stop whining about his observation on fathers day vs mothers day to demonstrate how Barrack is marginalized. The vast majority of marginalization in our current society is class based, what little gender based marginalization is left is not restricted to women only. so please, stop infantilizing women, turning them into helpless victims.
WRT sarcasm. That wasn’t sarcasm. That was incredulity that anybody could say with the internet equivalent of a straight face that if the Guardsperson in the tree had been a woman the reaction would have been the same.
Search for “little bitty Teresa”, and I can provide others. She did a hell of a job. She’s getting notice because she did what men are supposed to do as a matter of course. In other words, different expectations.
Okay I am going to resist the urge to automatically disagree with you, because frankly your tone and your inability to even consider other ideas or opinions is off-putting. So let me try to break down these two examples you gave. Firstly, you provided me with one example of a man rescuing a kid and not getting recognition, and one example of a woman rescuing a kid and getting recognition. Two examples are not enough to draw general conclusions from. I haven’t watched or read all of the articles that Julie posted, so I’m not sure whether those focus on the people being rescued or on the rescuer.
Anyway, the simple breakdown of those two examples is – a man rescues a kid, everyone focuses on the kid. A woman rescues a kid, everyone focuses on the woman (I couldn’t find anything on little bitty Teresa, so I don’t know the details). You are saying that because no one talked about the man, who risked his life for a kid, it shows that our society considers men dispensable. What’s more, you’re saying that because people did discuss the woman, it shows that our society considers women indispensable. You draw the conclusion from this that men are expected to all risk their lives to rescue kids, while women are not.
I think the reality is that there are a lot more cultural forces at work here than male dispensability. Firstly, the idea that women are not expected to risk their lives to protect children is quite false. There’s a nickname for it even: ‘momma bear.’ So I’d say that actually the opposite of what you are suggesting is true. Women are seen as being more protective of children. It’s expected that a woman who hears the cries of a child in danger would drop everything and do whatever she could to help that kid.
Now as for gender roles with regards to the ability to be first responders (regardless of whether a child is involved or not), I again think you are drawing simple conclusions. If a woman is praised for doing something that required great physical strength and endurance, I think it indicates an interest in a woman being ABLE to do something that traditionally we don’t think women can do. Why do we make mention of women who, in a fit of adrenaline, are able to lift cars off of people? Because everyone knows a man is physically strong, but who’d have thought a woman even had the muscle mass to be able to perform that feat. We perceive men as being more able to fulfil the role of ‘first responder,’ so when a woman shows that she is also able to fill that role, we highlight it. A great example: G.I. Jane. I’m not claiming it is at all an accurate portrayal of the military, because I have no idea. What I am saying is that the reason Demi Moore’s character was so interesting wasn’t because she was more indispensable compared to the men around her. What made her character interesting was her attempt to prove that she was able to do what the men around her did.
Now am I saying that male dispensability had nothing to do with it? No. I’m saying that there are more factors to consider. Maybe in the case of the man, the value of the child was placed above the value of the rescuer. Maybe in the case of the woman, her ability to perform that action was placed at the same value (or above) that of the kid. It’s about perception. You perceive the instance with the male rescuer as saying that men don’t matter. I perceive the instance of the female rescuer as saying that women can be physically strong too (but not as saying that male strength doesn’t matter).
Here’s the thing, just because you are highlighting when one gender does something that is unexpected for that gender, it doesn’t mean that you are devaluing that action when the expected gender performs it. So when stay-at-home dads are highlighted in the news, it doesn’t mean that traditional mothers are less valued.
I’d like to add that I agree that men are expected to be physically strong, and I find that problematic. Not all men are strong, and it puts unfair pressure on those who are not to become strong. But I think you are coming at this problem by saying – men are expected to be strong, therefore we need to show them more empathy when their strength puts them in danger. I am coming at this problem by saying – the expectation of physical strength should not be gendered. We should show empathy toward anyone who is put in danger.
I notice that there are commenters on the posts here who are very interested in exploration of the gray areas that cause cultural shifts or changes, examining the dynamics of change. They may not change their positions but they seem genuinely interested in other points of view. And there are commenters who are extremely black and white, right and wrong and dismiss anyone’s points if it doesn’t fit in their world view.
I’m thinking that there isn’t a lot of middle ground to be gained between those two groups. It is as if we literally see the world in different ways. It’s frustrating to be sure, at least for the ones seeking communication and possible consensus, or at the minimum, dialogue. Perhaps dialogue just looks different.
Heather, your notes on archeology and ancient cultures are wonderful and your engagement and discourse intelligent and compassionate. Thanks for commenting here and offering your thoughts.
Well for the MRAs it seems like they must have changed their minds at some point because the alternative would be that they were raised as kids with this view and that’s basically impossible. So they must have developed these views and they must have been open to change their minds and did change their minds at some point and over time. Furthermore it’s much harder to change your mind to take up a position that is diametrically opposite that of the larger society. So say whatever else you will about the MRAs but I don’t think you can accuse them of being close minded.
As for the other side, there’s a good chance they always believed what they believe which is just what everyone gets told growing up, although there might be some story there.
It might be interesting to ask the MRAs what did change their mind. For that matter I keep hinting that Lisa might tell that story of how she came to stop fearing men, (possibly connected to her developing her own opinions on the whole gender politics stuff).
As for me, I don’t have any memory of it. I have a memory or a memory that a friend of mine (woman a little older than me, with kids, that I knew when I was 20-ish) gave me a copy of Warren Farrell’s book “The Myth of Male Power” which I found very persuasive as an argument. So I went on-line to see what the other side of the story was to the claims being made in the book. So this is a little over twenty years ago. I discovered that there was no counter-argument by the other side. Instead I found a lot of people generally unaware of the arguments, just dismissing the arguments or in one case answering them by accusing Farrell (and other leaders of the Men’s Movement) of being a pedophile. The arguments Farrel laid out 35-40 years ago are all pretty much still good (the media isn’t so anti-male as it used to be, women outlive men by only five years not seven now etc).
But what I recall is that when she gave me the book she said something like, “I don’t know if I should give you this; you’re already bad enough.” I have no idea what that meant or if it meant anything. But it suggests that she thought I had views like that already, which would have been arrived at independently, although I don’t recall anything.
Hey David — thanks, I should write a longer post on how I stopped fearing men. But…the short version is that I stopped fearing men when I helped start The Good Men Project. There was still quite a bit of fear early on — I would wait *days* before emailing or calling someone, instead of the 20 seconds I wait now. But at some point after I got involved in this project, I was watching the very first episode of Mad Men. And in it a woman client is out at dinner with Don Draper, and says to him, “You know, it wasn’t until this very minute that I realized that men might have issues too.” And I said to myself, “Yes. YES. That’s it. That’s why I’m no longer afraid.” It was a great moment.
That’s an interesting point, David. I think maybe it’s like when someone converts from one religion to another, but can end up being much more fundamental in their new religion than the average. I’m not comparing MRAs (or feminists) to religion. I just mean, maybe sometimes when we hear an idea that resonates deeply with us, we can become unshakable in our belief that it is right. And now that we think we’ve found the ‘right’ answer, we can shut ourselves off to other opinions.
I’m like that with cultural relativism. I try to consider how biology and environment do affect our behavior. I try not to automatically dismiss things like that list of cultural universals that was mentioned on here. But I find myself struggling to really think about it and figure out whether I’m disagreeing because of a logical reason, or whether I’m dismissing their arguments outright. And cultural relativism isn’t something I became aware of until university.
I think that might be part of where feminist organizations have gotten so turned around. They were based on this idea that men oppressed women, and it resonated deeply enough with enough women (and men) that it stopped being an observation and became a belief. It doesn’t matter that it’s not true; that it was a simplified way of looking at things even 100 years ago. And it’s certainly an overly simple way of looking at the world today. They believe it, and it’s really tough to change a belief.
With regards to sarcasm: I should probably just move on and ignore it, but I’m going to try one last time. Sarcasm, incredulity, snark, disdain, anger…they aren’t all the exact same thing, but they all illicit a similar response. They shut down the opposition and can very easily turn a discussion into an argument. The tone of what you type matters. In fact it matters even more than when talking in person, because I can’t rely on facial expression or your actual voice to interpret your comments.
I’m sure there are a few times in our discussion where you read something I said as angry, snarky, etc, when I didn’t intend it that way. This a topic that easily sparks emotion, and is very personal for a lot of us. All I ask is that we consider how our comments can be interpreted before we post them. (I include myself in that ‘we,’ by the way).
Heather. The expectation of the mama grizzly is that she wil do anything to protect her own kids. See Kipling’s “Female of The Species”. Men are expected to save anyone’s kids. Now, if you want to drop the mama grizzly thing and just say that women are expected, as are men, to be about saving any kid who happens to be in danger in front of them, then we can discuss that.
“little bitty teresa”. Comes up pretty easily, but you have to note there’s no “h” in teresa.
Yeah, men are expected to be strong. It’s unfair to those who are not. So? Stuff hits the fan, the guy who has the physical strength to manage it is going to be able to manage it. If not, not. Which leaves the situation unmanaged. Unfair. Yeah. What are you expecting to be done about it?
In college, I participated in a couple of field projects which selected, among other things, for heart. I should say that didn’t apply as much to me as to my colleagues because I had a good deal less to lose. I bow to their courage. However. For complicated cultural reasons, the whole enterprise selected against mesomorphs. Leaving me. When things got difficult, or looked as if they might get difficult, people wondered where Aubrey was. In one case, three women broke the rules/suggestions as to safe places to go. Just to be on the safe side, they found out where I had signed out to, wrote down the phone number and when the inevitable happened, called me. It wasn’t my cheerful disposition or my ability to carry the harmony on “We Shall Overcome”. Naturally, after we got home, interest in Aubrey fell off. Off the cliff. To be expected. Necessary as they are, mesomorphs aren’t quite quite in certain circles. They remind people that sometimes stuff just happens. And then the Right Sort of People start looking around for the mesomorphs, speaking metaphorically.
Thing is, the mesomorphs are expected to show up. Society expects it. Expects it at a level below any conscious thought.
Then the mesomorphs–speaking metaphorically–are expected to take their generic gainesburger and go away, so as to not remind the right sort of people that sometimes stuff just happens, and, besides, if they hang around, we might have a patriarchy.
First, I think I am going to shoot the automatic refresh. Not really…just lost half the comment is all.
Okay well about the ‘momma bear’ thing. Joanna mentioned, as a mother she has often been expected to keep an eye on, protect, watch, other people’s children. A nuclear family in which biological parents are the assumed primary care givers is really quite new and almost unique to western culture. So when I said ‘momma bear’ I was referring to the idea that women are expected to protect children. To bring it back around to biology and primates; that’s generally how they work too. Hell, sometimes the females have to try to protect their young from unrelated males. And my point in all of that is simply: women are expected to lay down their lives to protect children, as are men.
As for the field project you’re talking about. I’m not a psychologist, so I’m not really familiar with what you’re talking about. I know what mesomorph means. But I’m not quite sure I get what you were doing in the project. I assume it was some sort of physical activity and when things got dangerous a few of the women looked to you to help them out because you were bigger and stronger.
But okay, in any situation we look for someone who is the most capable of handling it. If I want my computer fixed, I’m turning to the person with a degree in computer science to fix it, not my technologically inept parents. When I’ve been in physically strenuous positions, I’ve turned to the people around me who look more capable for help. I’m looking for a mesomorph, sure, but I’m not looking for a man.
But you’re saying that society expects men to come in, save the day, then disappear. And your solution to that is to develop a patriarchy, where the big tough men are in charge by virtue of being big and strong. But see we aren’t one of the great apes; we’re human. We are more than just our physical strength, so why should the biggest and toughest people be put in charge? (That was rhetorical, something for you to consider. I assume your answer would be – because when dangerous stuff happens we want the tough guys to save us.)
I think you are defining your primary role in society as a man is to be big and strong. I think that sells men short and puts limitations on what it means to be a man. You suggested that if a big strong person wasn’t available to help out when the sh!t hit the fan, then we’d be screwed. You’re forgetting that sometimes a group of physically weaker people might work together to sort things out. Or invent something to help them out: like say the pulley. With pulleys we can lift things that no human could ever lift on their own. To paraphrase Doctor Who – human beings are indomitable. And to use another cliche: where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Not to mention, I find you’re ‘so what, too bad, it’s unfair,’ comment to be akin to a ‘suck it up, be a man,’ type of comment. So it’s unfair that men feel pressure to be strong, too bad. Get over it. Is that what you’re saying? Cuz that shows some real lack of empathy toward men.
Heather. Here’s the link to “teresa”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3630902.stm
Thanks for the link.
What exactly is this link supposed to mean (just out of curiousity)?
It’s to do with the idea that men are expected to give up their lives for others, while women are not. In this link the woman who risked her life to save someone is praised. In another instance when a man risked his life to save someone is hardly mentioned.
But two case studies, does not a trend make.
It is not an idea that men are expected to give up our lives for others.
It is a FACT. How many examples would it take for you to accept this simple indisputible fact?
My guess is none because you would endlessly intellectualise and twist and distort basic facts with politically correct mantras and refuse to see the simple truth.
Some things are black and white because of their nature, not because of how someone looks at it. The moon is not made of cheese is an observation that has nothing to do with whether I see things in black and white terms, or how I or anyone sees anything in any way whatsoever, it simply isn’t. Full stop.
Heather. A group can pull more than one guy. A group of big guys can pull more than a group of small guys. Laws of physics. They don’t go away just because.
Being required to save the day as a social expectation doesn’t limit men. I know the meme is if you’re a jock or a soldier you’re not overflowing with empathy and sympathy and can’t do a passable imitation of Khalil Gibran. Not true. Being big and strong and competent is an expansion of men’s capabilities and doesn’t limit them. If you want to call it unfair that the heavier work requires stronger people, talk to, I dunno, Isaac Newton, or Galileo, or one of those guys.
I didn’t say anything about a solution. I said that if the big guys hang around and are expected to do the heavy work, they’re going to want to have a say. In the current western society, the unexpected heavy work is rare enough that the guys don’t need to spend every minute trying to stay on top of things. Other times or places are different.
Let’s say I’m helping my wife chaperone students overseas. If the parents said to me, “Take care of my kid but I told him he doesn’t have to listen to you,” I’d bail.
Lack of empathy toward men. The situation is as it is. If I had empathy in wholesale lots, it wouldn’t change the situation. You think that if I started to get all concerned and stuff the situation would be different?
And again, Richard, we seem to be at a point where we’re going to go in circles. I think you are misunderstanding a lot of my comments and oversimplifying them. So I’ll make a comment, you can reply, but chances are I won’t reply to that unless it brings up a new topic.
Um when I said ‘limits men’ I didn’t mean that jocks can’t be smart and compassionate. I meant that pressuring men (as a group) to fit into a single definition of man (physically strong) limits men (as a group), in a general way. The stereotype limits men, is that I’m saying. But I know plenty of intelligent, strong men. Or emotional strong men. Or whatever.
No physics do not go away. That’s not what I meant. I meant that people rise up to face challenges. I meant that because we are human, we are able to work together to fix a problem. So when a situation happens where a big strong person is wanted, it’s not as if the weaker people are totally screwed without that person. You had implied that without a strong person to help when the sh!t went down, everyone else would be completely lost. My point was just that people (all people) can work together to accomplish physical feats, even if the most physically capable people aren’t around.
Your example with the parents and the kid is again an example of an adult-child relationship. Of course you’d bail. You’re taking care of a child, and children are expected to do what the adults in charge tell them to do. In any adult-adult relationship, it’s not so cut and dry. And the strong person-weak person dynamic is not the same as adult-child.
On the empathy front…what we’re talking about is empathy! We’re talking about the way in which people (both men and women) have stopped viewing men as human. The way in which they are dehumanized and the way that our society has stopped empathizing with them. So yes, I’d say that the very first step in fixing all of that would be for you (and I, and whoever else is aware of this problem) to empathize with men.
your comments are so supportive thank you heather. at this stage men need that support legally too. weve had enough of the faith system. If women want faith back from us they should be fighting for our rights too instead of just standing back and enjoying the status quo. Ive felt that not all woman are like that. ive had many whove been good to me and that Ive been good too. In some cases these have been the women that have been victimised and I have lovingly tried to repair damage to their lives whilst feeling guilty for being a man.
Someone asked elsewhere how people become MRA’s well with men we just discover something one day that just chills us to the bone and breaks all the social conditioning. A big WTF moment. I think men instinctively wish to protect women, just look at the many men beaten to death or brain damaged on what were false rape charges. (falserapesociety has some good (?) ones.)
I’ve certainly never hurt a woman and id never want to but the laws look more and more like they and women want to hurt me. Ultimately this means smart kind men walk off the market happily while women are left with the so sex obsessed that they are unable to see the trap before them. The kind of men that every women I know (and i know quite a few on friends only basis) regularly complains about.
That is what is coming to australia in the form of the plan and its really up to women how they wish to respond to it. Personally I expect it to go thru like every other one of thse laws do no matter how biased or ridiculous. At that stage being a good man to me will be never being alone without a witness with a woman. Never spending romantic time with a woman coz shes might get unhappy. These behaviours are about the only defence to keep me out of a prison. Staying out of a prison is being a good man.
Could you provide me with a link to more information about the plan? I’m curious. It’s something I haven’t heard of except in a couple other posts by you. Thanks
No worries heather. In this article if you scroll down about half a page you will see a blue hyperlink “planned campaign” this directs you straight to FACS australia govt. website. The document is 200 pages. I freely admit I havent read it all. I have however read enough to see the authour speaks the truth.
Pg.190 will give you some idea as just one spot i recall when challenged elsewhere on the net. was just a quick look to find something it doesnt take long with this document. The front third is fluff to hide its real contents so i recommend starting from a third thru or even reading it semi backwards to get the real implications of it.
Thanks for your reply and interest
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/australia-launches-the-plan-and-the-end-to-civil-rights/
Note that while the website is avoiceformen the hyperlink i spoke of is the actual document from the govt. department family and community services.
Hi heather sorry i had trouble posting its me again. my last response got eaten so im being briefer this time
You may obtain the plan straight from aust govt. dept. at this addy. http://www.facs.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Documents/The_Plan.pdf
It is a 200 pg document. the first third is fluff so dont bother. I remember when challenged pg 190 quickly backed me up. this is one of many examples though. Kyle lovett makes it a lot easier with his article on a voice for men. I didnt read the whole document but i did read enough to know hes telling the truth.
Thanks again. It would be nice not to have to eliminate women entirely from my life. There was a domestic across the street earlier in the week and i realized that if the drunken female had banged on the door i wouldnt have answered. sad but true. very easy to end up as the bad guy very quickly. victoria has already adopted this and I wasnt certain for my state.
This is one of 3 articles kyle writes which is the easier way
avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/australia-launches-the-plan-and-the-end-to-civil-rights/
Richard Says:
“Being required to save the day as a social expectation doesn’t limit men.”
It doesn’t?
Maybe you need to peruse what happens to men who refuse to save the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJcAeJ8YRo
Social stigmas exist PARTICULARLY to enforce behavior.
Richard says:
“Lack of empathy toward men. The situation is as it is. If I had empathy in wholesale lots, it wouldn’t change the situation.”
No, saying “it is what it is” is part of the problem. The simple fact is millions of men fall far lower through the cracks specifically because the idea of caring for men is repulsive to many people.
Men are 90% of the homeless, 80% of suicides and 95% of on-the-job deaths. This is a waste of human lives. All human life is precious.
The issue comes in when we move a social expectation to men to be strong and convert it into a public policy (and also expecting men to be strong who are not capable who are either clinically depressed or suffer from PTSD as in the video. The “be strong, you’re a man” mantra isn’t going to cut it. These men need treatment, not b1tch slaps).
Yes, to this and to the David Woods example. This is what I was trying to say when I said that viewing a man’s primary identity as ‘physical protector’ actually ‘limits’ men. This is what I meant when I said that we need to empathize with all men, not just strong men. Exactly this.
If all people said “It is what it is” then blacks would still have to ride in the back of the bus and have colored water-fountains and bathrooms.
Okay, Heather. We just got a supertanker load of empathy delivered. Now what? Big strong guys are no longer expected to step up? If big strong guys don’t step up, bad stuff doesn’t happen any longer? Nobody’s claiming it’s a hoice of one big guy or a bunch of small people who’ve never bothered to work on physical competence in the Bad Stuff category.
It is too bad that there are people who need help that is best provided by big, strong, trained guys. Having said that, now what? We already know groups try to solve problems. But if the group contains more physical competence, they have an advantage.
You got me on the chaperone thing. Try this. If I were asked to go “downtown” with several of my wife’s friends–my wife being called away at the last moment–and I knew that, if I said, “this is a bad place, let’s go elsewhere”, they’d ignore me, I wouldn’t go.
“If I said, “this is a bad place, let’s go elsewhere”, they’d ignore me, I wouldn’t go.” – I know plenty of women who won’t go into certain neighbourhoods because they’re afraid of being mugged or worse. Now the fact that usually they fear men is a discussion for another time and not related to this discussion (because they don’t fear all men, just unknown men). So your example sort of doesn’t work, because most women I know would go…alrighty let’s avoid the dangerous areas. But hypothetically if they did want to go and you didn’t…I don’t see the issue. You’re all adults; you can all make your own decisions; you all have agency. If they want to go walking through some horrible neighbourhood at 4am (or whatever) that’s not your business.
I think we are having a communication problem when it comes to empathy. GWWs article is about a lack of empathy directed toward men. It is about the way in which men have been dehumanized. And so part of this discussion is about stopping that dehumanization. It’s about empathizing with men. And I’m saying, having no empathy toward weak men is just as bad as having no empathy toward all men. This has nothing to do with whether conflict would still exist, etc. It’s simply to do with empathy. Empathy, and understanding, and treating people as whole humans with agency and emotion, regardless of whether they’re physically strong or not.
Now as for the whole physical strength thing. I’m going to stop discussing it because we really are going in circles around that. You insist physical strength is all-important for survival. I insist that it isn’t. We really aren’t going to get anywhere on it.
Lol, I feel bad for you heather!
After our long diatribe about empathy for men, no you have some1 else coming along and claiming the exact opposite: that empathy for men is bad.
There’s no pleasing some people.
Oh, you know I can’t resist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U74s8nFE7No
Terry Jones always did make the best women of the lot. lol. Thanks.
Richard,
As Heather said, you’re oversimplifying things.
Saying that social stigmas for men to be strong (mentally too in the face of danger and adversity) is limiting and dehumanizing.
What you’re doing is taking the BEST examples of when the social stigma to “be strong” does no damage.
What about when we tell vietnam vets who lost an arm to “be strong”? What about when we tell men with shell shock to “be strong”? What about when we tell men who’s wives are violent (and cops refuse to intervene as they did with David Woods) to “be strong”.
You’re looking at the BEST examples where the stigma does no damage and ignoring the many examples in which the “be strong” mantra does untold damage.
Just for the record David Woods was the main plaintiff in a lawsuit lead by Natl Coalition of Men in California.
David Woods wife has extreme bipolar disorder. ON one occasion she tried to stab him, but the knife got caught in his neckbrace (he’s disabled). She tried to stab him again, but he punched her to stop the attack.
She called the cops. When the cops thought he had unprovoked punched her, they had him laying on the floor in cuffs. The kids started screaming not to take their dad, that their mom tried to kill him. After interviewing the kids and finding out that the mother tried to stab the father what did the cops do (besides taking the cuffs off David)? NOTHING.
They told him “you’ve got mental health coverage on your insurance right? You need to get her into a doctor”.
Additionally David Woods daughter is only alive today because when her mother aimed a shotgun at her face and pulled the trigger the gun was unloaded. Even so, David Woods and his daughter was refused time and time again access to DV shelters because he is a man.
“Be strong” does do harm. If you want to talk about examples, I’ve got real-life examples for you. How many children have to stay with their abusive mothers because we believe that men are stronger than women (and therefore deny men and their kids access to much needed care)?
The lawsuit I alluded to with David Woods and the Natl Coalition of Men was a lawsuit to challenge a stipulation in VAWA rules that states no grants can be issued to DV shelters that house men.
They got that overturned since it is clearly unconstitutional. DV shelters that house both men and women, or DV shelters which house only men can now apply for grants from VAWA (in Calif)
the “(in Calif)” stipulation is important there. I know in several states, the STOP funding guidelines (STOP is the program that doles out the money) still requires any program to service women in order to get funding. they can also service men or children, but only so long as they serve women (and further, they usually stipulate women victims, so no doing what many DV shelters currently do and offer anger management classes and then post they serve both men and women). And Yes, I did say STOP funding guidelines don’t even allow programs or services that exclusively serve children, they must also serve women.
Here are some examples:
VAWA’s STOP funding guidelines for several states (I only checked a few, but all I checked had it), specifically prohibits programs applying for funding to exclusively benefit children…
For those that actually believe VAWA is intended to help children…
Hawaii VAWA STOP funding guidlines.
Page 2-6
Section 2 Service Specifications
I. Introduction
G. Limitations on STOP Program Funding
“Children’s services supported by STOP Program funds must show an inextricable link and be the direct result of providing services to an adult victim of violence against women.”
http://www.state.hi.us/spo2/health/rfp103f/attachments/rfp7411265074918.pdf
Louisiana STOP VAWA application instructions
Page VAWA-4
General Funding Information
Funding Priorities
Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
“Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
6: Supporting Services that focus exclusively on children”
http://www.cole.state.la.us/programs%5Cuploads%5CVAWA%5CVAWA_App_Instruct_rev_072010.pdf
Kentucky ARRA & VAWA STOP Formula Grant Guidelines
Page 13 of 30
Administrative Requirements
Applicant Eligibility
Additional Considerations
“Children’s services supported with the funds must be a direct result of providing services to an adult primary victim. VAWA grant funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children …”
http://justice.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/19707F82-27E3-4A19-A282-7865F287DE3E/0/VAWA_arra_guidelines_instructions.pdf
Thanks for the bevy of information Mark.
I will add that info to my slowly growing library of evidence.
“Social stigmas for men to be strong (mentally too in the face of danger and adversity) is limiting and dehumanizing.”
I would add to that – the misconception that all men have power (and agency) also results in dehumanizing men.
I think if we take those two statements and add a dash of cultural relativism – we’re likely to be coming closer to understanding where the lack of empathy toward men stems from.
Right, typhonblue had a post on her blog genderratic in which she states that the primary social theory is that men are social agents (who act upon others for good and ill), and women are acted upon agents.
That post covers it far better than I explained it, but you’re right the idea that all men have agency is part of the problem too (the flipside being the assumption that all women DO NOT have agency which feeds our predilection to center on women–I and GWW and Typhoon got into a big argument with mediahound over that on the thread “why I advocate for men’s rights” by GWW).
Yeah typhonblue linked her blog post to me somewhere in here and I read it and totally agreed with it. And I saw the absolute massive walls of text in the comments over at the other GWW article (made my comments look tiny in comparison. lol.) I totally didn’t read the comments, but I agreed with the article.
I just think it’s more to do with culture than biology. And I think GWW suggests it more to do with biology than culture.
John D. We could tell them to be weak. How’s that suit you? Your planted axiom, not as obscure as you think, is that if we tell them to be strong, we don’t do anything else.
I spent a month in a military hospital in 1970–not a combat issue–and I have a pretty good idea of what we do for guys who’ve lost this or that. You want to try something else?
And who said empathy for men was bad? If you’re looking at me, you missed again. I said that empathy for men is nice but…it doesn’t change the situation(s) they’re expected to handle. The situations don’t go away.
So a boatload of empathy dumped on the guy does what for him when the Bad Stuff is out there? Make the Bad Stuff go away?
Empathize all you like. The issue is that the Bad Stuff is still there. Somebody has to handle it. Or not, I suppose, if you don’t mind having the Bad Stuff not handled.
Wrong. Hospitalized in May ,1971.
Richard says:
“And who said empathy for men was bad? If you’re looking at me, you missed again. I said that empathy for men is nice but…it doesn’t change the situation(s) they’re expected to handle.”
Maybe, maybe not. However, empathy for men may change the level of support service they get after their done with their sh1tty job.
Additionally, empathy for men while slowly change what is expected of men. No commanding officer would do to a ptsd-diagnosed soldier what patton did in the soldier slap scene today.
Today, that soldier is rightly scene to be worthless on the front and to be in need of treatment not bitch slaps. That was largely done through advocates for mentally demolished soldiers bringing the very real issues of ptsd to light.
So, you’re wrong. Empathy for men does change what is expected of men. Otherwise, you would have scene guys getting bitch-slapped too for cowardice.
Do YOU want to try again?
B!tch-slapped….or how about being executed for cowardice like the British did in WWI. (I’m not familiar with whether the US did that too). – just wanted to add that example to the rest of what John D. said.
Patton got a fair amount of crap for his actions. Thing is, he’d been in combat in WW I and hadn’t bailed. Different view of things.
If we don’t expect things of men, they may not produce when we want them to. And recall, when the barbs come over the marches, all this nonsense about unfair to men isn’t going to occur to you. Never does.
PTSD is a big deal now. I know WW II vets who are still upset over things like–our neighbor–who choked up talking about what the Japanese did to civilians and prisoners. I suspect that, with the expanded diagnosis, he, and my father who occasionally muses about “singing trees”–he was a platoon leader in the ETO–would both qualify. Without guys who didn’t quit when they got stressed out, you might have spent some time on the “singing tree”.
Armies executing soldiers who ran when in contact has been a part of war for millenia. What about changing empathy for men is going to make a difference? Thing is, everybody’s scared. It’s why situations are graded in terms of “pucker factor”. It’s why the Navy fliers riffed on the old hair color ad, “Only your laundryman knows for sure.”
George Marshall, in his memoirs of WW I service, said the force which could be kept in contact with the enemy until the enemy broke wins. Terrific review of his book on Amazon, too. What “kept in contact” involved is up to your imagination. But recall the result. Don’t keep the force in contact, lose.
Unfair? Yes. Next question.
Richard,
You haven’t proven anything. You keep stating empathy for men is bad, and yet as we see EVEN THE MILITARY has evolved for those who claim they can fight no more.
You stated that the care for those with non-physical issues in the 70′s was nothing like what patton did (and you said it in a sense that it proved me wrong somehow).
Your statement about the care of soldiers just proves my point. If those in charge at the military had simply said it was the role of men to be used until broken, and after broken they had to “be strong” you would have seen a LOT LESS CARE for those men you saw who had non-physical problems.
There will be some areas where we will need men to hold their shit together in awful traumatic times. However, where empathy comes in is in identifying the men who are broken and treating them. For those men who have been used until broken, the “be strong” message isn’t going to work.
The fact that even the army seems to now recognize this is proof that empathy for men is not only good, but necessary to a better running military. What’s the point of pushing some1 not mentally able into doing things and have them leave a squad in the lurch (as in the prvt ryan scene with the interpreter)? Correctly identifying men who have been used until broken and getting them out of the rotation is part of an efficiently running military, but has grown out of empathy for men.
Empathy for men makes us stronger, not weaker. Additionally, not every single segment is this life and death struggle where women must be kept safe, and men must be at risk.
There is simply no excuse for the widespread subhuman status we give men in denying them emergency services (as in my example of David Woods). This issue affects the fathers childrens too. How many children cannot escape abuse because we believe men are strong and don’t need the protection of the system from women.
Men are largely being robbed of their humanity, their due process, their parental rights largely because many people think like you do.
Welcome to the 21st century. Won’t you join us?
Heather :…Second, I’ve made mention of the froup in Africa, which I cannot for the life of me remember their name, where the women are the warriors. I’ll say it again, women are the warriors…
As this was asked for, for the 2nd time i decided to post.
Reg: the names of the cultures that had women warriors Heather was talking about.
The Scythians were the Eastern European/ Central Asian people. The graves of the women show they were warriors. What percentage of women were warriors isnt currently known. At least one African nation that had a few units of women warriors was the Dahomeys. 3 possible origins are listed for their creation in this excellent article 1. developed from women hunters 2. the king wanted a unit of women bodyguards 3. the women warrior units were created after a catastrophic lose of men warriors.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2011/09/dahomeys-women-warriors/#more-1315
[I love the pastimperfect and paleofuture blogs]
I seem to recall that North Europeans in post1400 CE “First Contacts” with Non Europeans, noted that a few Nations had women warriors. You could search in the free Google ebooks (my current addiction) for first contact reports – im currently reading im the diary [Journal of the proceedings of the late embassy to China: By Sir Henry Ellis] of someone who was on the 2nd Uk embassy visit to the Emperor of China. [On this visit the Chinese Princes and Mandarins are demanding the Embassador koutou (sankweikewkou version) which they had let slide on the first meeting. Perhaps the UK's power did not look so imposing at the time of this 2nd visit].
-
.
-
At least once around 700ce, women in Ancient China had legal and social equality with men. There were women soldiers, women generals etc. The link however i cant find must be on another hard drive, it was a good one too. Ancient British Celts had women warriors who fought with the men.
My own personal belief based on nothing other than what i have read of how Spartan women were raised and lived, is that a small detachment of Spartan women regularly fought with the men. While looking for that link on Ancient Chinese Women Warriors, I found this which added fuel to my suspicions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spartan_women_in_ancient_warfare
A few individual Women have always fought on the frontline either ‘passing as men’ or in a few cases openly as women, even when legally or culturally prohibited.
(also, does anyone have the link to a site about european woman warriors in the euro middle ages. it contained descriptions of their appearance, contemporary songs about them – id love to investigate further and confirm the veracity).
Considering there must have been millions of nations. I have no doubt that some must have “played with fire, as in risk national suicide” and regularly sent equal numbers of men and women to the ‘frontline’ as ‘frontline assault soldiers’. However i suspect that for the majority of nations having women warriors, that the women warriors units did not constitute more than at most, a large minority of the total warrior units
Interesting.
I’ll have to check these out. On first impulse it just seems to me that most likely that only a small segment of (volunteer) women in these cultures were turned into warriors.
To my mind, there is already so much peril for all (lack of anti-biotics and health care) and the additional burdens of child birth that a society that casually risked their women was doomed to be out-performed by male-sacrifice societies.
Another important idea: those geniuses that are born are extreme statistical outliers. So, the more a society valued reproductive success (i.e. male-sacrifice and female safety) the more chance that a genius would come a long and invent the bow or sling or something of this nature.
I suppose it would also depend on whether you’re talking about societies where food scarcity was alleviated by domesticated animals and agriculture (which 700BC defninitely sounds like). Once those two things happen, I am sure that experimentation in societies happened. You might even get some level of moderate success from an equal risk society at that point.
However, I think it is a safe bet (if I were a booky placing odds I would say 8 to 1) that over 90% of the people in first world modern societies are descended from male-sacrifice societies.
Of course as most of my previous posts, this involves a lot of conjecture and guess-work.
Not to pick on you John but a lot of the assumptions you made are based on an inaccurate view of hunter-gatherer populations. I will try my damnedest to be brief:
Peril and danger: 1000 years from now someone is going to look back out our society and talk about how dangerous and perilous it was. (Unless the world blows up, and then they’ll look back and talk about how idealized and peaceful it was). Neither description would be accurate, however, because there are dangers we have alleviated, and other dangers we’re still struggling with. And yet we would consider ourselves mostly safe. You are looking back at hunter-gatherer populations and seeing that they faced more danger than we do, but to them it was just the norm. They didn’t live in a world of constant peril; if they had they’re stress levels would have been through the roof!
Hunter-gatherers and food scarcity – this is also a misunderstanding of hunter-gatherer populations. Common wisdom says that farming makes more sense and gets you more food. The only reason people didn’t farm (until they did) was because they just hadn’t thought of it yet. Once they thought of it, it was a brilliant idea that fixed a lot of the problems in a hunter-gatherer society. But all of what I just wrote is wrong. We’re still trying to figure out exactly what made people start to farm in the Middle East 10,000 years ago (or so). Environmental factors were almost certainly part of it, but it was relatively new environmental factors. Google Younger Dryas, if you’re interested. Prior to the Younger Dryas hunter-gatherers were actually pretty well-off. Hunter-gatherer does not equal primitive or starving.
Very illuminating.
I stand corrected.
One more thing:
“The people in first world modern societies are descended from male-sacrifice societies.” – this is a bit on the ethnocentric side. This implies that first world societies are generally better than non-first world societies. It suggests that the west is more successful. In general. But the west is more successful at some things, and less successful at others. There is no absolute ‘best’ or ‘most successful’ society, because it all depends on what you mean by success.
Oh my goodness thank you SO MUCH for these names. They say that the more educated you are, the more you know about less…and it’s so true. So thanks.
So, to reply to your thing: “Considering there must have been millions of nations. I have no doubt that some must have “played with fire, as in risk national suicide” and regularly sent equal numbers of men and women to the ‘frontline’ as ‘frontline assault soldiers’.”
Well I’d like to clarify that I am not suggesting that female warriors were the norm, just that they exist. The point being that biology does not affect culture in a simple cause-effect relationship. And just because we do not act in line with our biology, doesn’t mean we are doomed.
But I also think it’s an odd way to look at it. Evolutionarily, we didn’t evolve to do what’s best for society. We evolved to have babies…not in an attempt to continue our society, but in an attempt to continue the species. All of these cultures interacted with someone; they all knew that other humans were out there. I’m not saying that meant that the biological drive to reproduce meant nothing…I’m just saying that it’s not the Most Important Thing.
Think about it, if the need to reproduce could explain everything in our society, humans would all still be polygamous.
Oh my goodness thank you SO MUCH for these names. They say that the more educated you are, the more you know about less…and it’s so true. So thanks.
So, to reply to your thing: “Considering there must [snip]
I see… I see
I can’t tell if you were trying to insult me or make a joke. So if you were trying to insult me, then: Oi, this isn’t an academic journal. I figured using colloquialisms would be fine. If you knew what I meant, what’s the harm?
If you were making a joke, then: Well played, James. Well, played.
i bolded the parts where i thought you were insulting me, however from your latest post it appears that there was just a misunderstanding.
Oooohh!! Goodness no that was a total misunderstanding. I was being self depricating. There’s this joke that goes that when you’re an undergrad you learn a little about a lot. (intro classes to lots of topics) Then you go to grad school and you have to narrow it down, and you focus more deeply on your topic. By the time you’ve gotten you’re PhD you are the world’s most knowledgeable person on a very very narrow topic. And chances are you’ve forgotten a whole lot of stuff you learned as an undergraduate.
So for me, I know more details about the Chalcolithic in Israel and Palestine than would ever come in handy in pretty much any discussion. But I’ve totally forgotten a lot of details from my undergrad archaeology and anthropology classes.
Or more simply…I’ve forgotten more than I know. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No problem, Im glad we both cleared up the misunderstandings
I think the need to explain male dehumanization and patriarchy as originating with biology probably stems from the same need the LGBT community has to explain homosexuality with biology. Just go with it for a moment…
The LGBT community (well communities) can react with outrage whenever someone suggests it might be culturally influenced, even when that someone is part of their community. Cynthia Nixon just went through a media sh!tstorm because she dared suggest that she chose to be a lesbian. Why did the community(ies) care? Because if we can prove it’s biological, then we can prove it’s natural, and if it’s natural then you can’t argue against it. If you suggest it’s cultural or even somewhat of a choice, then opponents will argue that it can be changed if you just try hard enough. This totally ignores the fact that if we prove it’s biological, someone out there is going to spend a lot of time and money trying to come up with a ‘cure.’ As the comedian John Oliver once said: ‘haters gon’ hate.’
So I think it’s something similar. If you (the general you) can prove that male dehumanization is biological (or at the very least stems from early hunter-gatherer societies) then you can prove it is a real thing. You can go into a radical feminist meeting and proudly say, we have proven that male dehumanization is biological. It is real and it is hurting our society and you have to listen to us now! Same with patriarchy – if you can prove it’s the biologically logical way to organize society, then the radical feminists will have to stop villianizing it. Something like – Men weren’t oppressing women, they were just in charge because they were protecting women! See, we were being altruistic, but we couldn’t be too altruistic or society would collapse…so we HAD to take over. The problem is…haters gon’ hate.
Heather says:
“I think the need to explain male dehumanization and patriarchy as originating with biology probably stems from the same need the LGBT community has to explain homosexuality with biology. Just go with it for a moment…”
Warren Farrell briefly covers his thoughts on this in the Myth of Male Power. This was the book that first made me take a hard look at the suffering of men.
If I remember correctly, he stated the reason gay men were were so hated is that when two men were coupled in consequence free sex (in terms of pregnancy) two women were losing out on the man that they would need to support them. I don’t know if there is a correlation with greater economic status (and the existence of welfare) that hatred of gay males is petering out (in most areas).
I don’t know if Warren said this or not, but I would surmise pushing his theory to lesbians, that they are attacked far less (besides the sexual fantasy of men) because if two women remove themselves from the mating market, that makes more men available as supporters to men.
In Warren’s theory it wasn’t about reproduction but SUPPORT OF WOMEN (directly by men) that drove this.
I’m not trying to answer why people are gay. I’m also not trying to answer why some people hate LGBT people. That’s a horse of a different color.
I was talking about why the LGBT community(ies) might feel the need to justify themselves through biology and comparing that to the same way a lot (not all) of the people on here are feeling the need to justify patriarchy and explain male dehumanization through biology.
I’m drawing parallels between the way two communities (LGBT and MRM) have tried to combat the negative opinions directed toward them. How they are both using biology and evolution as a way to justify their positions. See what I’m saying?
It’s not a perfect comparison, obviously. I just mean that maybe the two reactions are related.
As far as your last point, I see where you’re coming from.
Though in an ideal world we should care for poor impoverished and minority men for the same reason that the same analogous woman will get help: some1 is suffering and needs care.
Quite frankly I think the best fix would be for anti-poverty, anti-violence, and anti-anything laws to just become gender neutral and lose the term “man” or “woman” in front of behind said commission,study,shelter, or law and apply the same needs-based test for any and all.
But, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
“Quite frankly I think the best fix would be for anti-poverty, anti-violence, and anti-anything laws to just become gender neutral and lose the term “man” or “woman” in front of behind said commission,study,shelter, or law and apply the same needs-based test for any and all.” – I know, right. So true.
“But, that is not going to happen anytime soon.” – Don’t stop believin’! Hold on to the feelin’!…
Seriously though. Even if it’s not likely to happen, I think it’s something we have to keep in our minds as we fight for men’s rights. Otherwise we run the risk of screwing things up even more.
“Men weren’t oppressing women, they were just in charge because they were protecting women!”
This is true. Throughout the centuries men have made innumerable sacrifices for the women, children and other men in their lives. And the “patriarchal” system did arise from the need to protect females; we see this as well in our closest cousins, gorillas and chimpanzees. (You can argue about how bonobos are egalitarian and all, but that’s because there are no significant differences in physical abilities between the sexes in bonobos, which is not the case for gorillas, chimps, or humans.) It follows naturally that someone who would be required to defend the tribe (women in particular) would lead them, and vice versa; i.e., someone in charge of the tribe would be expected to defend it.
Also, calling the treatment of women in the past “oppression” mutilates the definition of the word. How many “oppressors” toiled in the fields, in mines and on the battlefield to protect and provide for those they “oppressed”? How many people of an “oppressor class” were expected to fight to the death before any harm came to those they “oppressed”? How many “masters” were required to get down on their knees before their prospective “slave” and ask for permission to become their master? How many “slaves” could refuse and wait for a better deal?
Zero sounds like a good number.
So a woman needs a man to protect her. From other men. Nice.
If gay and lesbian orientations are found to be “natural”, then between genetics and prenatal testing, we’re going to have temptations–temptations are generally yielded to–to use genetic techniques to straighten out the fetus, or have abortion against gays and lesbians. We already have abortion for sex-selection without much fuss–might call abortion itself into question, I suppose–and female infanticide in a number of cultures without much fuss–might upset the cultural relativists.
Careful what you ask for.
Okay clearly my comment was misunderstood by a few people. So I’ll try once more. I wasn’t asking for anything. I was comparing the reactions of two movements (LGBT & MRM) to their detractors. I was saying that their motivations for finding a biological origin for their respective issues (homosexuality for LGBT; patriarchy & male dehumanization for MRM) might be similar. I was saying that perhaps the motivations from both groups (LGBT & MRM) for proving their issues are biological in origin is to prove their validity.
LGBT groups want homosexuality to be biological so they can prove it is not a choice.
Some of the MRAs here insist patriarchy and male dehumanization is biological. Maybe they do this to prove that patriarchy isn’t evil (it’s natural). And to prove that male dehumanization is real (we can show you the scientific proof).
I’m not saying that’s exactly how things are. I’m saying it’s something to consider. It’s another thought exercise. It’s me noticing similarities between two groups and pointing it out. I’m also saying that in the end it doesn’t matter. As you say, if being gay is somehow proven to be biological, people will try to find a cure. If patriarchy is somehow proven to be biological, people are still not going to want to go back to a patriarchal society. If male dehumanization is proven to be biological, people could still try to argue that our culture has overcome it.
I think biology is being used (not maliciously or purposefully) as a way to say “hey! It’s real! Take us seriously!” from both groups. And I think the problem with that is that biological explanations can be manipulated just like cultural ones.
I hope that was finally clear.
A fantastic book about which there is no such thing as too much praise; “The Wild Place”, by Katherine Hulme, author of “The Nun’s Story”. “Wildflecken” was apparently an SS officers’ training base, put to better use after the war.
She worked in a DP camp just after the end of WW II, in Bavaria. The Army would ship in trainloads of DPs from the slave labor camps by train and then trucks from Wildflecken would pick them up at the unloading yard and haul them to the camp. There were about 20,000 DPs altogether.
At one point, a trainload came in and there weren’t enough trucks. Mothers with children got priority. The rest had to stay at the unloading point until the next day. They made fires of railroad ties and slept around them in lines three deep. Old people and women on the inside, toward the fires. Men on the outside.
It is expected. A man would not be considered a man if he’d grabbed a woman and taken her place near the fire, pushing her into the cold. In fact, he’d probably be thumped with excessive enthusiasm by the other men. Scratch “excessive”. No such thing in that hypo, should such an unlikely proposition actually occur.
Now. Let’s have a show of hands. How many think the men should have taken the inside spots? How many think men should have taken half the inside spots? How many would have thought twice about seeing men take only the outside spots? Anybody? Somebody? Apparently nobody. Okay. Who would have reproached the men for taking the outside spots?
When push comes to shove, men take the hits and nobody minds. Nor should.
Oh, yeah. There’s a profoundly moving, lyrical review of “The Wild Place” at Amazon.
I think you missed my comment somewhere on here about the Titanic. My position has always been children and PARENTS first, full stop. Doesn’t matter if we’re talking about boys or men or girls or women. Always children and both of their parents. Maybe it’s because I have always had such a close relationship to both of my parents, but I couldn’t imagine my Dad being forced to sacrifice for my mother and I (and my sister).
The question of elderly vs. non-parent adults is a tough one. But that also wouldn’t be about gender. It’d be about whether someone who’s already lived a long life should sacrifice their few remaining years for someone who has (theoretically) decades left to life. So I’ll leave that one because it’s not quite related to our discussion here.
I think your view of what it means to be a man is very traditional, but is a bit outdated. I don’t mean to be insulting, that’s just my observation.
Heather. Believe me. I believe you. And I am as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow that if the stuff hit the fan, you’d be all over traditional, and in about as much time as it takes to blink.
Check out “the Birkenhead”. One boat overlo
aded with women and kids was being run by a really jr. officer. When he found out that a guy in the water was married, he insisted on jumping out and having the guy get in. Shark got him.
When I was an Infantry training officer, we had a really flaky guy we’d have preferred be in the rubber room show up after being treated for what the doc called “hesitation marks”. The Battalion commander said to take him to training. When I got there, I discovered it was hand grenades. Terrific. The instructors’ officer said they’d deal with him in the normal fashion if one of the company officers was there. Okay. Me. My buddy, Ed, is married and has a kid. In that training, there were two pits, for use if anything went wrong. Instructor kicks the live grenade into one pit, throws Private Dummy into the other and jumps on top of him. No place for young Aubrey to hide.This was so normal, so completely without thought, that I hadn’t thought about it until yesterday. Forty plus years.
It’s what men do. Expect themselves to do. Not worth thinking about.
You want something different when you’re on the web. Like my colleagues in the south, right up until the stuff hits the fan and then you’ll be looking for my phone number. Guaranteed. Or some other guy’s phone number.
Okay I’m about to venture into argument territory…it’s just that what you are saying is hitting a nerve. So if we continue down this particular path in the next couple posts, I’ll call this line off too…only because this isn’t the place for argument, and my comment is very much emotional and argumentative. You’ve hit my nerve. So e-mail me if you would like to keep going. And we’re off:
I have never, as an adult, been in a situation where my life was immediately in danger, so OF COURSE I don’t know how I’d react. Would I scream like a baby? Would I run around like a chicken with my head cut off? Would I curl into a fetal ball and mumble about how I want it all to go away? Maybe. Who the hell knows.
But…if I were able to keep my head, and if I was able to use rational thought, then all of my values and personality don’t suddenly disappear. I have been in plenty of situations where I have needed help from men and I usually refuse. In fact, it took me a long time to realize that it was okay to accept help from a man. None of these were life threatening – but my point is that this is something that I feel very deeply and very strongly. So don’t assume that I’d suddenly go all traditional in a crisis situation. I might go bat-sh!t crazy with fear, but not traditional.
If I were able to stay rational in a crisis, I would do everything I could to help and accept whatever help was given me. Chances are if that help was offered by a man, I’d actually be LESS likely to accept it. That’s just who I am. Don’t talk to me for a week online and ASSUME you know me well enough to know how I’d react when bad sh!t happens. That’s just damn insulting. People aren’t that simple.
Plus, you’re lumping all women and all men together. In a crisis (you say) men will and should sacrifice, and women will hide behind their men. The world is not so black and white. How do you explain all the women who do join the military then? Hm? Are they hiding when bad sh!t happens? I don’t think so. Courage is a commendable thing, and I thank you for the time you spent defending our country. But don’t think that men have a freaking premium on it.
And hey, maybe you’re the one who wants something different when you’re on the web. Maybe you want the world to be a place where big strong men are Ultra-important. I don’t know, I just know that this entire freaking conversation I’ve been trying to be rational and polite. I’ve tried to present ideas and discuss possibilities. And all you’ve said in return is: men are strong and you will want a strong man when bad stuff happens.
By the way, I acknowledge that was a rant. I just needed to vent.
Okay. Back to rational thought, because I tried to figure out what exactly it was about your post that threw me over the edge? How come I could have a rational dialogue with you (and everyone else) up until that point, but that is what pissed me off so royally? I think I figured it out.
What you did in this post that I’m replying to, is suggest that you know who I am better than I know myself. I’m not saying that’s what you were intentionally doing, but that is what you did. You metaphorically patted me on the head and said, “oh silly Heather. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I know best.” I got the feeling you were treating me like a child. Again I’m not saying that’s what you meant to do, but it is what happened.
And that’s a problem, not just on a personal level, but on a societal level. By treating women like children you’re feeding into this idea that women aren’t full adults. And then you expect that you need to sacrifice yourself to protect them, because they aren’t adults…they’re like children. They don’t know how the world really works. They don’t know what’s best for themselves, so we (the men) will help them out. – again I’m not saying that is what you meant to say in your post. But all of that was implied in way you suggested you knew how I would react better than I did.
How are women going to “women collectively grow up,” as GWW puts it so nicely, if we still have men out there who treat them like sub-adults? And how are men going to be seen as anything other than oppressive if they don’t stop treating women like sub-adults? What I’m saying is that what you did in that post is actually part of the problem, I think.
There are a lot of men who believe if the apocalypse came things would head back to medieval times and men would be pillaging and women would be relying on the kindess and strength of men to stop them from being pillaged. I presume inherent in that is that we’d offer up our sexuality to the strong good ones and they’d kill the mean ones.
Which doesn’t cast a very nice light on men. And maybe that would happen. Which would be a real shame, since I think humans are capable of more. But maybe it’s all maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
I think women should learn to shoot, process meat, etc etc and figure out ways of protecting themselves in case of apocalypse as well as learn every possible herbal BC and other things pertaining to pregnancy. Keep the playing field as level as possible.
That or keep a suicide pill on hand, cause the apocalypse sounds like a pretty shitty place to be for people no matter their gender. No dentists! Tetanus! Rabies!
No internet! Forget no dentists! No internet! I think I’ll keep that suicide pill on hand. *joking*
I agree with everything you’re saying Julie. I think if something catastrophic were to happen, women need to take their share of the load and learn how to protect themselves and survive too.
Here’s the thing I don’t get though – we’re not in a post-apocalyptic society. Even if we would end up with extremely traditional gender roles if the whole world goes boom….it’s not like that right now. Shouldn’t our gender roles reflect the world we’re in, not the one we’re paranoid might happen? I mean I see the value in preparing for the worst. I don’t see the value in shaping society as if we have just survived an apocalypse when that hasn’t happened.
Okay one more, then I swear I’ll stop (probably) until other people reply. So Julie said: “There are a lot of men who believe if the apocalypse came things would head back to medieval times and men would be pillaging and women would be relying on the kindess and strength of men to stop them from being pillaged.”
So here’s what else strikes me as so odd about that idea – it perpetuates the myth that women never had any agency. Typhonblue’s article about women’s agency has been referenced a couple times, and I’ll reference again. Even if there is an apocalyptic even, and even if we end up reverting back to a less ‘enlightened’ way of life, the modern pop version of what that more ‘primitive’ way of life would look isn’t accurate.
Women have never had NO agency…otherwise, like I said, they’d have risen up and taken over. They’ve always had ways to exert their will and change their own lives. I mean, obviously in early western culture it wasn’t like it is today, but even the 1950s housewife wasn’t completely powerless. Really the more I think about this hypothetical post-disaster world, the less sense it makes. And I’m just trying to understand.
Also, I know that quote isn’t your view, Julie…just putting that out there
I always thought it odd that many feminists claim that women back in the “olden days” had no agency …. what a hunk of BS. Those that raise the children heavily influence their earliest / base attitudes and personalities. Men may have had the majority of “hard” power in the relationship…..yet most women had the majority of the “soft” power……and recent international politics shows you need both types.
My great great G’mother came over from Prussia just after the US civil war…..She lived from sweeping dirt floors and spreading rushes as a girl to early space flight as a old lady…. The family history has her telling all her descendants how when getting married at 17 she told her new husband that any raising of a hand to her would get him dead…..along with how it was a centuries old tradition in her family to forbid that kind of behavior….. Those women had no agency? really? She sailed to the US as a teen, worked off her passage as a maid/seamstress …married and sent for the rest of her family from Prussia…..she had no agency?
Exactly, Trey. Although I find it interesting that you bring feminists into this conversation. Just…try to hear me out before thinking I’m defending all feminists or something.
It is a decidedly non-feminist idea that led me to mention that women have always had some agency. We were discussing the belief that if we were to suddenly have all modern technology and social structure taken away, we’d revert to a more ‘primitive’ way of life. And that ‘primitive’ way of life is expected to look very simple – men have control and protect society with their physical strength; women give up their control in order to remain safe. The idea that humans have ever lived in a world where the social structure was that simple is incorrect.
So my point is that it’s not just feminists that assume that women used to have no agency. Plenty of non-feminists believe this myth as well. And it isn’t an entirely feminist creation. The reason feminists have rebelled against the idea that women should give up their agency was because have been times in our history where it was widely believed that’s what a woman should do.
Hard power…soft power…this ain’t tap water.
Power is power.
Your grandmother was an exception to the rule. You’ll never know just how much (male-privileged) help she had to have just to get momentum. So, no, generally women had no agency.
You know, there is always some new calamity over the horizon (y2k, global warming, terrorism, etc..) that about 8 or 9 years back I was thinking of starting a business organizing and selling disaster prepared back-packs:
it would have rations, bandages, water purification tablets, bolt cutters, matches, maybe a basic snare kit (for catching small game like rabbit), a poisonous plant guide, glow sticks, etc..
Maybe I should think about doing that again. I’m starting to think that the market has grown rather than shrank in the past 8 years.
Oh y2k…good times, good times.
Heather. You did just survive an apocalypse. The average age of replacement fighter pilots for the Battle of Britain was seventeen. If a German bomber hadn’t been in trouble and pitched its load onto a neighborhood instead of the docks, Churchill wouldn’t have sent the RAF after cities and the Luftwaffe would have continued to concentrate on the fighter fields. Operation Sea Lion might have succeeded. Or, beating it back a year before Pearl Harbor would have been touchy.
Not that many years ago, a Strategic Rocket Forces officer, not particularly senior, was in a post to launch on warning. He got bogus data in, the launch criteria were met, but, not having seen any external news about a run-up to a war, he refrained. Oh, yeah. The SRF were the Sovs. You survived an apocalypse due to luck.
A good part of the world still looks like the post-apocalypse world of Mad Max. Or after, say, Rome fell.
But the problem is not what I want. The issue is…what is. Not what you want. What is. And that is, for any reason you like or don’t like, men are considered disposable and supposed to take the hard work, the dangerous work. If you like, we can figure out how women can be half the people killed on the job.
As to women in the military. They are considered good as they act like men. See, as I said, Leigh Ann Hester, from the Kentucky Guard. First Silver Star for a woman since WW II. “Combat Barbie”
might be closer to home. Then there’s “little bitty teresa”. Kim Campbell, call sign “Killer Chick”.
You think you wouldn’t be traditional. Trust me, two thirds of my colleagues in Mississippi would have sworn the same thing. They were, as I said, the “counterculture”, which probably has a different name in the UK. I was suspect simply for being a mesomorph, more or less, in the physical and personality sense. You wouldn’t have believed those days. But when things got suspenseful, they went traditional.
Not my fault, although you could probably accuse me of wanting it because I expected it.
Alrighty Richard…this isn’t getting anywhere. Mostly I’m just banging my head against the desk as I read your comment. So I’ll stop this particular discussion now. If you want e-mail me, but I can’t guarantee I won’t be more argumentative and less rational in an e-mail.
Alrighty Heather …. I hope that your desk has not broken since you have banged your head against it several time while discussing on this thread with several commenters. Time to buy a new desk.
Don’t worry, it’s a metaphorical banging of my head. My desk has nothing to fear.