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 :P), 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
Bear in mind also that the vast majority of women INTHE WESTdo not have a career: they have a job, just like the men. So instead of being at home, and in charge they are under someone’s supervision and control
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.… Read more »
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. 🙂
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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. 🙂
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read 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… Read more »
So a woman needs a man to protect her. From other men. Nice.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
No problem, Im glad we both cleared up the misunderstandings 🙂
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… Read more »
“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.… Read more »
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:
https://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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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: https://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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
Great article. Some thoughts that perhaps have been addressed in other posts I may have missed: It might have been good to note that in most cultures, something like 105 males are born for each 100 females (recent changes in some modern societies have changed this a little). The evolutionary reason for this is that (over a long history) males tended to die early and in larger numbers. Mostly for the reasons you describe. Truly, though, the biggest problem I see is what is the definition of feminism, and who gets to define it? My personal definition of feminism (as… Read more »
“I have seen several examples of self-proclaimed feminists completely lose their equality when there is a large, heavy item that needs moving.” – I have too and it pisses me off. When I was at my most radical, I refused to allow any man to help me with anything…literally anything. It was kind of ridiculous, really. A guy friend offered to pay for a movie once and I threatened to take my money and throw it into the trash unless he let me pay for myself. I’m not saying that was reasonable (it wasn’t). For our civics class in high… Read more »
Heather. You wouldn’t. You’re joking. Right?. No way. By the way, still on topic, when have you seen the lineup you mention? Me either.
Um yeah I totally would expect the same thing. A saved child will always take priority over whoever did the saving.
As for when I’ve seen an adult woman rescuing a little boy? I’ve no idea. But then, I couldn’t point to any example of when I’ve seen an adult man rescuing a little girl either except for the one you just mentioned (and the I, Robot reference made by John). My mind is coming up blank on either scenario.
Just did a cursory google search on the terms “female rescue workers” and here is what I found- http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-05/us/beyond.bravery.soledad.notebook_1_women-at-ground-zero-susan-hagen-mary-carouba?_s=PM:US http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2011/09/photos-welsh-mining-rescue-effort-in-the-uk/#9 (photo 9) http://www.femsa.org/PR_details.cfm?PRID=22 (seeking female rescue workers who might want a makeover) http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/pakistan-female-rescue-3 Subsequent searches pulled up info both positive and negative on female EMTs, and a sexytime calendar for female firefighters. My guess is there just aren’t all that many national news reports on anyone saving people/kids etc. I’m gonna do some searches on rescues, but my thought is that there probably are incidents of women saving people, men saving people, gays saving people etc etc. Size and strength… Read more »
Thanks for doing what I was too lazy to do, Julie.
Also…how is it I didn’t know about the sexytime calendar for female firefighters? I do need a 2012 calendar…lol.
Well, I figure firefighters are some of the hottest people around….BAM! Pun INTENDED!
Also, one would think that EMT’s, Rescue Workers etc keep stats of what gender rescues who?
hahaha julie. cute.
lol. Nice. 🙂
lol, nice one centurion! I like it!
Haven’t watched it….female rescue worker saving kids out of tree on Rescue 911 1996
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40f4GkojGM
Don’t know why that link didn’t work. Here is one on a female rescue worker who died in a mine.
Rescue 911 woman saves from burning car
Rescue 911 kids in tree
My sister is an EMT… She’s not huge or manly, but she’s strong. She’s also a Roller Derby girl and a chemist. Gotta love our family 😉
She’s saved tons of people, but she’s not a paramedic, they’re more highly trained and can do things like intubation and deciding which meds to give while in an ambulance.
There really are a lot of female EMTs, Paramedics, and firefighters. Lots of the female firefighters are in the paramedic units in the fire department.
As a mom in a mom’s world, I’ve seen tons of women save children. I’ve pulled kids out of the ocean as they’ve gotten swept away at least three times. All three were little boys, because I have boys and that’s who we’re around. Only one was my own child… I’ve seen women dive into pools, fully clothed, push kids out of the way of moving cars—putting themselves first to get hit (saw this only one time, thankgod). My sister (who is an EMT) has given neuro exams to children who’ve hit their heads, or helped children stay safe who… Read more »
Joanna, while this topic got derailed into rescue workers I don’t think that was GWW’s main point. How often have you seen a woman work in a coal mine to support a non-working able-bodied man? I think GWW’s point is valid that the most successful societies are the ones predicated upon the twin pillars of men’s denial of self-worth by men and protection of women. The reasoning is simple. Women are the limiting factor in human reproduction. Let’s say a village of 20 adults (10 men and 10 women) will have 9 hunters killed this upcoming year due to a… Read more »
“The issue is we’re not in a hunter/gatherer state anymore. This is a country with artificial hearts, that put people on the moon, has gay marriage and a black president. It’s time to act as evolved as we claim we are and squeeze a little bit of room on the victim stage for men where and when it is deserved (which large feminist organizations mostly oppose).” Agreed. Well mostly, agreed. The reason this conversation has taken such a turn toward discussing hunter-gatherer populations was that part of GWW’s argument was that a lack of empathy toward men was biological. Also… Read more »
Heather, The kind of reference I am making about victims is two pronged. * that concern over men seems to be so counter-intuitive for most people. But, also * fundamentalist feminist IPV advocates routinely bar from VAWA reauthorization hearings and other IPV conferences those same researchers they used to quote and put those quotes into DV pamphlets. Why? Because these researchers show that women attack just as often as men–and they either don’t want to have their funding reduced for male victims, or they don’t want IPV seen as a human problem (rather than a woman problem). Erin Prizzey who… Read more »
I’d also like to say thanks for agreeing with the core point.
I’d also like to say thanks for your other thread in which you agreed that men are in jeopardy and they need help. That clarification helped a lot.
For a while I thought you were one of the “yes, but….” persons who stated their agreement, then went on a point by point analysis of why well they really didn’t agree after all.
Ah okay, so when you say ‘victim’ you mean actual victims of violence. Alright no argument for me here on that either. I thought you were referring to the general way in which many political feminist organizations will victimize women and saying that men should be able to play the victim too. But turns out your talking about shining light on male victims of violence, which I agree whole-heartedly with.
I kind of meant both victim and those in jeopardy too. I was lumping it all together.
Heather writes: “I would like to point out that I don’t think it’s biological, and I don’t think you can draw direct lines from past cultures to the present.” hmmmmm I don’t know if I agree with this or not. Most of my commenting on this web-page has been to fight for fathers and men’s rights and to point out where men are in jeopardy, and things of that nature. I’ve never thought of the nature of most modern society to use and abuse men in an anthropology sense. The article that GWW wrote about homo sapiens surpassing neanderthals started… Read more »
It’s funny (well not funny) but people have mentioned the Titanic a few times now. I saw that movie in theatres and I remember being so pissed off that the dads didn’t get to go on the boats too. Why women and children, I thought. That’s stupid. Now, not long after I started my journey through feminism and I went through a rather radical phase. Don’t worry, though, I got over that pretty quickly. I am cured. Now on to a more serious topic: with regards to biology and our behavior. I just think it is very complicated. Perhaps I… Read more »
Well, I would boil it down into two categories: 1) Abnormally high risk. 2) certainty of death. Hunters hunting wild game have an elevated risk. You can’t positively quantify an elevated risk. Also, the tradeoff is that if the game is brought down and you only have minor or no injuries, you come back the conquering hero to (possibly) festive love-making with 1 or more of the women. In this case the push to counteract your basic drive for survival can be relatively easy to understand. In the case of the titanic. To stay on the boat and (with certainty)… Read more »
And the simplest infection could kill.
Ah we had an exhaustive discussion of gender roles in prehistory, so I won’t even start that right now. If you’d like to hear what I have to say about it go ahead and ask in an e-mail. I’ll give it to you again cuz, really, with all our comments it might have gotten lost: [email protected]
I really would love to keep discussing gender in prehistory with you. It’s just outside this topic and has already been discussed so much in here.
I would also like to point out that sarcasm rarely fosters discussion. Most of the time when one side of a discussion uses sarcasm, it makes the other side become defensive. Even worse, it can make the un-sarcastic person resistant to even logical arguments made by the sarcastic person.
i.e. When you are sarcastic it makes me want to oppose everything you say, regardless of my actual opinion.
I agree with Heather. If you’re truly trying to communicate, sarcasm just shuts down conversations.
If you’re here to piss people off, however, sarcasm will get the job done.
If the position of men as we have been discussing it is a matter of their being assigned by society to the most dangerous and the hardest jobs, including war, then to change it we’ll need to see women equally represented in the hardest and most dangerous jobs. Problem is, some of them still require physical strength which means we can’t expect to see women equally exposed. So little will change. Said it before: Saw some footage of flood in TX. Little girl in a tree, along with a guy from the Texas Guard. Moving water below to the horizon.… Read more »
I would like to point out that your example involves a child and an adult. As humans we tend to value to the lives of children above adults. If it was a little boy and an adult woman, I would expect the exact same thing.
Richard, The social stigma upon men doesn’t end with men taking hazardous jobs. If that WAS where it ended, then it would be much less of an issue for the simple reason that men are voluntarily going into those jobs. One of the bigger gripes I have about lack of empathy is the areas in which men have NO CHOICE. By that I mean the far more scarce services for men with mental health problems, men who are homeless, men who are victims of rape or DV, men who commit sucide. The problem is when a social stigma converts into… Read more »
Ah yes, one last comment I wanted to mention: “If Heather could find a society predicated upon women taking all possible risks to life and limb unto themselves to protect men (just saying that in my mind sounds so effing backwards it’s ridiculous) with the qualifier that it rose to prominence (like Romans or Greeks) it would bolster her argument a lot.” Well firstly, in Paleolithic cultures in the Middle East and Europe, there is evidence that labor wasn’t divided along gender lines. As I’ve mentioned, the Paleolithic is not my area of expertise. But from what I remember, and… Read more »
Heather, Not to be snarky, but I’m a little disappointed that a person who in their first set of posts seemed to lay out their credentials as an archeologist can’t seem to come up with any names of these cultures. For somebody who seems to hold everybody else to such a high evidentiary standard this is very disappointing. Also, I would point to whichever of these societies you are mentioning which (sound like?) they are still in the hunterer and gatherer state. Don’t you think the fact that since women are the limiting factor in reproduction, that it is NO… Read more »
Do you remember details from discussions you had 4-5 years ago? (Rhetorical) I am also extremely horrible at names. Seriously, it’s a thing. Not like a medical thing or whatever, but it’s something I’ve noticed in myself. I will remember the details of entire movies I saw when I was a kid, and I can even picture them in my head. But ask me the names of the characters, and I’ve no idea. Sometimes I don’t even remember the name of the movie. Plus, I am asking for coherent, logical discussion. I am asking for people to provide proof of… Read more »
Actually, from what I read the contribution to the collapse of rome was the debasement of currency, corruption and the emergence of a welfare type economy. I’m just a layman, but I believe the borders of rome hadn’t moved in a long time before the collapse. It wasn’t an issue of a rapid expansion and then collapse. It was rapid expansion, then success, success turned to greed, corruption, debasement of the currency in order to afford the government giving to the citizens to placate them. At the end I believe the roman currency held 1/50th of the precious metals it… Read more »
I said part. I am no expert on the end of Rome. I was just saying that their expansion didn’t help matters.
I must have missed this part:
“discussion of what is a ‘successful’ society. It seems to me you are placing a higher value on societies which ended up expanding to take over a large area.”
Actually, I wasn’t thinking of Rome in that regard. I was thinking of it more for level of advancement:
roads, aqueducts, medicine etc..
Lol, speaking of which I can’t resist linking this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
Oh Monty Python, I love them. Especially great when you consider that was only a few decades out from the British Empire. Anyway, on to more serious fare…there is something that took me a good chunk of time and thought to unlearn, and that is the assumption that western society is better than the societies that came before it. Also, related to that, was having to unlearn the idea that modern-day hunter-gatherer populations are ‘primitive’ and that they represent a throwback to prehistoric times. I will try to keep my explanation brief as it’s not directly related, but if you… Read more »
I agree with you. There is a difference between moral advancement and scientific advancement. My understanding (and maybe you could correct this if wrong) is that the american indians never (or much more rarely) committed murder. Men and tribes would settle their disputes with wrestling or some such. How is that less civilized than society’s that invent the machine gun capable of making 600 holes in human beings per minute? Totally agree that their is a difference between moral advancement and scientific. GWW in some of her videos makes this point in some of her videos, kind of stating that… Read more »
Alrighty, this is another – e-mail me for more – thing. Only cuz I don’t want to end up cluttering up another 200 comments with the same stuff I said before. I don’t expect you to find it all and read it or anything. So e-mail me and I’ll explain my position. 🙂
I will, thanks for the invitation.
Heather, you seem to be arguing nuances and ignoring the big picture. There is a chapter in Warren Farrell’s book Myth of Male Power called (if I’m remembering correctly) male disposability = bad ecology. The results of investigations into the Exxon Valdues spill and the chernobyl incidents found that worker exhaustion was to blame. The men in these fields were working ridiculous hours (like 16 on, and 6 hours of rest several days consecutively). The fact that we (as a society) are willing to risk NUCLEAR MELT-DOWN rather than hire a second shift of technicians, because that would mean humanizing… Read more »
I am not certain I can agree that this statement has to do primarily with gender; “The fact that we (as a society) are willing to risk NUCLEAR MELT-DOWN rather than hire a second shift of technicians, because that would mean humanizing men and caring about their misery says a lot.” No doubt the men were dehumanized. And it’s wrong, absolutely. I think there are men dehumanized all over the planet. I see this having more with money. There are factories, ships, plants, fields all over the world filled with men, women, and children working overtime and without union protection… Read more »
Julie,
When bad happens to women, it makes the news and we are told “bad sh1t is happening to women”
When bad happens to men, it makes the news and their gender is blurred into gender-neutral labels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A
As I said: THE IDEA THAT MEN ARE In PERIL IS COUNTER-INTUITIVE AND WILL GARNER RESISTANCE IN MOST PEOPLE.
You said that you do not see this as an issue with male disposability.
Is that because the evidence is not there, or because you refuse to see it (or maybe because it is hidden from you)?
No, for god’s sake of course those men are being treated as disposable. I think that the fact it’s being shown up for women is part of the “little battles” that keep us ALL separated from dealing with the bigger issues. Shit. I’m on the side of us as humans. Not that women need more attention. Men, women, and children are being treated like garbage all around the world and no one pays attention to it. Because they are brown? Poor? Make our goods? Men get chewed up in wars to get oil for money. Men get torn up and… Read more »
Julie says, “I see it as an issue of a supreme manipulation of all us as disposable and the focus on women or whites or straights as a feint designed to keep us at each other’s throats.” Yes, but corporations and other entities enjoy the highest rates of success with unfettered scrutiny and angry response when they do it to men. Look at the total lack of western news outlets picking up the story of the murder of non-combatant muslim men in Bosnia from the age of 12 up. And YET: Here is a fund from the UN for $1,700,000… Read more »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471700/RAF-typist-hurt-thumb-awarded-times-soldier-lost-leg.html
Royal Air Force (female) typist who injures thumb gets 8 times the payout over (male) soldier who lost leg.
Julie, like I said the idea of men in peril is very very counter-intuitive. The blinders will tend to go up in most peoples minds almost immediately.
But quite simply the evidence is so overwhelming, and the stakes our society is willing to risk (as in the london riots that occurred largely due to society’s overwhelming desire to let mothers decide fathers custody) are so high, we desperately need to have an HONEST discussion about this.
Just to expand my point a little: Just a few months before the BP oil spill I remember listening to an NPR story in which a young man died on an oil rig. Essentially his life could have been saved with the simple addition of a safety rail. He fell 5 stories to his death when a valve took out half his head during the fall. The family could only get $900 from BP for burial costs and could not sue due to waivers. In almost every state in the USA wrongful on-the-job deaths due to managerial neglect can only… Read more »
Alright I think what Julie is trying to say is that just because the people who died were men doesn’t mean that the lack of empathy is due to the fact they are men. Again…it’s too simple of a cause-effect correlation. When you’re talking about companies and deaths caused by accidents, a huge focus is on profit. Huge PR departments work to make sure that at little damage is done to the company in the press as possible. A company will spend as little as possible to protect it’s workers, so that it can maximize it’s profits. Now, if you… Read more »
Right. I have immense empathy for them. For anyone kept down, treated like shit, dehumanized, told they are other and that they don’t count. It’s fucked up, John. I”m simply blaming it on class and corporate money interests which frankly I find to be pretty freakin’ evil. It keeps us all fighting yeah?
I’m so on your side and you would rather believe I’m against you. Men are dehumanized. Humans are dehumanized for profit and if we can keep sides all factioned off, so much the better for the big guns.
Everything you said Heather x 2.
Julie, I agree that class is the primary culprit. However, my point is that millions of men sink far lower between the cracks than do women. In other words, when you measure quality of life those who have it worst are predominantly men. The worst thing that can befall a person is to have their life prematurely shortened whether through workplace fatality, combat deaths, or death through violence, or neglect of some kind. Entities enjoy the best unfettered success rate at doing THE WORST dehumanization when done to men. Quite frankly violence against men is depicted as funny. Look at… Read more »
In the original Road Trip movie there is a scene in which a female college student beats the crap out of her boyfriend with an aluminum baseball bat for cheating on her. The funny part comes in where the was a case of mistaken identity and he wasn’t cheating after all–isn’t that funny? Like I said, GWW’s statement is correct that dehumanization of men is A) done successfully at a much greater rate than for women B) almost a global phenomenon C) deeply deeply instilled into peoples belief systems. I agree with GWW that we have a long long way… Read more »
I hear you. I agree with you. I was not trying to dismiss your concerns by including humanity, and I wanted you to know that. I don’t know exactly what to do personally as I’m not all that prominent but I’m writing here and learning here. I think humans seem to enjoy violence of all kinds and that bothers me.
I’m sorry if I came across as attacking. I have read your comments on rape and other threads and I know you’re an advocate for male victims. Thank you for that. I just felt the need to say that stating if we as a society have concern for everybody will fix everything, that this will not work as that is the type of society we already supposedly have and it is letting men down big time. When the media images depicting violence against men I linked above are commonplace, and the uproar against something similar being depicted to women means… Read more »
No offense taken. I hate the idea that men are treated that way in the media and expected to be Homer Simpsons just as much as I hate the idea of the harridan female or sex pot dumb blonde. It minimizes human potential. I hate violence and how it’s inflicted person to person.
Peace.
The ‘boys are stupid’ t-shirt example actually reminded me of something. When I was around 13 I wanted to buy a shirt that had a picture of a woman picking a man in the balls. I begged my mother to let me buy it. Of course my mother was a smarter person than I was at 13, and she totally didn’t allow me to purchase it. I was pissed off, of course and wanted to know why. Actually, I probably made a huffy teenage sound and said, “Whyyyyyy?” She explained that it was violent, mean, and not funny. She asked… Read more »
You are not alone. I point out little things like this to my boys all the time and both their father and I are very clear that violence against anyone isn’t ok. We don’t lord gender issues over them, but if there are moments to highlight basic empathy and humanity, we do it.
Heather, The only way to definitively prove that would be to get into the minds of the managers (and assume that they were honest with themselves about why they did what they did. In other words anti-male sentiment may not even be a conscious decision). Look at the movie I Robot. The main character lived in grief because the robot saved him over the little girl. There seems to be this intuitive drive in men and women to place the safety of women over men. How many times does mining/fishing/construction legislation to protect workers rights have to peter away and… Read more »
Heather says: “Now, if you could provide me with statistics that when women lose their lives in job related accidents, the media focuses on it more, you’d have a starting point for your argument.” That’s interesting. Because I remember reading a feminist blog in which they stating a systemic bias about murdered/abducted women stories. They stated that all the stories that go national only depict pretty white girls. I thought it was interesting that these “enlightened women” made no mention of the thousands of kidnapped and sexually abused boys. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf In this study males account for 35% of abductions. Could… Read more »
John said: “This documentary on lesbian rape says that 1/3rd of lesbians report having been raped by a woman who was not necessarily her partner. I wonder why.” I would like you to clarify something for me, please. When you say, “I wonder why,” are you referring to wondering why this issue of lesbian rape isn’t reported by the mainstream news? Or are you wondering why a third of lesbians are reportedly raped by a woman? This is off topic. I know this is off topic. I would just like to make sure I am reading your comment correctly. Okay…I’d… Read more »
I had an editing foot in my mouth moment. I meant to say: This story was never been picked up by any news outlet. I wonder why. I’m saying that like feminists use the word male privilege and (not officially but seem to want to exert pressure in men to feel male guilt the way black groups want whites to feel white guilt) male guilt, that editors through their college experience may feel they have a social obligation to bury stories of gay violence lest they rock the mantra that “gays are just like us” and screw up gay marriage… Read more »
Alrighty, that’s why I didn’t freak out and asked…I figured it’d be better to read your clarification first, and then I could feel the righteous fire of justice as I climbed aboard my soap box. But sadly your clarification made the soap box, and the righteous fire, unnecessary. 😉 I agree that you would think that the second story would be run because the victim was a child. I think the animosity toward the MRA could have had something to do with the fact that the NY Times is in dire straights in large part because of online newspapers. Or,… Read more »
Yeah, I don’t know if I really bolstered any arguments with that part and probably could have omitted it.
While I think people’s personal preferences will always go into what stories get published, I think it does harm if the person is on some kind of moral crusade.
If he is self-selecting the stories that women are victims, then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that all the evidence (in the form of news stories) will be that only women are victims.
That’s why I typically restrict myself to CDC or other trustworthy organization statistics typically to make my point.
Actually in the rape story the target was a young boy
Hmm this just made me think of something. Perhaps the editors were also worried about the very real stereotype that gay men are all child molesters. Maybe it wasn’t just general “we don’t want to hate on gay people.” Maybe it was because of this very specific negative association between gay men and child molestation that is so very false. One of the biggest arguments I’ve heard against gay people is that they’re trying to recruit you, or they’re going to force you. So maybe not running the piece about the murdered boy was an attempt to combat this negative… Read more »
Like Julie, I question whether the chernobyl accident can be attributed to gender. Pretty much what the whole of Julie’s reply is what my reply would be. Anyway, with your last statement that it doesn’t matter whether it’s cultural or biological in nature, it just needs to be changed. Yes! Agreed. Somewhere in the mass of comments I was having this discussion with GWW, that ultimately what’s important is figuring out how to fix it. However, GWW and others were arguing that because it was biological in nature it was impossible to change. Also, they were arguing that it was… Read more »
Heather, Stating things in a way where: “I think we have to come up with new ways to organize society and think about gender in order to fix this issue.” Makes it sound like a simple thing on our to-do list (like “I’m going to start recycling more”). The simple fact is we need to start shining the limelight NOW upon men who fall between the cracks. Also, the politically active, connected, and advocative feminists who most want to dismiss and deny help to men (as in those who passed the anti-male VAWA that refuses grants to shelters that help… Read more »
Okey pokey, that is a lot of stuff to reply back to. I could take everything you’ve said and comment on it all, but that would be an insanely long post. So instead I’m going to pick a few things I’d like to reply to. You said: “To state that a system in which “we care for all” would fix things isn’t a solution. Because in the “enlightened” west we’re supposed to be ALREADY living in such a system, and it ain’t doing sh1t for men.” – Most educated and ‘enlightened’ people I know would tell you that no, the… Read more »
Heather writes: “The I, Robot thing, for example. I saw that as more of an adult-child dynamic as opposed to a male-female dynamic. So while many of the examples you gave (such as the way in which male rape is apparently supposed to be funny) are spot on, some (like I, Robot) seem a bit far reaching.” ===================================================== Okay, let’s surrender the I robot thing and concentrate on all the images of violence against men as humor. First, I’d like to ask: did you look at them? I think you should if you want to get an idea of what… Read more »
==== Violence against men: I agree with you. I don’t think you’re seeing that among the rest of what I’m saying, but I agree with you; with both of your factoids. And I think it’s horrible and abhorrent and needs to be addressed. I was just also pointing out that sometimes we (all of us) see gender bias where there is none, that’s all. === Second bit: well yeah that’d be nearly impossible. I wasn’t actually expecting you to start a project, I just thought that if you knew of one, now’d be the time to mention it. I’m not… Read more »
Thanks for your clarifications Heather. I’ve actually enjoyed writing with you. Thanks for your agreement about men in jeopardy and that it should be addressed. I’m not necessarily saying corps SEEK to dehumanize men more consciously. They will seek to dehumanize everybody. However, the brakes on that will be what the public will tolerate, and it seems society is far less tolerant of cruelty or neglect to women. It may not even be a conscious weighing of “I can send these bastards into the mines with 1/8 the emergency survival equipment recommended because they are men”. More likely it is… Read more »
And you have said the magic word…internalization. For one thing it totally lets me see what you’re saying in a new light. For another I was trying to remember it for another comment I had made. And yes, that’s possible. I think we (everyone) has internalized a lot more than we are able to recognize. So sure, the people in charge of these large companies could certainly have internalized the male dehumanization we are all talking about, and that could contribute to how they deal with safety. I’d argue that’s probably similar to what happens with the media. They don’t… Read more »
I also agree on your call to work together. Honestly, I’m not much of a street-beat advocate. I’m more of an internet arm-chair advocate. One of the ways I help is by signing onto fathers and families email page and participating in all of their action campaigns. I really believe in that organization. I think they are one of the most truly egalitarian organizations out there. They have recently under-wrote the legal costs of a soldier mom who had her deployment used as a reason by dad to change custody status. When have you ever heard of NOW fighting for… Read more »
Well thanks for that. I’ll totally look into F&F because they do sound like they’re working toward helping everyone they can.
For the record, I’m not a member of NOW. I’m not a member of any feminist organization.
I wouldn’t even necessarily call you a bad person if you were. It’s those operating at the top that I have a problem with. I just feel the NOW and AAUW heads need to be called out on what they are doing. Also, I would hypothesize the following. Many rank and file feminists state that the radicals are a fringe. To this sentiment I disagree and for the following reason. When is the last time you have heard anything from MADD? You know why? Because they had a legitimate single-issue listed greivance. It was addressed and they went away. If… Read more »
Well I am not familiar enough with the details of the membership of different feminist organizations to be able to say one way or the other on this. So I won’t. 🙂
Though to play devil’s advocate…I could argue that from my perspective it seems like the MRAs have the same dynamic: the more radical members are at the core. Although, really you could say the same for pretty much any issue or belief-oriented organization. The Pope is hardly going to be an Easter-Christmas Catholic.
Heather. My interpretation is, not speaking for Elissa, that selection by females produced the male characteristics we see today and over the last hundred thousand years. It is probably an accident that those characteristics also conduced to making the guy the logical one to take on the hardest or most dangerous tasks. It’s just an accident that females selected for that. Just an accident. What the females really liked was, um, uh. Erm. Yeah. I’ve got it. Being able to beat up other suitors just accidentally happened to require the same characteristics we’ve been discussing. Maybe that’s it. Whatever the… Read more »
I think we’re taking our eyes off the ball a bit… Patriarchy is not a cause, it is an effect. We’re focusing too much on strength as it relates to hunting and other strenuous tasks. Intrasexual competition (male versus male) plays a larger factor in the strength arms race. The statistical traits that the average male possesses are sexually chosen by females and vice versa. When I look at an average male today – I am looking at the million of sexual choices made by females across time and geography. The cause is best described by the theory of sexual… Read more »
“Patriarchy is not a cause, it is an effect.”
I follow the rest of your post and see what your saying. I am not understanding how the above quote quite fits in. How do the evolutionary principles you mentioned cause patriarchy? I’m not challenging you, I’m just not understanding.
There are many ways to figure out who gets up to check on that strange noise in the basement. Could be me every time. Could be my wife. Could take turns, but that would require a discussion to see who remembers what happened last time. We could do paper stone and scissors, two out of three. How’s it done in your house? I think there’s been a problem in this discussion. Talking about disposability and taking the hardest work has been all beclouded by discussions like…women worked hard back then. Men didn’t always hunt the big creatures. Nuts. If big… Read more »
Okay the rest of your post is just going to lead to me saying the same things I’ve said before. So I’ll focus on this instead: “There are many ways to figure out who gets up to check on that strange noise in the basement. Could be me every time. Could be my wife. Could take turns, but that would require a discussion to see who remembers what happened last time. We could do paper stone and scissors, two out of three.” My house has no basement. However, I’m the one closest to the front door, so if there’s a… Read more »
You’ve said some beautiful, intelligent, and eloquent things in this thread. It’s clear you have a great amount of knowledge and facts on the subject. You’ve been open with your discourse and have resisted snark, or at least warned people when you were about to snark. I dig you, Heather.
Alright I would like to mention that I fully recognize that this conversation has been very limited in using a binary gender system as though it were universal. That’s all. No long post. Just an acknowledgement.
I suppose somebody could tell me what the Inuit have in their root cellar during the winter…. Raw meat, including organs such as liver, provide various vitamins which make up for various plant foods not available. I didn’t say the roles were inherent. I am making the point that from the earliest time it made sense to people who could see its advantages and disadvantages. Whether there is anything biological or not is a separate question. Women didn’t need to agree to the gendered roles, and some men would have presumably preferred to let others defend their little patch for… Read more »
I think this might be the end of our discussion about this, because we are at an impasse. I am giving you evidence that the correlation of physical strength to role as hunter to having power, is not as simple as you seem to think. Now either I am not explaining this well enough, or you are unable to get past your own preconceptions. Either way, our discussion is starting to get circular. I’ll make some final comments. Feel free to comment back, but unless we start treading new ground I’ll probably not reply to your next comment. I’m not… Read more »
wellokaythen Nobody doubts everybody tried to reduce hazard. To suggest otherwise is nuts. It might follow that hunting a, say, giant elk, is no more dangerous than blogging. Right? Just as suited for women as men? Nope, I guess not. I presume the tongue and the various female part muscles were useful. To get the guy to take another shot at bringing home the bacon. No? That’s not what you meant? Then what’s the point? The reason for talking about winter is that in winter, gathering doesn’t do you much good and you need to hunt. Therefore you need hunters.… Read more »
“The reason for talking about winter is that in winter, gathering doesn’t do you much good and you need to hunt.” – well I’d like to point out that people were still supplementing their diet with some sort of plant. Man cannot live on meat alone. 🙂 But so okay, in some parts of the world winter could have been hard enough that hunting was more effective than gathering. That is still specific to certain regions. Even if men hunted, and even if during the winter there was no gathering done, that still would only apply to some parts of… Read more »
I’m not trying to get all “Girl Power!” here, but there are different forms of physical strength and different sorts of muscle power that have played a role in human evolution. (I mean “evolution” in the broadest sense of the word, as changes over time, not in the sense of progress or advancement or improvement.) Upper body strength seems to get a lot of focus, partly because there has been a lot of attention on the whole “man the hunter” view of things. I would point out that, pound for pound, the strongest muscle in human physiology is the uterus.… Read more »
“There’s good evidence that, in fact, hunter groups tried to minimize the danger to themselves as much as humanly possible.” – My favorite example of this is the Native Americans (I can’t remember which group) who would herd buffalo into giant pits and let them stampede themselves to death. Mostly because it debunks two assumptions. Native Americans weren’t in harmony with nature any more than anyone else. And hunters did what they could to make hunting as easily as possible (just like we do with any of our own activities today. The easier, and safer, the better). I know there’s… Read more »
Amen.
And people wonder why I don’t want to have children… 😉
It can be pretty ouchy.