|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Sensitive New-Age Cave Men | from rainy - Monday, July 16, 2007
accessed 1393 times The most furiously-heated discussion I've ever participated in in our chatroom left me feeling nauseated at my own part in it... There were a few girls and a few boys, and the topic turned to rape...an attitude I'd never actually thought out before but seemed natural to me surfaced: Men are under the influence of testosterone triggering sexual drive and aggression, therefore if given no societal values would most likely rape as a matter of course, like cavemen probably did. In my mind I was paying men a compliment, that their sense of right and wrong and self control and boundaries they place upon themselves are strong enough to override those natural impulses.
The hurt that this sentiment caused our very own sensitive new-aged Conan the Barbarian surprised me. I have to say I wasn't thinking it through as well as I should have, and didn't consider how offensive and sexist my remarks were, especially as the mother of a boy. What am I saying about all males, including my own son?
What suddenly brought this back to my mind tonight was stumbling across this excellent article: http://www.feminista.com/archives/v1n2/stoltenberg.html
"The kind of sexual connection that I always wanted with someone was about fairness and justice. I always thought that was the sexiest part of sex--the deepest possible feeling between two people. I thought sex and fairness should intrinsically be united, even before I knew the word "feminism."
When I began to see how pornography makes dominance and subordination feel "sexy"--the very opposite of fairness--that affected me in a very personal way too. I had always been taught that dominance was the way "real men" were supposed to have sex; dominance was what I was supposed to be able to do in sex. Men had to be the conqueror, the powerful fucker. Well, I never got very good at that, and I always felt sort of a failure.
When I started hearing from women friends who had been battered, from women who had been raped, it was very upsetting--and it still is. I understand from the inside some of what men do to women--and some of it is not part of me at all. But just because sexualized hatred is not a big part of me doesn't mean it's not real in the world. A lot of men's sexuality gets twisted into a very hostile shape; animosity is like a precondition for sexual feelings, and violence is like foreplay. That's totally alien to me--not what I could imagine doing at all--but I know I have to take seriously that it happens, and that many men do it because it makes them feel like a "real man."
When I am feeling really centered, it's as if my selfhood doesn't have a gender"
When I read that, Conan, I understood more of what I was doing to you with my stereotyping.
Anyone got anything to say about masculinism? |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from rainy
Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 03:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
A very interesting article encompassing both sexism toward males and the subject that got us started on rape: sexist photography in advertising.
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/09/feminists_are_sexist?skin=print
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Baxter
Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 16:14
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, to an enormous extent I would agree with your original position. In Macho-centric societies, especially warrior dominated cultures and/or civilisations with particularly successful military cults, rape was an absolutely acceptable and indeed extolled aspect of masculinity. My opinion of contemporary social conventions regarding rape is that any tacit acceptance of it by what must still be considered a male-dominated society would simply alienate the female gender, which is probably relied on considerably more than ever before in history (somebody out there will point out that women might have been more crucial during the World Wars, in maintaining previously male industries). On the other hand, the sheer statistical number of rape cases that are either unresolved or thrown out (or even the fact that so many women are either afraid of the consequences or ashamed to be known) might illustrate that we are very far from a truly enlightened society in regards to womens dignity. My point is that, to my mind, rape or sexual violence actually run very close to the vein in the instinctive masculine mind. Violence in some form or other seems essential to masculinity, without which men seem alienated and to some degree malformed. Its absence in some or any form in the male existence seems to leave a man displaced and lost.
I'm not saying that rape should be acceptable in any way shape or form. Nor am I saying that it is natural for men to go out and engage in regular rapine and plunder for the sake of their masculinity. But I think you see it every day: you know the ones I mean - perfectly normal men who lead normally law-abiding lives, but in whom you can sense an aspect of power, or what I would call it - an aspect of violence; you know these men would raise hell if someone raised a hand to anyone or anything that they love or value. Maybe they box in their spare-time; maybe they compose a forceful argument. Either way they find some aspect, however well-concealed, to express that violence. Now I know I'm not saying anything that no one knows already, but then I consider what exactly constitutes the male drive to violence. Anyone who's ever been in a fight, or even a heated argument between two males can answer that: it's all about power and dominance - the actual point of the conflict seems moot, once you get the bit in the mouth it's all pride vs. shame. Well-adjusted (and indeed a lot of maladjusted) and at least overtly confident men are in contact with that sense of power, no matter well-concealed it is.
Rape to me is simply the most brazen and foremost expression of this violence; It is a supreme and ultimate act of selfish power (indeed to me that is the most important distinction of rape from any other category of sexual action - much of which involves violence, and all of which, in my opinion, involves a relationship and an expression of power and control. Effectively what I am saying is that all men (bar the most completely sedated - and I mean completely!) are really potential rapists. Maybe that's putting it a bit strong, but I don't think I exagerate to say that we as men all share this relation with violence and thereby with rape. It's a horrifying thought, and one that makes me almost ashamed to be male, but it is one that I think that I must confront and keep in mind. We as men walk a very ambiguous and tenuous line between being men and being beasts.
Of course you can argue that it's not nearly that tenuous; It's not that hard to avoid crossing the line - you do have a choice to be a rapist or not. I don't personally think that I do not practise recreational rape because of social/moral norms; I just don't like the idea of destroying someone's life in that way - even killing them seems more merciful. Nor do I suggest any kind of leniency in relation to the lawful punishment of such acts. And I do not suggest that all men would indulge in rapine en masse if given the free reign to do so. And someone will probably argue that it's a far traverse from a man having a sense of violence, to being a potential rapist. I hope you see my argument.
(reply to this comment)
|  From pondering
Sunday, July 22, 2007, 21:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Anyone who's ever been in a fight, or even a heated argument between two males can answer that: it's all about power and dominance - the actual point of the conflict seems moot, once you get the bit in the mouth it's all pride vs. shame."
Very interesting insight. On a related note, this might be behind the relative prevalence of women from the cult's 2nd generation being more likely to now talk about the sexual abuse they suffered. Many of even the most vocal 2nd generation men talk more about the abuse of others.
None of what you said is surprising, as males generally having greater physical strength have not been forced to find other adaptations in the power struggles of human animaldom.(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Friday, July 20, 2007, 02:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
But I suppose as society changes and power becomes less of a physical thing, perhaps primal instincts will evolve along with it?
This power/sex braincoding is there in both men and women, but it seems to me to be a thing apart from the true us.
Anyone here ever tried ecstasy? All the sexual tension seems to dissolve, men and women just become the same thing, intellectual beings respecting and connecting with each other. You drink alcohol, however, and exactly the opposite occurs. The men become aggressive and start showing off, the women become flirty, giggly, and ultra-feminine. (Sorry Vix)
Where am I going with that? I don't know. Just thinking about accessing different sides of the personality, and wondering where the 'real' you is found? I tend to think it's the you of your childhood, before hormones began to interfere.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from fragiletiger
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 23:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok I have to admit, I do in my emotional response center (a place where logic goes to die) feel that men, all men are capable of the most horrible acts. Every day, all the time I absolutly never feel safe, withen in that I have to find a way to have a happy relationship and raise a son.
However conan and his ilk may be slowly changing one very small part of that opinion. Which is why I found this so intresting:
http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271
Its written by a dude!!!!!
(reply to this comment)
| From conan
Thursday, July 19, 2007, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not going to argue the obvious horror in the article to whose link you directed us, but I find a key component missing. I hate to always bring it back to this, but this was not a gender related crime as much as it was a religiously motivated crime that was executed because of the offender's family's religion.
I don’t want to argue that this is an isolated case, because although that surmisal is partially true, it is unfortunately not the exception within the confines of the orthodox Muslim world. However, to go to the stretch that you never feel safe, ever, when there are men in your proximity is borderline paranoid delusional if you ask me. I don’t know your personal history so can’t and won’t assume I know your reasons behind your ‘fear’ of males, but it seems a little excessive to me.
I’ll be the first to agree that the feminist movement still has much progress to be made, but let’s not jump into the whole ‘weaker gender’ argument to stoke the fires too quickly. I came across an article on ESPN’s Page2 today which brought up the issue of feminine ‘inferiority’ in the world of sports, and allegorically society as well: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/070719
I found this article very interesting for several reasons. The author, Scoop Jackson, is clearly a feminist who sees serious obstacles in the way of a woman being perceived as equal or even superior to men in a competitive, athletic world and obviously this is a reflection of society’s stance. In my earlier comment, I never insinuated that feminism has led a successful campaign to equalize the playing field, but they have certainly made tremendous strides to nudge our culture’s mindset in the right direction with much more progress (hopefully) to come.
Now, the issue I am currently incensed with is the notion of all men everywhere being a potential menace at any time to women everywhere and anywhere. I’m not sure that a trailer for a yet-to-be-released film can be a useful example in the debate of female inferiority complexes and object to its unquestioned authenticity as to what Mr. Whedon infers.
As far as the issue of ‘emotionality’ being perceived as weaker, that is also a case of perception I feel. I’ve long believed that women who wear their emotions on their sleeves do so as a weapon of sorts. I say this as a compliment to women and their impenetrable control over the male psyche. Women who are prone to burst into tears and can pull on the heartstrings of their ‘emotionally secure’ male counterparts and coerce or change the mindset of these males have proven the error of the myth in the practice of its performance. If men were so ‘secure emotionally’, the displays of emotion would not faze them, would they? The regularity with which women can use their ploys, ‘emotions’, not to mention anatomies, to fuck with their male ‘superiors’ control is in itself contradictory of the lovely idea that men like to perpetuate that the emotional overtures imply a weaker constitution and feebler mental state. Couple this with the fact that men feel the need to compete with each other for the affections of ‘prize’ females in an animalistic routine only strengthens the illusion of men as the dominant gender.
While it is true that statistically men are more prone to aggression and violence toward the opposite sex than females, to view this as a normal state of gender correlation is hardly accurate. If you genuinely feel insecure in the presence of men, is that something that men should be blamed for? Or, should you search for a deeper-rooted issue that manifests itself in a fear that you feel toward the opposite sex? Again, I don’t know your story and don’t feel like I’m obligated to in order to take offense to your ‘fear’ of males. Will man and woman ever be able to coexist without these underlying tensions and antagonistic tendencies? I don’t know. I think it’s certainly a strong possibility, but eliminating the ‘fear’ of violent tendencies is essential to achieve that goal, assuming of course that you actually want that scenario to play out.
I really don’t want to turn this into a fight on here, and I’m not trying to turn this into a male vs. female face off. I am genuinely trying to understand your terror of my gender and try to engage in some dialogue and also to just try to end the nonsensical, fossilized views of chauvinist societies past while still engaging in the issues that are relevant to this legitimate struggle against an antiquated mindset of our barbaric ancestors. The last paragraph of Whedon’s blog is the only portion of that diatribe worth reading: “I have never had any faith in humanity. But I will give us props on this: if we can evolve, invent and theorize our way into the technologically magical, culturally diverse and artistically magnificent race we are and still get people to buy the idiotic idea that half of us are inferior, we’re pretty amazing. Let our next sleight of hand be to make that myth disappear.” I agree on this point and am all for the eradication of erroneous theorems and clueless posturing, and males being dangerous to females based on their fault of being born with gender specific sexual organs is one of them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From v
Thursday, July 26, 2007, 07:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think it's as simple as saying that only weak women feel weak. No one is all weak or all strong, IMO. We all have some of each in us, and a range of states between. What I mean when I say that I feel weak is usually that my more emotional, vulnerable side is the more predominant one at that time. I'd venture to say that many strong women feel weak. Particularly if they have somehow come to associate emotionality and vulnerability with weakness, when in fact one can certainly allow oneself to be vulnerable and still possess great strength of character. As I've found emotional resources within myself and thereby become stronger, I find that I am more generous in regards to my vulnerabilities. They don't take away from my strength anymore. I think that the question (for me, anyway) is, why associate emotion with weakness and inferiority? It seems almost an automatic designation.
Apropos weakness, here's a quote I read recently that definitely resonated with me:
Find your true weakness and surrender to it. Therein lies the path to genius. Most people spend their lives using their strengths to overcome or cover up their weaknesses. Those few who use their strengths to incorporate their weaknesses, who don't divide themselves, those people are very rare. In any generation there are a few and they lead their generation.
- Moshe Feldenkrais
(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Thursday, July 26, 2007, 08:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not sure I understood the quotation, but it sounds like a nice mantra to live by. Say my back is hurting as I have weak stomach muscles, according to Feldenkrais I should surrender to the weakness and stay in bed for the pain. Genius indeed! I always thought it would be better to oppose the weakness and strengthen the weak muscles so that I can move about freely. Gees, I guess I know where I was going wrong. I'm sure the quotation is deeper than that, but that is all I understood from it.
Of course no one is all weak or all strong, most people are stronger at some things and weaker at others, but if you feel all the time, you probably are weak. If you weak on occasion, you are probably weaker on those occasions than you normally are.
I take it that you are saying that many physically strong women feel emotionally weak, I don't disagree. Being strong physically does not mean that one will necessarily be strong emotionally.
Vulnerabilities are weaknesses. I don't understand how vulnerabilities would make you stronger.
I associate emotion with weakness as I think it shows a lack of self control. Control, to me, shows strength. Allowing circumstances to affect ones mood, gives control to those circumstances. (reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Thursday, July 19, 2007, 02:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wouldn't say that women as a collective 'constantly' feel inferior or weaker. I don't feel inferior simply by way of being female. I've also determined that I'm not as weak as I once thought I was. The pressure to always be giving more, hmmm, there is a temptation to fall into that pattern, but all in all I'd say I'm pretty comfortable with being selfish and thinking about myself and my children first. Assertiveness, not really a problem for me either. As for wantonness, well that one is more complicated. There are several issues that collaborate to stop me displaying the kind of behaviour that I am perhaps inclined to engage in, one of them being the knowledge that while in an ideal world my own views would actually count for something, in fact what *other people* think has much more of an effect on how I am perceived than my own principles. I don't exist as an independent party, in many ways I am what people think I am, and, at least in part, a product of the perceptions others form of me. This means that unless i am willing to completely buck the trend and fight constantly for the right to 'be who I want to be', there has to be some compromise. As it happens right now there are other things that are more important to me than 'changing the world' and I have to concentrate on those.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Thursday, July 19, 2007, 05:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
On a related note, the other day i said to someone (is it telling that it was a man I was addressing rather than a woman? perhaps...) that I am 'too much a woman' (referring derogatorily to my sometime-tendency toward extreme emotionalism). This, I think, is a good example of how one's world view is subtly shaped by the language one uses to frame one's thoughts, and vice versa. What I actually meant, of course, is that I am too much *myself*. However it was almost an automatic reaction to frame it in such a way that it became derogatory of the state of womanhood (emotionalism -->weakness-->inferiority), rather than simply a criticism of a state of being, which really is more accurate. Perhaps there should be less emphasis on masculinity/femininity (and the underlying insinuations of superiority/inferiority) since neither of those are absolute states anyway. I *really* like the idea of the centred self being non-gendered, and can relate to that concept.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, July 19, 2007, 18:51
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I don't do poetry often, but it helped me to express myself tonight. So here you go.
Feelings
Feelings, Emotions,
longing to come out,
into the open.
Noone will understand them,
until I learn to understand myself,
and that's just how it is.
No guilt, no shame,
it's perfectly okay,
to cry if I feel like it.
The feelings of my heart,
are expressed today,
in rich black ink.
My emotions rage,
uncontrollably,
Fear, Safety, Laughter, and Tears
How can this be?
No one will know them,
unless I choose to show them,
and that makes me feel safe.
No guilt, no shame,
it's perfectly okay,
to cry if I feel like it.
There are those who care,
and my burden have tried to share,
but right now I must carry it on my own,
alone.
No guilt, no shame,
it's perfectly okay,
to cry if I feel like it.
But now that my thoughts are all here,
no more crying, no more tears,
I feel so much better.
No guilt, no shame,
it's perfectly okay,
to cry if I feel like it.
But I no longer do!
I feel so much better!
The tears have served their purpose,
and they fade away.
July 19, 2007.
Maybe it would help I wrote more poetry.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, July 19, 2007, 13:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree completely, vix. Emotionalism does not equal weakness or inferiority. It's a part of who you ( and I ) are. And of course we all have our weaknesses, so just because we have weaknesses doesn't make us inferior to other people. I agree with you on the insinuation of superiority/inferiority being related to gender. Once women are given a chance to prove what they are capable of, the insinuations no longer make any sense.
Thank you for this comment vix, you don't know how much you helped me with it. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from fragiletiger
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 05:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was and I still am amazed by the emotional responses that this subject raised. I also found it interesting, that most of the people who where in that discussion, weren’t really responding to what was said, but seemed to be hearing their own collection of voice’s in their heads. It was a truly amazing look at peoples minds and sub-conscious, as a few of them have expressed here the held views that where emotional reactions rather then actual thought out views.
Something I found very interesting was that, the women in the group by in large, emotional response even if they don’t logically think it that all men where capable of rape. I wonder if this is purely a physical thing, men are stronger; therefore women are more aware that they can be overpowered at any time.
I didn’t start this discussion, with any real thought either way, but Conan heard me say something completely different to what I meant, and he reacted very strongly. Again it was so interesting to see a male’s perspective.
They should include our chat room in psychology courses; they are some of the most interesting looks into human reactions I’ve ever heard.
(reply to this comment)
| From sar
Thursday, July 26, 2007, 07:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
"men are stronger; therefore women are more aware that they can be overpowered at any time". I believe you meant, "some men are stronger than some women; therefore...". I personally believe strength comes down to size and fitness levels rather than gender. Size may be related to gender (women do tend to be shorter than men of the same race) but it is one step removed. Strength is more directly related to size than to gender.
When it comes to fighting, skill may be worth more than strength.
From my personal experience, I haven't found that strong people are necessarily less afraid than weaker people. I think it has more to do with confidence, exposure, and experiences.
Fear is, of course, an emotion. It could be that, as many women allow their emotions to go unchecked (being that emotional instability is often considered typical of femininity - along with weakness, dependence, etc.,) they allow their fear to do go unchecked and thus may be more afraid.
I know this is slightly off topic, but I didn't want to let that comment go unchallenged.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from exister
Monday, July 16, 2007 - 13:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I feel like a real man when I give myself a good wank and then have a snack. Hey, women are fun, but I never saw any point in making my manhood dependent on them. Why would someone seek out and create dependencies that are contingent upon others? Mostly because they are already weak, that's why. Canines are very enlightening in this sense. They instinctively know that a pack leader who is constantly overtly aggressive is actually weak and feels threatened. This is why violence is such an ineffective way to deal with dogs or children or any other living thing.
(reply to this comment)
| From and not only, but also
Monday, July 16, 2007, 22:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Violence with the weaker is not only ineffective, but an absurdity, a monstruosity. Why, WHY would force EVER make any kind of sense with a weaker being? NO wonder so many grow up to feel entitled to prey on others when they can, when the adults around them deployed physical force and other violence: unneccessary, irrational, contrary to any kind of natural morality or ethics.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from vix
Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh my rainy, expansive subject. I've done a lot of thinking since that discussion too. It is extremely difficult to sort out one's unconscious attitudes since one harbours them without being fully aware of it. It's only when I stop to dissect my automatic reactions and statements that I realise that sometimes my views (on a deeper more primal level) are actually quite different from the more progressive positions I generally espouse. However I think there is also a danger of being too hard on oneself in respect of some of these attitudes. Some of them are deeply entrenched and have become part of the fabric that makes each of us who we are. While it is always, always helpful to explore oneself and challenge one's thinking, there is also room for acknowledgement, I think, that it is part of the human condition to maintain some prejudice, some bias, some of any number of -isms. What matters most is how we live our daily lives and what patterns emerge in our dealings with those we intimately share our lives with. Hmmm I've not said anything about masculinity. Sorry. Will try to make some comment later centred on attitudes to sex and sexuality and the roles of dominant/submissive (in the context of masculinity and femininity) because it's something I've been thinking about lately, but I can't guarantee it'll make much sense, or even that I'll get around to it. In any case, GREAT topic and I'll be interested to see what comes up from others.
(reply to this comment)
| from conan
Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Feminism to me was always the notion of gender/sexual equality; the sameness of men and women and women’s rights to equal those of their male counterparts who had usurped the balance to the point that it influenced language, cultural policy, and societal prejudices. I’ve considered myself to be a feminist for years and have always objected to chauvinistic stereotypes or habits. I was shocked to find that many female feminists find feminism to be the doctrine that women are superior to men mentally and have made it their goal to put down men and belittle, ridicule, torment and antagonize their ‘oppressive’ male counterparts.
The notion that all men are serial rapists waiting to happen is one that I take offense to. I don’t find myself strongly resisting the urge to assault or attack women on an empty, poorly lit street. I don’t find myself acting out rape fantasies during my sexual escapades with my female companions, nor do I attempt to violently force myself on anyone. I find the notion of any of those acts to be disgusting, socially obtuse, offensive, and detrimental to society’s ability to progress. It’s the same with ‘gay bashing’. How calling someone else a ‘faggot’ or ‘queer’ or implying that anything gay is inferior or weaker, is in addition to being appalling, is ignorant, backward, and pathetic.
The above dogma are not in my opinion feminist, but are incendiary assumptions based on flawed, backward logic and have no place in a society where women aspire to achieve and maintain the rightful impartiality they should be accorded. The propagation of these concepts can only cause setbacks to the endeavor of egalitarianism throughout civilization.
Masculism was originated as the answer to feminist ‘anti-male’ sentiment at the beginning of the 20th century. Since, it has become the male answer to feminist led movements or issues such as ‘single fathers’ or issues as commonplace as custodial disputes. The idea that the mother should automatically be awarded custody during a divorce proceeding or that the father of a child is always responsible for child support monies is one that masculanist groups aspire today to negate, neutralize, or at least to equalize. Other socialistic assumptions that arose from ‘feminism’ which are being combated by masculist groups include ‘domestic violence’ as always male on female violence as opposed to both ways or statutory rape laws where the harshest punishments come when the ‘victim’ is female or even the practice of circumcision being accepted in today’s society as normal where the clitoral circumcision of indigenous peoples is viewed as barbaric and inhumane.
These are clearly the more liberal masculistic policies and there are many who view both liberal masuclists and feminists as groups who attempt to correct social disadvantages caused by gender. Personally, that is how I view masculist movements and I genuinely believe that these rights are as important for men and women and don’t see masculinity as a gender alienator nor as a perpetuator of unconstitutional gender discrimination. I think that in order for the feminist movements to fully thrive, masculist movements must be given the same voice on equally oppressive customs, which have cropped up in society as a result of pandering to the female supremacist cause, especially at the detriment of fathers in custody and monetary cases involving children or divorce.
This of course is all under the assumption that women be given the equal chance at success in society as a man. The aim of feminism, as that of equality, is one that both genders should embrace and pursue without trying to counteract or check the other. However, the hypothesis that men are more prone to act on their preternatural aggressive disposition due to testosterone can be just as detrimental to an equality-based utopia as that of male chauvinism or superiority toward women. The presupposition that men will rape on impulse because we have dicks and semen but don’t because of societal boundaries and/or restrictions is antagonistic and hostile and can only hurt the cause of a true feminist who desires to be given a genuinely equal standing in society, a domestic partnership, business venture, civil or criminal proceeding, child rearing/custody related conflict, etc., and not one that while claiming equality, realistically seeks to empower women at the expense of men.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From vix
Monday, July 16, 2007, 10:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Great comment, conan.
"Feminism to me was always the notion of gender/sexual equality; the sameness of men and women and women’s rights to equal those of their male counterparts who had usurped the balance to the point that it influenced language, cultural policy, and societal prejudices. I’ve considered myself to be a feminist for years and have always objected to chauvinistic stereotypes or habits. I was shocked to find that many female feminists find feminism to be the doctrine that women are superior to men mentally and have made it their goal to put down men and belittle, ridicule, torment and antagonize their ‘oppressive’ male counterparts.
The notion that all men are serial rapists waiting to happen is one that I take offense to. I don’t find myself strongly resisting the urge to assault or attack women on an empty, poorly lit street. I don’t find myself acting out rape fantasies during my sexual escapades with my female companions, nor do I attempt to violently force myself on anyone. I find the notion of any of those acts to be disgusting, socially obtuse, offensive, and detrimental to society’s ability to progress. It’s the same with ‘gay bashing’. How calling someone else a ‘faggot’ or ‘queer’ or implying that anything gay is inferior or weaker, is in addition to being appalling, is ignorant, backward, and pathetic.
The above dogma are not in my opinion feminist, but are incendiary assumptions based on flawed, backward logic and have no place in a society where women aspire to achieve and maintain the rightful impartiality they should be accorded. The propagation of these concepts can only cause setbacks to the endeavor of egalitarianism throughout civilization."
I absolutely agree with everything you said above. I hope you can accept that I can hold the those same views and still have found myself agreeing (albeit prematurely, and I've already told you that I disagreed with the direction that the discussion took after I hesitantly had agreed to one small part of it) that there is a biological basis to the tendency to aggression and physical strength. It probably also has to do with a tendency to hold two quite different opinions on most everything that it is possible to politicise and theorise about - an academic one, which is usually more stringent and makes less room for variations in human nature, and a more realistic one. The former is the mindframe I usually try to employ whilst engaged in discussion, but of course there is a lot of overlap and sometimes it's very hard to find the line where one becomes the other.
I was thinking just today that many aspects of life that I haphazardly file under the label of 'feminism' are not really to do with feminism at all. I file it there because for me so many things tie in with my identity as a woman and I end up taking shortcuts a lot of the time. I suppose one could argue that there are links from feminism to any subject that is relevant to humanity. Sorry this is really muddled because I am hurrying (am supposed to be cooking dinner) but hopefully I haven't made too much of a mess of it. I don't even really know what I am saying, maybe someone can figure it out and tell me? TIA
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Monday, July 16, 2007, 13:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Speaking of people who file the wrong things under feminism, on my other forum, this guy asks, "How often do you exercise?" Then as an addition to his question, says: "And I don't want to hear any whining from you women that you're too busy with your housework or that I should include it as exercise" I of course, point out that his comments are sexist. He says they're not, he's just stating the facts. A woman chimes in: "Your comments are very sexist. Why shouldn't we women be able to count our housework as exercise?" ...! I know shaking the monitor doesn't help, but...Groan! (reply to this comment) |
| | From v
Wednesday, July 25, 2007, 04:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think I've organised my personal interaction with feminism into three quite distinct, but naturally also closely related, categories: Ethical feminism (which is really nothing more than 'equalism' as we all should be aware of by now), which deals with the way things are set up as far as women's rights, empowerment and equality and how things should reasonably be expected to be in the 'real world'. Philosophical (or could be called personal, I guess) feminism, which deals mainly with myself and my intimate relationships and involves my efforts to discover where my personal boundaries lie and also includes my attempts at negotiating compromise without betraying my integrity and self-respect. This kind of feminism is really only rightly labeled so by virtue of being centred around my identity as a woman. And finally, academic (or could be called philosophical) feminism which comprises a more theoretical and sociological approach. This might include discussions such as the ones we've had about seats on buses (oh my!), those advertising images, or on the use of 'cunt', 'bitch', 'pussy' and other such terms.
I think that my views and opinions on any given issue might be slightly different according to what overall type of feminism I am most concerned with at that time. What do you think, does that make sense to you?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from AndyH
Monday, July 16, 2007 - 07:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can appreciate where you were coming from from a scientific perspective, but overcoming these social and biological predispositions is what progress is all about.
Someone recently challenged me to not use patriarchal language. I agreed as I didn't think I used any, but it really made me realize how much it's part of language and society. I think the things we say are a good start, because it is with language that it is perpetuated.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]