(Note: Comments on this post on “Alas” are open to self-identified feminists. Comments on this post on “TADA” are open to everyone.)
Feminist critic Cathy Young, in the comments of her blog, wrote:
I really can’t think of anything that would kill the moment (at least, for a lot of people) more than stopping in the middle of the mating dance for a clear and rational “consent” discussion.
Feminist and occasional “Alas” guest poster Clarisse Thorn wrote:
Consider the following example: during my last vacation to America, I had an S&M encounter with a dude I’ll refer to as Klark. (It’s not my fault. He requested the pseudonym.) At one point, Klark was experimenting with hurting me, and I had my eyes closed and was whimpering / crying out in a totally glorious way. (The poor overnight desk clerk. He was only one short flight of stairs away from us.) I think Klark was legitimately having trouble detecting whether I was enjoying myself, though — understandably, because we had only just met, and I enjoy sinking myself into dramatic masochistic misery — so he leaned over me and said, in a low dark voice, “Red, yellow, green.” Immediately, I gasped back “Green”. Because he spoke in a gritty and dominant voice, and the check-in was quick, we were able to maintain the mood — and it was actually kind of hot in itself. [...]
If you aren’t sure how to read your partner’s reactions and you suspect ze may be uncomfortable with what you are doing, then you might consider checking in even if ze hasn’t safeworded, because your suspicion may be right. [...]
So anyway, the biggest moral of the story with safewords and check-ins is that consent does not only happen once. Consent is always happening, and can always be renegotiated or withdrawn. Adapting my understanding of sexuality to reflect this — even in my non-BDSM sex — might have been the best thing that ever happened to my sex life.
Clarisse’s example comes from BDSM, but her point is that the principles she’s learned in BDSM — including how to good communication helps keep sex hot — are applicable to all kinds of sex, including “vanilla” sex.
Okay, now let’s imagine that Alas University offers two sex-ed classes for first-year students. Class “A” teaches how to have sex based on Cathy’s principle — checking for consent during sex kills the moment. Class “B” teaches based on Clarisse’s principle — checking for consent helps keep sex hot. Randomly assign 50% of students to class “A,” and 50% to class “B.” Check back in a year and survey the students and their sexual partners.1
I’d bet a lot of money that the folks in class “B” — and their partners — wind up having hotter, better sex lives.
There’s a myth that communicating about sex ruins sex; and that by emphasizing consent, feminists are in effect opposed to hot sex. I don’t think either myth is true.
- It’s possible that at some point, the University’s committee on the ethical treatment of human subjects will object to your planned study. The solution to this is to have everyone on the committee shot.
97 Comments
I’m sorry but while I can agree with the purpose of your questioning (examining different viewpoints on consent and how asking for it affects consent) I think your framing is one sided and unfair.
Now if you were asking if one would rather learn about sex from Cathy Young or Clarisse Thorn (which I think would have been more precise and appropriate wording) then I would definitely say Clarisse. However its not like their views can just be single handedly attributed to their placing on the feminist scale as you have done here.
And your framing in this question seems to be a try at pushing the myth that being a feminist critic means a willingness to forgo consent discussion for the sake of hot sex. Which I don’t think is true.
@Danny:
While I am certainly pro-feminism, I do think you’re correct in your points.
Particularly, I cannot imagine anyone that wouldn’t want to learn about sex from Clarisse Thorn. And given her involvement in BDSM, and the rather vocal criticism BDSM gets in many feminist circles… I certainly don’t think she’s a typical “mainstream” feminist, if there is such a thing.
So yeah, I would love to learn about sex from Clarisse, but that doesn’t broaden to “love to learn sex from a feminist” in general. And I’m sure there are feminist critics with similar views on sex as Clarisse (probably a lot of them are into BDSM).
Is Clarissa a feminist or a feminist critic? She seems to some key beliefs in common with the latter group. This from her blog, for example,
is a belief held by the bloggers (and most of the commenters, I have no doubt) at ‘Feminist Critics’, and it’s a belief which distinguishes Clarissa from a good many online feminists.
By the way, both Clarissa and Cathy seem to be describing things as they are in their experience (Clarissa loves it when a man asks for her consent, Cathy finds it a turn-off). There’s no element of prescription in either, is there? Neither of them is teaching, ‘this is how sex should be’, each is only testifying as to matters of fact, and as such they are unassailable – who, after all, is going to tell them that they are wrong about their own experiences?
I think what folks may be missing is that, as far as I read it, the conflict here may not be between “Feminist Critics” and “Feminists” as much as between “this idea that is characteristically feminist” and “this idea that is traditionally the domain of non- or anti-feminists.”
And in choosing between “don’t check in for consent” and “check in for consent,” I think it’s clear that the first is a better mode.
—Myca
Perhaps Myca but considering that it was actually worded as “feminist or feminist critic” I can’t blame anyone for being put off. However I can see where you’re coming from. Its just that I’ve seen in the past where people try to frame up feminism as the default moral position and to not be feminist is to be automatically be wrong, immoral, etc…
If I’m not mistaken Tom, Clarissa herself identifies as feminist despite what criticisms she may have about the movement.
Well yes, Danny, but so does ballgame.
Tom Nolan, I’m not sure that quote would be an accurate description of what the bloggers and commenters at “Feminist Critics” believe. Clarisse does acknowledge that both men and women suffer and benefit in different ways, but posits this as a direct result of patriarchy. I don’t know if this is true for all of them, but a number of posters on “Feminist Critics” don’t even accept that a system of patriarchy currently exists in the West.
I also think both Clarisse and Cathy go a bit further than simply describing their own personal experiences. The larger discussion at hand is about lines of consent, which is important on a level far beyond what turns a specific person on.
You are quite right in this respect, Chris: the word ‘Patriarchy’ is a shibboleth, and most of the regular commenters at Feminist Critics would feel uncomfortable about using it any but an ironic way. But I don’t think that this implies any substantive disagreement between them and Clarissa. She does presents the ‘patriarchal system’ (as opposed to ‘men’ and ‘society’) as responsible for a lot of the ills suffered by members of both sexes, but what she means by the ‘patriarchal system’, surely, is the sexually discriminative attitudes and actions of a great many of society’s members. I’m quite sure that very few FC commenters would disagree with such a proposition.
Or do you think she means something else by the ‘patriarchal system’?
Chris:
Okay before going down the rabbit hole talking about whether or not we think it exists or not how are you using the word patriarchy? From what I’ve seen its defined as a system that benefits men. And frankly I think that is far too broad of a definition when you take into account the many ways that this system harms men (and just chiming of “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” is nowhere near enough to address said harm).
I think the difference, or at least a way I’ve heard it explained that has always made a lot of sense to me, is that though both men and women are punished for violating their gender norms, women are also punished for adhering to their gender norms, while men who perform their gender well generally receive fairly strong social benefits.
—Myca
Tom Nolan, while you are correct that I do appreciate many feminist critic arguments, I think you have me confused with someone else. My name is Clarisse, not Clarissa. And the quotation you give in comment #3 is not from me.
Although I have written rather a lot about manliness and patriarchy and such, my feelings on how to phrase and frame those issues (both tactically and ideologically) have changed a lot, especially with the conversations I’ve had since publishing my first thoughts (warning: that post has over 1000 comments).
Just in case the reason my previous comment is held for moderation is because it contains links:
Tom Nolan — I’m Clarisse, not Clarissa. I think you have me confused with someone else. Longer comment coming soon.
The reason the comment was held is that all comments by a first-time comment-writer are held until I approve them (and since this blog is brand-new, everyone’s a first-time comment writer!). From now on, however, your comments should appear without delay.
This seems over simplistic.
It’s not hard to find feminists who favor use of the term patriarchy who offer a much more nuanced and complex definition than “a system that benefits men.” For instance, here and here.
It’s also not hard to find feminists who criticize the term patriarchy, such as here. (I pretty much agree with that last post, but I think the definition of patriarchy cited there is oversimplistic and a bit of a strawfeminist).
Now I feel a fool.
Clarisse, I’m so sorry for making that mistake. But I am still very much looking forward to further comments from you.!
‘Clarissa’, I meant.
Thanks Tom … though from your comments I’m still not sure you know my name.
Honestly though, I don’t have much to add. I get out most of my thoughts on masculinity through my own giant masculinity thread, which started in 2009 and is still continuing with a small and interesting group of commenters. I agree that patriarchy is a problematic term to use, but that’s more because I think it arouses volatile reactions than anything else. And I do characterize myself as a feminist, though I don’t have much in common with (say) anti-porn feminists or anti-BDSM feminists.
From what I’ve seen its defined as a system that benefits men.
I would say that patriarchy is not a system that necessarily benefits men but rather one that gives men power, exclusively or preferentially. This may or may not be to the benefit of men overall or to a specific man in a given circumstance and indeed having power has definite downsides. But it is probably, on average, a better position to be in than the opposite side.
So, yes, patriarchy hurts men. Racism hurts whites, heternomrativity hurts straights, gender essentialism hurts cis-gendered people, English only laws hurt English speakers, aristocracy hurts aristocrats, dictatorship hurts dictators, and so on. But in each of these cases, as in patriarchy, the main victims, the people who take the worst damage, are the people who are not in power: the women, minorities, GLB, transsexuals, non-English speakers, peasants, subjects, etc. And when you’re in one of the powerless (relatively or absolutely) groups, it gets annoying to hear people in the powerful group talking about how horribly damaged they are by the power differential. Some discussion, yes, but to the exclusion of discussion of the ways oppression hurts the oppressed group? No.
I would also define patriarchy as the system that gives men greater power than women. Although this too may be an oversimplification.
Dianne
Is it a system at all?
Certainly there are attitudes abroad which tend to strongly link people’s sex to the role they should play in life, attitudes which are promoted widely and engergetically. But they face stiff opposition from a lot of contrary attitudes which are likewise widespread. Neither the old-fashioned view about the importance of the sexes, nor the new-fangled attitude about the essential irrelevance of the sexes to many social activities, can legitimately be identified with society as a whole. We do not, that is, live in a patriarchal or a feminist society, but one in which these two opposites contend – and they form only one in an innumerable series of oppositional pairs.
If our society were really a patriarchy as you have defined it: a system intended to give men power and keep women powerless – would women ever have been granted the franchise by all-male parliaments representing all-male electorates? In order for that to have happened large numbers of men must have considered the retention and perpetuation of exclusively male power to be of little importance.
Or am I missing something?
Dianne:
And that is where the oversimplification comes from that I speak of. Despite having to meet a certain set of conditions to get the supposed benefits of being male simply being male is enough to get lumped in with “the powerful group”. And speaking of being annoyed I’m no trying to compare annoyances but I myself find it annoying when people trying to speak on my life when all they have to go on is that I’m male. And no one said anything about excluding the way oppression hurts others (whether they are oppressed or not). I don’t expect anyone else to suffer in silence or be limited to speaking when others say its okay so why should I?
Dammit no more “edit comment” timer.
Myca:
Is it really a benefit “act like a man”? Just the gender roles that women are expected to fill the roles for men are a tight little box meant to limit men’s perception of what is okay and what is not.
But no I’m not trying to argue over who has it worse because even if you could answer that you stand a chance of taking that conclusion to heart and think that ALL problems can be solved by only thinking about that group to the exclusion of others. I just don’t think there has been enough of a look at what its like to live the life of a man.
No, I think you’re missing my argument.
I’m not arguing that the gender roles are less restrictive for men, just that men who do successfully fit their gender roles end up with more social power, while men who rebel against their gender roles, and women, whether they conform to their gender roles or not, end up with less.
—Myca
Tom Nolan asks Dianne a question about the vote.
I’ve never seen a self-professed feminist even attempt to answer this question. Now in Sparta, it’s true they needed the women to be able to tend to the home and polity as so many men were needed for war. So they educated women and gave them the vote. But at the time women in most of the anglo world gained the vote (and remember certain states in the US had been letting women vote for nearly 100 years by this time so it’s not a simple straight line progression ) women weren’t needed in the work force, and the world was not at war. So I’m trying to figure out how a bunch of men who presumably don’t consider women as people and want to hold on to male power were convinced it was a good idea to give the ladies the vote.
Now I could think of a potentially sexist reason for this: they put women on such pedestals and assumed women would vote either as well as men or better and more wisely than men. Surely they didn’t think women would vote disastrously. But then if they gave women the vote because they pedestalized them, I find it hard to see this as any kind of sexism that mostly affects women rather than men. I also fail to see how a patriarchy that allowed it’s presumably inferior breeders (imagining a patriarchal bit of sexism, please indulge me) to vote was any kind of useful patriarchy at all.
Indeed, that’s why the “patriarchy” concept is a rather laughable one. And people who claim that being a man under a patriarchy was a better deal than being a women tend to equate all men with the very few top men and farther tend to assert that the “top men” always work to empower their fellow men of whatever class at the expense of all women. In fact things like the vote , rape shield laws, conscription, etc, tend to show the opposite.
Heh… yay for screwing up blockquotes. I seem to be doing that a lot lately.
Only the first line in my previous post is quoted.
Definitely. I do agree there. Although I would posit that women who try to conform to the male gender roles to some degree also end up with more power.
I do think there is a strong thread of truth to that, but I don’t agree completely. I think even when conforming, men suffer a good deal of harm. Although “punished” is not the right word, sure.
Also, I think that intersectionality between maleness and other things can cause unique and substantial issues. This is talked about a lot with respect to black men. But I haven’t seen it discussed much with respect to other things. For example, I can’t help but recall the male friends I’ve had who suffer from depression. When combined with ideas that they should be able to “take it” or handle it on their own because they’re a guy, that can be extremely destructive.
Lastly, something I would posit is that being restricted by your gender role can be harmful in itself even if you are conforming, especially if it’s a role that doesn’t fit you or feel right to you in some way. So even if what you say is 100% true without qualification, I still see harm even to many men that conform to their role.
Cessen (Reordered for the purpose of reply):
Me too.
I think there’s an argument to be made that racism makes society a worse place for everyone. With perhaps a vanishing number of exceptions, in the West, racism never puts a white person at a disadvantage compared with an otherwise similarly situated POC. But racism puts white people at a disadvantage compared with their situation in an otherwise similar hypothetical world with no racism.
If I could edit my comment, I’d add: Ditto heterosexuality, cis gender, etc.
I wanted to address Clarence & Tom Nolan’s argument asking, essentially, “if the patriarchy is real, how come women ever got the vote, huh?”
The existence of the patriarchy as a real thing does not presume that it is the only real thing. Human still have reason, morality, conscience, shame, and a sense of what’s fair and unfair. It is these that the suffragettes appealed to in trying to get the vote, and it worked … but even in such a clear-cut, obvious case of irrational indefensible discrimination, it still took more than a century.
It’s not impossible to beat the patriarchy … otherwise, why would people like Me, Amp, Mandolin, etc., be bothering? The patriarchy is totally beatable. It’s just also real.
—Myca
Myca:
You missed the point entirely.
If the legislators willingly granted women the vote without being forced that makes a pretty good argument right there that they weren’t “patriarchal” legislators in the sense that feminism tends to use that term. Think about it this way:
A. From a personal standpoint if they are sexist patriarchs they are not going to want to give up any power to people they consider inferior.
B. From a political standpoint if they lived in a patriarchy – that is, if men as a sexual class were represented truly in all the laws and practices and benefited thereof and were “the reason” or the “celebrities” of the society – then they would face huge voter backlash at the polls if they gave women the vote and would all lose their seats and probably womens suffrage would be repealed post-haste because the newly empowered women voters didn’t yet (as you would admit I’m sure) have enough feminist consciousness to vote solely based on sexual ideology. In short, I’m saying that if the majority of males in this alleged patriarchy were opposed to this measure it never would have passed. Which means that this wasn’t a patriarchy in the first place.
Basically, Myca, you give the all male legislators moral credit for what they did, yet still insist that somehow because patriarchy exists keeping women down was somehow the reason or more likely part of the reason (articulated or not in the institutions, traditions and laws as well as male and female consciousness) for their jobs in the first place.
I’ll give you credit for being the first self-professed feminist to give an answer to the question that I’ve ever seen, and I farther give you props for allowing that maybe the male legislators had some concepts of fairness and decency and acted on them instead of arguing – as I expected you to- that it was all some sort of sexual or sexist self interest on their parts. Of course I think your explanation unsatisfactory in terms of “patriarchal” theory. Indeed, such happenings would tend to imply that kyriarchy might be a more useful concept for most of human relations or perhaps that all societies have elements of both “male” and “female” influences in them, but of course I don’t think you will want to do that. That might implicate women in terms of not only oppressing women at times, but also mean at times, and if that happens very often it throws the whole idea of sexism as a one way street out the window.
As someone who is cis, heterosexual, white and male, I really disagree with the latter point. I don’t think I have ever been hurt in any substantial way due to being white, cis, heterosexual, etc.
Really? Maybe you haven’t. But what about the white guy in Loving vs Virginia? He was nearly arrested because he fell in love with and married a person of the wrong race. Did racism never hurt him? Or Ernest Just’s wife? Or any number of men and women who were unable to marry or have open relationships because their love interests were the wrong race.
To give a more theoretical example, consider the US if the Civil Rights Act hadn’t passed. Obama, of course, would not be president, meaning (among other things) that the numerous white people he has allowed to get insurance and therefore better medical care would be out of luck. You couldn’t watch Neil Tyson de Grasse explain astronomy. In short, an enormous amount of talent, ability, and drive would be wasted or used inefficiently. And that hurts everyone.
My last sention – change “mean” to “men”.
Argh. I wish there was a way to edit these comments. That last post just looks UGLY. What I meant was my last sentence – change the “mean” to “men” in your head and you’ll get what I was trying to say.
Ahh the old white man shibbeloth.
As a poor and lower middle class white guy at various points in my life including now, I’d sure like to know why people seem to think that affirmative action should be at my expense. I had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow, both of these things were legislated out of existence before I was born. Heck, for the people that suffered Jim Crow and are still alive, I’m even for reparations. But then most of these much older people aren’t competing directly with me for government and lower level corporate/blue collar jobs.
I commonly see the “male privileges” checklists on here and other feminist sites, and typically maybe two to three items on them apply to me – at some times and situations never all the time. In short, the vast majority of the lists seem to presume that one is a middle -middle or upper middle or above class white male. They also tend to assume I’ve attended 4 years or more of college rather than 2, that I have at least average to above average looks, that I’m some sort of middle manager or professional , etc. And even when making those assumptions they never talk about any disadvantages to those assumptions. I can assure you that many a male sexist pig manager wonders how he can be living in a patriarchy when he practically has to kiss butt to human resources when things concern the “fairer” sex, but I digress.
Point is, he doesn’t care about me, doesn’t answer to me, probably doesn’t even think about me unless he is my direct manager. And there’s at least 40 million other “invisible” white guys (invisible because we aren’t very successful) just like me who supposedly inherit a wonderful patriarchal and racist society where everything is to our advantage. Well it would be wonderful if it was true, and if I was that selfish.
In addition to these two possibilities is a third: Men to try to fit their gender roles, and fail. Since “powerful” is a male gender role, men who try to fit their gender role, and end up with less power fail by definition.
To which comment are you replying?
Fair enough. Although I feel like there is a subtle difference between that and being hurt specifically because you are white. But that’s probably a nit-pick.
With your Obama and healthcare bit, I feel like there is a big difference between that and getting hurt specifically because you are white (i.e. everyone is hurt by lack of health care reform). Getting hurt by racism and getting hurt due to your race are different things.
I have been hurt due to being male, but not due to being white/cis/hetero/etc. And I think that’s pretty typical.
I guess what I’m saying is that in my personal experience as someone fitting those criteria, “what about the menz?” often seems to have real merit to me (depending), but “what about the whitez/cisz/heteroz/etc.?” rarely do. Obviously that doesn’t mean it has to be discussed in feminist spaces, but I think dismissing it out of hand is misguided because it seems really intertwined with women’s issues. IMO many of the issues feminism tries to address will be difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to solve without also addressing the related issues that men have.
I should clarify that “what about the menz” comments on feminist blogs often do not themselves have merit. But there are other issues that do. And from time to time “what about the menz” comments, even when lacking merit directly, sometimes still point vaguely in the direction of things that do have merit.
Daran:
Cessen’s comment at 4:04 am.
He doesn’t feel he’s ever been oppressed by race. I’ve only run into downright anti-white racism twice in my life that I’m *sure* (probably more often, but unlike some I don’t go looking for examples of racial discrimination) of, but I’ve paid every day of my working life since age of majority a price for things done before I was born, and mostly done by rich or upper middle class white males. There are also certain majority black neighborhoods in Baltimore where it would not be safe for me to wonder after sundown due to safety concerns from both criminals and reverse racists.
There are also certain majority black neighborhoods in Baltimore where it would not be safe for me to wonder after sundown due to safety concerns from both criminals and reverse racists.
Though you’d probably be far safer than if you were a black person wandering around some all white areas. I’ve wandered around a number of predominantly black neighborhoods, including in Baltimore (though mostly during the day) without having any major problems. In contrast, a black friend in college couldn’t go to Cicero without getting the cops called on him. This was in the 1980s so maybe things have changed. I hope. But at least at the time, people in black neighborhoods were more willing to put up with random whites hanging around than vice versa.
The point being that while there are examples of ways racism hurts whites (and I’ve thought of a couple more since first posting), they are pretty trivial compared to the harm done to minorities. Even examples like “can’t walk through area X at night” generally end with an advantage to whites. Likewise, while sexism does sometimes hurt men, sorry boys, but you’re not by any means the major victims.
Clarence:
If you think feminists tend to use the term “patriarchy” only to define a system wherein women have no rights at all, you’re very wrong.
Neither of these points make sense.
A. assumes that sexism and patriarchy are absolutes, which is something I have never seen a feminist argue. The reality is that a person can be sexist and still believe that women should have the right to vote, just like a homophobe can be OK with gay sex being legalized, but against gay marriage. Just like Whoopi Goldberg can attest to being friends with Mel Gibson and say “I know he’s not a racist,” when he very clearly is. Patriarchy isn’t all or nothing. The idea that if a dominant group grants a minority group any rights at all, then the minority group is no longer oppressed is just silly.
B. is completely contradictory–first you say that women voters would have knocked the patriarchs out of power if they were so patriarchal, but then you say that women voters would have voted to take away their own rights to vote? I really don’t get what your argument is here.
Clarence, I agree that the definition of “patriarchy” you’re attacking seems unlikely to be used by many real-life feminists who actually favor the concept. You’re either attacking a strawfeminist, or if you actually have a specific feminist in mind (and if so, I’d appreciate seeing a direct quote and link), you’re cherry-picking for an extremely un-nuanced and unsophisticated view of patriarchy.
As an alternative to Clarence’s dubious definition of “patriarchy,” some academics (pdf link) usefully condensed Allan Johnson’s definition of patriarchy:
Johnson’s book “The Gender Knot” is frequently referred to by other feminists and taught in Women’s Studies classes, so I think it’s a reasonable (although not exclusive) example of how real-life feminists define “patriarchy.” (You can read a significantly less condensed version of Johnson’s definition of patriarchy here on google books.)
Clarence, in response to “Cessen’s comment at 4:04 am”
“white man” is indeed a shibboleth, but one which Cessen is actually avoiding.
The shibboleth usage is where whiteness and maleness are conflated, smuggling in the unstated assumption that the privilege dynamics of race are broadly analogous to those of gender. Cessen however distinguishes them.
Once, in my case, that I can recall.
That’s white privilege talking right there. If we don’t go looking for racism against us, by and large, we don’t find it. That isn’t the case the case for POC.
Sure, we all have. That’s the underlying truth behind the notion that racism hurts white people too. But the price you pay every day is small compared to the price POC pay.
What Dianne said. Also crime is predominantly intra-racial, so while you might have “safety concerns” about particular neighbourhoods, that doesn’t translate into the inescapable victimisation that the inhabitants of those neighbourhoods suffer. A ghetto pass is no match for the nationwide pass that you get.
Me:
What Dianne said, up to:
The word “Likewise” is an appeal to the Shibboleth. Gender does not work “likewise” to race.
This thread is a bit off topic by now. Back on the original topic or at least originalish, I’d say that Clarisse’s advise is sounder than Cathy’s regardless of their labels. But my feeling is that if something you’re doing to be safe during sex whether it be putting on birth control or asking your partner about his/her desires is taking away from the enjoyment of the moment you’re doing it wrong. If asking about whether your partner is ok about some act or situation ruins the mood ask about it before hand or find a way to fit it into the scenario (as Clarisse gave an example of above.) Also barrier protection should be viewed as a sex toy: have your partner put it on. Apologies to anyone who finds that a bit TMI.
Dianne:
I’ve already acknowledged that your point was well made about how white intolerance of black people can be expressed though the police or other state agents. Nevertheless I think there are a couple of problems with the way you’ve framed your point.
Firstly, you’re female, and thus are somewhat less likely than a man to be physically attacked in the street. Your black friend is male, and therefore a lot more likely to be subject to police attention than if he were black and female. What your friend would face in Cicero is both racist and sexist. It’s common, however, for feminists to erase the sexism in their framing of such matters.
Secondly, I think its inaccurate and prejudicial to frame this as what “people in black (or white) neighbourhoods were more willing to put up with”. It only takes one person to attack another in the street, directly or by calling the police. The overwhelming majority of those living in these areas will do neither of these things.
From Ampersand’s quote:
Surely this is too mealy mouthed for anybody reasonably to agree or disagree with. I mean, seriously, ideas about certain concepts are associated with ways of thinking about something?
Perhaps we could translate Johnson’s sentiment into a more positive statement? How about: ‘Our society regards qualities typically exhibited by men to be good, desirable and preferable.’ Is that a fair summary of what he means?
By male-dominated, Johnson means that “positions of authority are… generally reserved for men.”
It is indisputable that positions of political power in western society are largely occupied by men. It doesn’t follow at all that they are effectively reserved for men. Given that, for example, the people at the apex of political power in Germany and Australia are currently women, one can only conclude that positions of political power are not reserved for men in western society. Evidently there is no legal or official bar to women’s gaining power. And equally evidently there is no efficient informal bar to their gaining power either – because if there were such a bar what we know to have happened (Angela Merkel actually became Chancellor of Germany, Julia Gillard actually became Australian Prime Minister) would not have happened.
It’s like you guys don’t understand statistics, percentages, and outliers.
Right now we’ve got a black president! Does anyone think that that makes it less true that in general in America it’s white people who are in positions of power?
—Myca
PS. Clarence, Chris and Ampersand pretty much said what I would have said in response to you. The way you are using ‘patriarchy’ is not a way I am familiar with, or a way I have heard feminists use it.
Tom: No, that’s not even slightly a fair summary of what he means. It’s a set-up for you to say “well, I can name one example in which society doesn’t regard a quality as good, therefore the entire theory is nonsense.” It’s an oversimplification of something that was already a simplification.
In the real world, sexism is not an absolute. Just because one woman isn’t raped doesn’t mean rape isn’t a problem; just because a small number of women aren’t elected to important positions doesn’t prove that the system doesn’t exhibit a strong preference for men in power (as Johnson discussed in his book, by the way); just because the system tends to keep men in power doesn’t mean that 100% of men are in an active conspiracy to keep women down in all circumstances.
If you’re not willing to discuss feminist views with nuances included, then you’re not willing to have a discussion at all, as far as I’m concerned.
ETA: Also, what Myca said. :-p
Dianne:
Does the name Zach Sowers ring a bell to you?
http://www.zachsowers.com/news.php
And this wasn’t even in a mostly minority neighborhood.
I suppose I could bring up the stats about interracial crime, but why bother? When someone’s mind is made up, it’s made up.
Clarence, did Dianne claim that it never, ever happens that white people are mugged by black muggers? If she did, then your point is relevant. If she didn’t, then the problem is that you’re being very illogical in your arguments.
Everyone: Please take any further discussion of race and walking though neighborhoods to an open thread.
To riff off something Ampersand said:
What I find interesting here is that this gives me a lot more insight into the anti-feminist mindset. If this is what you think feminists are claiming, of course you’re opposed!
It’s like if I say I believe in equality, and you respond, “Oh, I could never believe in equality. That’s where white men are tortured to death with meathooks, don’t you know?” Well, Christ, yeah, if that’s what you think, it makes sense that you’re opposed to it, but you’re wrong, thankfully.
If an awful lot of feminists are telling you that this is not how they use or understand the term patriarchy and you’re unable to come up with concrete examples of feminists using in the way you seem to favor, maybe it’s time to accept that that’s not what we mean.
—Myca
Myca, the definition Ampersand quoted states that positions of power are largely reserved for men in a patriarchy. Two important western democracies, Germany and Australia, currently have women right at the top of the executive. To climb so high they must have successfully competed against male politicians on numerous occasions – beginning with their candidacy for a parliamentary seat, continuing with election to the chairmanship of committees, selection for cabinet posts etc., and culminating with contest for the highest office in the land. I repeat: any effective informal policy to exclude women from positions of power would have stopped them in their tracks long before they reached the premiership.
How did they manage it? According to the quoted definition (1) most positions of power are reserved for men (and that would apply a fortiori to the most powerful position of all, right?) and (2) there is a society-wide assumption that this ought to be the case. Women politicians, therefore, cannot rely on the party-system or parliamentary institutions to treat them fairly, nor can they appeal to the electorate at large.
Either the quoted definition of patriarchy is incorrect, or Australia and Germany aren’t patriarchies.
Chris:
If you think feminists tend to use the term “patriarchy” only to define a system wherein women have no rights at all, you’re very wrong.
No, patriarchy is used by feminists to refer to a system where always and everywhere women have fewer rights than men, and this is done deliberately by at least some men in order to benefit men as a sex or class or whatever you want to call it.
To your other points:
“A” assumes the word patriarchy has a meaning. Also, while all patriarchs are sexist, not all sexists are patriarchal. In terms of a patriarchal system giving women the vote for any reason other than absolute necessity (as was done in Sparta) is counterproductive, hurts men, and should be unthinkable.
“B” is not contradictory, it simply wasn’t well written, and its obvious you misunderstood it. Basically while I can think of “benevolent sexist” reasons for a bunch of men to give women the vote, I can’t think of any patriarchal ones. Patriarchy is all about men, women be dammed. Also the first few years that women possessed the vote a vast number of them, perhaps even a majority were against getting the vote. Combined with any significant male opposition to female political empowerment at the polls at all, the laws would have been overturned. There were no significant male efforts to get the franchise revoked from women. Thus, whatever you want to to call them, I don’t think it makes sense to call the majority of males in the USA at that time in the legislature or not, “patriarchal”.
Daran:
Once, in my case, that I can recall.
Well, at least you don’t throw in the old “institutional power” argument to pretend that black racism against whites can’t even exist.
That’s white privilege talking right there. If we don’t go looking for racism against us, by and large, we don’t find it. That isn’t the case the case for POC.
You live in Great Britain, right? How can you presume to speak for a lower class white male who lives in a minority dominated city in the USA?
On top of that, you misunderstood me: what I am trying to say is that I don’t assume that everything that could be construed as racist against me , is, in fact, racist against me. Right now there is a whole brouhaha about alleged sexism at the Daily Show, which is at this point simply counting heads and claiming a differential count means sexism! I do not assume that a differential count means anything about sexism or racism whether it is against me, or in my favor UNLESS I have farther information – such as, with the Daily Show, the number of applicants they receive, how people who currently work there feel, etc.
Sure, we all have. That’s the underlying truth behind the notion that racism hurts white people too. But the price you pay every day is small compared to the price POC pay.
Well, if you’d stuck to historical oppression up until the last 40 years, I’d have agreed with you. But as you’ve worded your contention there you’ve done nothing but import the noxious notion of “patriarchy hurts men to” but dress it up as anti-racism. Racism, whether anti black, anti white, or anti purple, hurts everyone and I would say that in terms of institutional barriers of a racist nature lower class white men have it the hardest today. I sincerely doubt, Daran, you will be able to find ANY formal barriers in terms of law to POC in either your country or mine, nor will you be able to find any beneficial governmental programs open only to people of my color, but not people of other colors. On the other hand, you can find at least a few which benefit everyone else and either exclude me or actively make my life harder.
Ahh, Myca:
Statistics, percentages, and outliers!
Oh, you mean those things that are absolutely meaningless when describing general female aptitude OR interest OR maybe both in certain subjects or in certain careers, but suddenly become meaningful when talking about women in terms of political representation or men when some man tries to bring up an area where females might have more power, privilege or whatever? It does work both ways.
Clarence, are you consciously trying to protect a tone of sneering sarcasm and contempt towards those who disagree with you?
Between that, and the constant referencing of arguments that no one on this thread has actually made, I’m thinking that you’re not a very good fit for the kind of conversations we’d like to see take place here. Thanks for your participation here, but I’d prefer that you not post comments on this blog anymore.
You know Amp..you are a real ass.
I see it’s ok if I’m sneered at, but not the other way.
Go fuck yourself. I’ll do my part to try to make sure any real participation in this blog is as limited as any real outside participation on Alas. You don’t deserve any better when you ban those you disagree with and import to them “tones” and shit you don’t import to your ideological butt buddies. Congrats on another failed blog.
Okay, I think of this as what we like to call a ‘teachable moment.’
Does anyone here think Clarence shouldn’t have been banned? Does his most recent comment change your opinion on that?
—Myca
AmpersandTom: No, that’s not even slightly a fair summary of what he means.
OK, we’re making progress. Johnson says that in a patriarchy:
You don’t think that the above boils down to ‘people equate the good with the masculine’, so what, in your opinion, does it actually mean to say that ‘ideas about what is considered good etc.’ are ‘associated’ in some way or other about ‘how people think’ about masculinity?
No, it’s not a set up. As Johnson’s statement stands it means virtually nothing at all. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with it, because it is phrased so imprecisely that there’s nothing for me to agree or disagree with. And if you tell me that all it means is that there are large numbers of people in society who regard what are traditionally seen as male qualities as more valuable than what are traditionally seen as female qualities, then Johnson and I would be in agreement. Is that all he’s saying? Let me assure you, I’m not setting you, or anybody else, up. I actually want to know what you think before agreeing or disagreeing with you.
Very true. Rape is an unmitigated evil. But we weren’t talking about whether it is a good or bad thing that so few women hold positions of political power, rather we were discussing why that happens.
Nor does the small number of women in positions of power of itself demonstrate that large numbers of women are being thwarted from acquiring such positions by patriarchal prejudices. I don’t doubt that are anti-female prejudices both amongst politicians and the electorate at large (just as there are exactly contrary sentiments amongst politicians and the electorate at large), but they are evidently not widespread enough or virulent enough to prevent women acquiring the highest political office in two significant western democracies.
Given that this is so, is it fair to make ‘patriarchy’ the hallmark of such societies?
I certainly agree that women are more substantially victimized. But the differential between being hurt due to being female/male is substantially smaller than the differential between, say, black/white, hetero/homosexual, cis/transexual, etc. And as a general rule (in my experience) is much more a “hurt due to being male” than “hurt indirectly by sexism in general” kind of thing, which is not the case with the other issues. And yet they are regularly conflated, as you yourself have done in this thread.
I think white people have very little to complain about. I think hetero people have very little to complain about. I think cis people have very to little complain about. But I think male people have a substantial amount to complain about, even if it doesn’t reach the same levels as what female people have to complain about.
And I believe this based on personal experience, as well as observations and discussions with other people. I’m not just pulling it out of a hat to make feminism look bad. If I were, I would likely be pulling “white people are hurt too!” etc. out of a hat as well.
I support feminism. Really. And I don’t think this conflicts with it. I agree that women are more substantial victims of our culture and society as compared to men. But I think men are also substantial enough victims that they cannot be appropriately dismissed out of hand in the same way that white, hetero, cis, etc. people can be.
@Daran:
I’m curious where this statistic came from. I don’t doubt that it is true, but I wonder if the fact that women generally take more precautions is the reason for it. Could you provide some details on the source? I’m curious if they accounted for that.
It shows conclusively that the position of President of the United States is not reserved for white people.
That positions of power are generally reserved for men is the claim in Johnson’s book that Tom is critiquing.
Absolutely!
Absolutely not!
“Reserved” as an absolute statement is not something I will defend.
“Generally reserved,” as referring to a tendency, is something that I will happily defend.
—Myca
Myca, we’re not talking about two women who managed to get elected to the parish council (electorate: 213, of whom 51 bothered to vote). Merkel and Gillard head the governments of two very important western powers. Each of them had to successfully contend for many other positions of power before making it to the office of chancellor/prime minister. Just because there are fewer women than men in positions of power, they will have been competing against men throughout their careers.
If a strong feeling were prevalent that positions of power should generally be reserved for men (let alone the most powerful position of all), how far would either of them have risen before hitting a glass ceiling?
In 1994 There were 1,125,000 violent victimisations of males over 12 years old, and 637,000 violent victimisations of females over 12, which occurred while the victim was traveling. Of these, 533,250 (47.4%) of males and 136,524 (37.2%) were “on foot”.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1145
See table 10 on page 7.
(Fe)males over 12 victimised while traveling on foot is not entirely congruent with (wo)men victimised in the street, but I think it is close enough. Also 1994 is a long time ago. I wouldn’t claim that the 4:1 ratio is necessarily applicable in 2010, but I’d be surprised if it had changed so much in 16 years that my “somewhat” was invalidated.
I don’t doubt that differences in behaviour between the victim populations plays a part, but I doubt it is the whole story. I have on several occasions been assaulted in the street or while using transport, three times with actual physical contact, and two of them with injurious force. In every case, completely random, completely unprovoked. Some guy or guys don’t like my face and decide to rearrange it. Many male friends have recounted similar incidents. In contrast I only know of one woman who has been violently attacked – a serious one, she was knifed. Her background – former prostitute, former intravenous drug abuser, lengthy history of domestic victimisation and mental health problems – put her in a particularly vulnerable category of women.
…of females…
Myca:
Initially, I didn’t agree with Amp’s decision, as I generally do not like bans except under extreme circumstances. But Clarence’s most recent post definitely changed my mind on that.
It depends, really. The thing is, this also has to take into effect personal qualities.
Sure, occasionally an extraordinarily talented, knowledgeable woman can reach the same positions as a man, but that’s not the point. The point is having to be twice as good to get to the same place.
Chris Rock talked about this (though, of course, in reference to black/white rather than male/female):
Or:
Some women make it. Most don’t. Most aren’t the freaking avatars of awesome that they need to be in order to make it.
—Myca
Dianne:
While there are those that try to argue this point I don’t bother. And the reason I don’t is because identifying the major victims is not the same thing as trying to pass them off as the only victims which is just how the gender discourse can sometimes go.
(Was that “sorry boys” remark supposed to be condescending or something?)
Cessen:
Yes. Frankly I think that when it comes to recognizing that way that men are harmed we are really just now getting past the surface. And I’m not saying this in hopes that the record will one day show that men are harmed more than women (I’ll leave that to the MRAs and feminists to battle out) I’m saying it because I want all the skeletons and demons drug out of the closet. Ignoring the skeletons and demons or only pulling out certain ones (usually ones that suit the person in question) is not going to work.
The trouble with that response, Myca, is that it takes for granted precisely what is at issue. You believe, I take it, that Merkel and Gillard are head-and-shoulders superior to the men they competed against and would have become Chancellor and PM long ago if their cases had been decided by merit. But how do you know that that’s true, except on the grounds that ‘it must be because we live in a patriarchy’?
Gillard has not been PM for long, so it’s hard to evaluate her performance, but Merkel – though a capable and conscientious politician – does not strike me as being the titan of poltical prowess you seem to imply she must be. In fact she seems a typical product of the German political system, no better and no worse than the men who preceded her and who will no doubt follow her. She didn’t succeed because she was ‘twice as good’, she succeeded because she was a capable politician who didn’t make any big mistakes and waited her turn. If there had been a widespread belief amongst the political classes and the electorate at large that positions of power should, by and large, be reserved for men, she would never have overcome that prejudice by dint of an exceptional brilliance which virtually nobody claims for her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine,_New_Jersey#Demographics
Doesn’t sound like you need to be a freaking avatar of awesome to get to live in Alpine, New Jersey if you’re a white female either.
And therefore…?
Tom, would you say Obama’s election shows that there are no longer any significant barriers between Black people and positions of power in the USA?
I’m not really familiar enough with Germany or Austrailia’s politics to talk about them intelligently, so let me stipulate that it was a coin toss that Hillary Clinton is not now President of the USA. If things had gone differently — if Mark Penn had been hired by the Obama campaign instead of the Clinton campaign, for instance — we’d now have a female president of the USA.
If you agree with me that Clinton could easily have been President had things gone just slightly differently, then could we continue this discussion using the USA as the example rather than Germany or Australia?
* * *
Regarding “patriarchy,” I feel a little like we’re having different discussions. I pointed out that Clarence was using a ridiculous strawman definition of “patriarchy,” and as evidence linked to a definition of patriarchy that is respected by feminist intellectuals.
That said, I myself don’t really use the word often, and I don’t feel that by pointing out an actual feminist’s definition of “patriarchy” as a contrast with a strawman definition, I was committing myself to defending every nuance of that definition. For one thing, Johnson and I don’t agree on everything; he’s more or less a radical feminist (or perhaps he’d say radical pro-feminist), and I’m either a liberal or a socialist feminist, I guess. For another, I think it generally makes sense to transition to talking about kyriarchy.
But as for what Johnson meant by “male-identified” — and by the way, his book is available very cheaply on Amazon, and provides a good “radical feminism 101″ primer — I’ll let his words (as quoted here) speak for themselves:
I think it’s hard to say without trying to account for it in the polling somehow.
I can easily imagine that men are more targeted due to it feeling more manly to physically assault a man in that way. (i.e. you’re “weak” if you do it to a woman.) I can also imagine the knowledge that female victims are more sympathized with playing into the minds of some assaulters in a “if someone sees me” or “if I get caught” kind of way. So it would make sense to me that they would seek out weaker-looking men rather than women.
But that’s also hard to substantiate without proper evidence. It could be that this doesn’t play much of a role at all. It also seems plausible to me that most of the difference does come from women simply avoiding going out in dangerous areas/times, or from more often walking in groups for safety, etc.
It’s an interesting statistic nonetheless, but I’d like to see further research before I draw any conclusions.
No.. Er… Yes. I mean I don’t think he should have been banned.
I regret his reaction, but I don’t think a person’s subsequent behaviour can retrospectively justify the ban, especially when that behaviour was a reaction to the ban.
Clarence is an intelligent and articulate debater – qualities that militate in favour of his being allowed to participate here. His alleged sins were “consciously trying to protect (sic: project?) a tone of sneering sarcasm and contempt towards those who disagree with” him and his “constant referencing of arguments that no one on this thread has actually made”. For this he was summarily banned, with no opportunity either to defend himself or remedy the problem.
It’s not like Barry himself doesn’t exhibit the same failures, as he admits here and here. I never saw exactly what it was he said about Bob, because by the time I saw it, he’d already edited, but he admitted that it was “insulting”, and apparently egregious enough for him to feel the need to save, lest it seem to be “removing the evidence of [his] crime”.
The point of the above isn’t to tu quoque Barry, but to ask what it means for a blog to be “more open to criticism from” dissenters? If dissenters are required to exercise superhuman restraint when discussing charged issues, and subject to summary bans when they fail, while the ingroup is not so restricted, doesn’t that mean in practice that the blog is going to be “closed”?
Italicisation should have been
“His alleged sins were “consciously trying to protect (sic: project?) a tone of sneering sarcasm and contempt towards those who disagree with” him and his “constant referencing of arguments that no one on this thread has actually made”. For this he was summarily banned, with no opportunity either to defend himself or remedy the problem.”
It looks like comments are going to be buy-one-get-one-free until you can sort out some kind of edit facility.
And therefore gender is not analogous to race.
Come on Amp two large paragraphs about how society is male centered and a few shot lines of, “Oh yeah women are favored a bit but the favor isn’t as big as you think.”? I’m presuming since you are quoting a small part and not reprinting the entire book there is more to it than that.
Lately I’ve been wondering if this whole “male as default” thing is as beneficial to men as people play it up to be.
“Of course, femaleness isn’t devalued entirely. Women are often prized for their beauty as objects of male sexual desire, for example, but as such they are often possessed and controlled in ways that ultimately devalue them. There is also a powerful cultural romanticizing of women in general and mothers in particular, but it is a tightly focused sentimentality (as on Mother’s Day or Secretaries’ Day) that has little effect on how women are regarded and treated on a day-to-day basis.”
I have to disagree with this a bit especially when it comes to romanticizing women. Women are regarded as superior parents by default (to the point where is a man does try to engage in parenting people often assume the worst faith on his part). When it comes to committing violence women are often given more of a benefit of the doubt because “women don’t do those things” and there are women who take advantage of it (Mary Winkler comes to mind). Oh and about parenting while it will differ depending on who is talking it seems that it is fashionable to blame men for not pulling their weight in the parenting department while at the same time refusing to lift a finger to help the ones that are and cherry pick the worst dads to prop up as the representation of fathers. Now I’m not trying to say these things in an effort to negate the negativity towards. Just saying there is more going for women that some seem to want to admit.
But back to the original question I would rather learn about sex from Clarrise over Cathy but that does not equate to wanting to learn from a feminist or a feminist critic.
Kyrarchy, as far as I can see from your link assumes patriarchy, in the “takes on, adopts” sense of the word, i.e., it still assumes in the “supposes” sense of the word that society is patriarchal in the way that feminists say that it is, but rejects the idea that patriarchal sexism is primary or overarching social dynamic. Rather, according to Kyrarchy advocates, patriarchal sexism is one of an oligarchy of intersecting privilege systems, others being racism and classism, which are all similarly unidirectional.
But one of these things is not like the others.
Compare Johnson’s “radical feminist” definition:
With this, articulated by Chris:
(Presumably this is the same Chris who is posting here.) Compare Dianne:
Dianne’s claim is a bare assertion, without reference to any real-world facts, but it’s a fair bet that she’s thinking of the same top-of-the-power-pyramid dynamics. I’m also pretty certain that Dianne isn’t a Radical Feminist. I don’t know Chris that well, but suspect he isn’t either.
The point is, that this analysis, albeit with subtle shades and differences isn’t restricted to radical feminism. It’s common to broad feminism.
The next step is to infer from the statement
to
But this is a logical fallacy. The premise makes a claim, not about the class of men, but about a small subclass of men.
For this argument to have even superficial plausibility it is necessary that important real-world facts about positions of positions of personal disempowerment be elided: Prisoners, conscripts, forced labourers, homicide and accident victims and war casualties all tend to be men. If these facts were to be acknowledged, and the same fallacious reasoning as above were to be applied, one would reach the contradictory conclusion that men are the disempowered class.
Now, before Ampersand comes in with an angry demand for a retraction and apology, I not saying that feminists never acknowledge these facts. My point is that they do not do so at this level of analysis. Feminists will often blog about, say, police killings of young black men. Some will even acknowledge the inherent sexism, though it’s just as common not to (See for example how this post is categorised.) In such discussions its common to contextualise the subject with references to “Patriarchy” and claims that “women have it worse overall”. What these facts rarely if ever do, is inform the analysis and description of Patriarchy itself.
Ack! Please close the final blockquote after “Men as a class are empowered”.
[Done! --Amp]
Or preview functionality. Either would do.
Okay, I’ve installed a preview button. Let me know if it doesn’t work for folks…
Testing… testing…
Works for me. Thanks Ampersand!
Thanks. Now I’ll hopefully screw up the blockquotes a bit less often. (Except when it gets close to meal-times, when the brains’ll stop working as they always do).
Anyway, on topic:
To address the OP, I’m not at all convinced that Clarisse is a representative sample of How Feminists Think About Sex. My skepticism is based largely on the amount of crap she’s gotten about it at, for example, Alas. (I’m specifically thinking of the comments to the four “questions-I’d-like-to-ask” posts).
Actually, thinking about it, I’ll speculate that you could probably find almost as many examples of Cathy Young’s “advice” within feminist circles as Clarisse’s; sex-positive feminism doesn’t seem to be the majority of feminism; and, more importantly, I’m not at all convinced that feminism has some single, unified approach to sexual behavior. (Self-identified feminists, as a whole, certainly don’t seem to have a universally monolithic approach to much of anything else, far’s I know, so I don’t expect sex to be an exception.)
@ Myca -
“Meh” and “No,” the latter for obvious reasons.
Amp
By no means. But it doesn’t follow that one of the things, let alone the main thing, preventing black people acquiring positions of political power is the widespread feeling that positions of political power should generally be reserved for white people. That mutatis mutandis is how Johnson explained the fact that so few people in positions of political power were women: the widespread feeling that the latter should generally be reserved for men.
I was critiquing what Johnson wrote on the grounds that it was mostly unintellgible and, in so far as it was intelligilbe, wrong – not on the grounds that you supported what he said. I accept that your position and his are distinct. Please take what follows as addressed to Johnson’s expressed ideas, not to any you might hold.
I wonder who still does this? A crowd of people of both sexes is not referred to as a crowd of men. Nobody feels that they have greeted a class of men and women properly with the words ‘good morning, Gentlemen!’ And in common parlance it is usual to do what I did in the last sentence – that is, to use ‘they’ instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ as a singular pronoun when the sex of a hypothetical person is unspecified. There remains ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ as ways of referring to the whole human race, but I’ve noticed that these terms too have lost a lot of ground to the gender-neutral ‘humanity’ over recent years.
Johnson claims that women do not have the strong motivation men do (in the form of a wife and family to support), for working the long hours a successful career usually entails, and interprets this as a disadavatage that women have to suffer, and not as an exoneration that women can enjoy. But if we accept that this motivational deficit is indeed a disadvantage to women, is there anything to stop them taking on the responsibility of a dependent partner, of either sex?
What would Johnson have? – Does he want ‘business, politics, war, athletics, law, and medicine’ to be prosecuted by means of ‘inefficiency, cooperation, mutuality, equality, sharing, compassion, caring, vulnerability, a readiness to negotiate and compromise, emotional expressiveness, and intuitive and other nonlinear ways of thinking’? How would anybody here feel if the lawyer or doctor for whose services they pay good money, or the generals whose salaries their taxes go to pay, were to execute their tasks in accordance with the principles of inefficiency, compromise, vulnerability, emotional expressiveness etc.? The latter may be virtues in certain situations – but not, I submit, in the professions Johnson mentions.
Does anybody remember Margaret Thatcher? Hugely admired in the UK, and quite a few other countries too, for having qualities quite different from Johnson’s patriarchy-approved ‘femininity’: resolve, courage, initiative, objectivity. And she is not alone. There are women entrepreneurs, women political leaders, women athletes, women scholars who are widely and justly admired for qualities appropriate to their careers.
I can’t help feeling that Johnson’s argument would be stronger if the propositions meant to support it were a little less counter-factual.
OK, this is where an edit button would be golden – I just noticed that I completely misunderstood Johnson’s paragraph beginning ‘The idea of a career…’, and shot off a reply that in fact doesn’t meet the point he was actually making. Mea maxima culpa.
While there are those that try to argue this point I don’t bother.
Good decision. I recant my part in that little episode of the oppression Olympics. Because, in the end, if both genders are being damaged by the current system, what does it matter which one is suffering more? It’s bad for both. Smash it, brother!
Daran’s quite right: I’m not a radical feminist and tend to consider radical feminists to be far too gender essentialist for my taste. I’m pro-equal chance to get custody during a divorce, equal risk of draft (I’m ANTI-draft, but if there has to be one it should be for both men and women), equal opportunities for any desired employment, equal access to help for domestic abuse and rape*. Heck, if there are any men out there looking to get pregnant who have the money to pay for the research necessary to make it happne I”m there for you on that one too (though, realistically, you’d probably be better off finding an OB than me to work with you.)
*Though there is an argument for having separate facilities for men who are abused versus women who are abused: to prevent the abuser from getting access to the victim by pretending to be a victim him/herself.
BTW: I apologize to all the people who responded to me who I’m not responding to. My reading, muchless participating in blogs tends to be very sporadic and I don’t always read all the way through comments if I return to a thread after a certain amount of time.
Dianne:
“Because, in the end, if both genders are being damaged by the current system, what does it matter which one is suffering more? It’s bad for both. Smash it, brother! ”
I can dig that.
“*Though there is an argument for having separate facilities for men who are abused versus women who are abused: to prevent the abuser from getting access to the victim by pretending to be a victim him/herself.”
That and the victim may just feel uncomfortable around people of the same gender as their abuser.
Myca:
“I’m not arguing that the gender roles are less restrictive for men, just that men who do successfully fit their gender roles end up with more social power, while men who rebel against their gender roles, and women, whether they conform to their gender roles or not, end up with less.”
I wanted to get back to this. About that I wonder exactly how “powerful” one could say a man has when he plays his role. Just like women who play their role there are people always watching waiting for even the smallest thing that looks like a slip up. One could say that a gladiator in ancient Rome had social power, until the fights were over for the day and he was taken back to his owner’s slave quarters. I just don’t think its as simple as saying men have power and women don’t.
Can anyone else see what figleaf has managed to do when he made a post of his own about this post?
http://www.realadultsex.com/comment/reply/3647#comment-form
I’m most of you will see it from the get go right?
Dianne:
What you did, and what feminists do, over and over again, is claim the gold medal in the oppression olympics. Feminists generally have much less stomach for actually earning it.
This isn’t to beat up on you, because I genuinely appreciate your recantation.
You’re going to have to recant of a bit more before I can accept the hand you hold out. Specifically you said:
So on the one hand you have the latest scion of the Bush or Kennedy Dynasty. He’s probably going to be given power in preference to his sister. On the other you have ghetto-born Leroy, who is going to be murdered, imprisoned, conscripted, or if war comes, killed or injured even as a civilian, in preference to his sister.
Why is the Bush Scion’s experience of gender representative of men while Leroy is just “an individual man”? In what way are Leroy’s problems the “downsides” of “having power”?
Do you not see that what you did here is normalise the gender experience of top-of-the-heap men, while erasing those of men at the bottom, the very people to whom you then stretch out your hand in friendship. This is another common dynamic among feminist, who are then puzzled as to why those men are unwilling to accept the poisoned chalice they’re being offered.
OK the spam pixie has taken a dislike to me. Let’s see if its the website or email address
Um, the above comment was intended as a gentle hint to go retrieve my comment from the spampit.
[Sorry! Got it now. I got confused by your other comment which wasn't in the spampit, but was being held in mod for some reason. -&]
It went into mod because I deleted the link to my website and changed the email, to see if this was what was causing it to go into spam. This made me look like a new commenter for “Comment author must have a previously approved comment” purposes.
Here we go again. A guy gets rejected a spam filter and immediately begins looking for excuses, calling the filter names and generally pouting. Kindly keep your Nice CommentorTM sense of entitlement in check, Daran.
Post a Comment