The London Sunday Times reports on a new British study:
Danny Dorling, the report’s author and professor of human geography at Sheffield University, said that marked changes in the social status of women explained the shift.
“The decline in the female murder rate is probably due to women being more likely and able to walk out of violent relationships,” he said.
“People have both became aware of how dangerous domestic violence is and how fruitless it is to stay in a violent relationship. In addition, women have become economically better off and so, in increasing numbers, they can afford to walk out.”
mousehounde Writes:
if this is in fact the case, then it would appear that you are admitting that feminism did nothing to aid any of the poor males in the neighborhoods in which these shelters and services were provided for women. i say that because the article goes in-depth into the murder rate of men, which has no zero revelance if the article is purely about women, and explains some of the methods in which these young men are killed.
the lead paragraph does indeed focus on women, but that’s because it’s better news. in the following paragraph it is immediately explained that all is not well. that would imply that the lead paragraph was designed more to grab your attention rather than give you information.
ampersand writes:
the majority of consumers in this country are women. most advertising is spent on attracting women. so unless you’re speaking about women going to a car dealership, what marketplace discrimination are you speaking of?
most of the men who occupy powerful positions do so with their wealth and who they know. in most instances, the average working-class man has no means of altering that and risks losing his job if he questions it. so why are you blaming the average man for the power that the insanely wealthy exert?
i would love to see one of these academic studies that shows that the most severe violence commited in our country is done against women by men. the greater instances of male-male violence and murder would suggest otherwise, so i am very interesting in any study you can provide that would show that men brutalize women more severely than other men.
it’s interesting that you would rather change the subject and not directly address any of the points, but instead dismiss them without any evidence, except for saying that male privilege exists… because you wrote a checklist ( it also appears to ignore the fact that about 30% of this country’s males are minorities and have no privileges). this is akin to the christian right stating that homosexuality is wrong, and upon being questioned about it, “proving” that is wrong by saying, “it’s in the bible.”
Why shouldn’t car dealerships count? Clearly, when women go to a car dealership, use identical negotiating techniques and get charged more, that’s discrimination. Are you suggesting that it’s not discrimination, and should be ignored?
But testers have also shown that when an identical shirt, except for which side the buttons are on, is brought for dry-cleaning, the “women’s” shirt gets a higher charge. And, of course, there’s a lot of evidence of discrimination in the marketplace by employers; for instance, the study that showed that women’s chances of being hired to play in an orchestra increased significantly once orchestras switched to “blind” auditions, so the people hiring didn’t know the sex of the person auditioning.
Oppressions and privileges aren’t separate; they interact. We don’t have to say that either male privilege or class privilege exists; they both exist at the same time.
If you want to argue that being wealthy gives wealthy people a lot of privileges the poor don’t get, naturally I’d agree. But that doesn’t negate the fact that, along with other factors (like being white and being wealthy), being male gives people a better chance of achieving a position of power.
I don’t “blame” the average man; any “blame” cast is a straw man you’re attacking, not anything I’ve said. In the past, I’ve explicitly argued that men as a class should not be blamed.
I wrote, “in typical US society, women are more subject to severe male violence than vice-versa.” In response, you wrote:
Either deliberately or through accidental misreading, you’re distorting what I said. I didn’t say “the most severe violence is done against women by men”; I said that there’s more severe male-on-female violence than there is severe female-on-male violence. For example, men rape women more often than vice-versa, and men murder wives and girlfriends more often than vice-versa. This is well documented, but if you honestly need me to, I could cite some statistics for you.
As for the rest of your post, I addressed the “prove male privilege exists” red herring in my previous post, which is the main point I wanted to address – and since people have been talking about exactly that for a while now, it’s dishonest of you to claim that I was changing the subject. There may be some other things I didn’t address, but I’m not obliged to address every little thing you bring up.
My one comment about race on this thread, was in general, not necessarily pertaining to yourself, jaket, or I would have included you among them.
Shocked about your reading list, nope, nothing really shocks me much anymore. The only thing that would shock me is if individuals like yourself could actually participate on a thread addressing women’s issues without jumping in, with “what about the men?” or “feminism has totally failed men”. But you’d have to check your gender privilage at the door, and you can’t do that. It’s almost like an addiction.
What’s really tickles the funny bone is when antifeminists like yourself, walz into a discussion on violence against women to play these silly reindeer games. By doing so, while denying your male privilage with words, you are shouting it out through your actions. And if you’re a show, not tell kind of person, it’s impossible to ignore it.
alsis, female privilage is wet tee-shirt nights at local bars…Women get FREE DRINKS…Men have to pay. And something about toilet seats, but I can’t remember at the moment exactly what the privilage is. Maybe, it’s that since women have to wait soooo much longer at public venues to use the toilets, that they can spend so much more leisure time on their intellectual development rather than rush in to the bathroom, get their business done, and rush out with nary a spare moment to reflect in between.
Amp’s points:
1. Men commit more violence against women then women commit against men.
Men are also the majority of the people trying to prevent and punish the injury of men by women.
Statistically black people are more likely to due violence to white people then vice versa… so tell me, do black people have “black privilage?” –Source “Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims NCJ-144525”, Department of Justice. (Unfortunately I couldn’t find an electronic copy, but you can order a paper copy.) Interestingly enough white supremicist groups have used this finding to “prove” that black people are waging a racist and oppressive war against white people.
2. Women suffer marketplace discrimination.
I acknowledge that women pay more for drycleaning and haircuts, and apparently cars–although I would argue that drycleaning and hairdressing are more complicated processes for women then for men, due to the variety and complexity of women’s clothes and hairstyles thus serving women as a population requires a higher overhead. And as for cars… I assume haggling is some element of purchase, and men are, apparently more likely to say something like, “Can you get me a better price.” Since salespersons aren’t obligated to make things cheaper, it’s up to the customer to get that discount. Unless we want to pass a law fixing prices… which might be a liability for women in terms of insurance.
Anyway, moving on, I mentioned this once on hugo’s blog… Women make the majority of purchasing decisions in almost every consumer catagory except for : men’s clothing, alcohol, gifts.
Which means that women exert more influence on our consumer culture then men via the purchase of goods. In essence women determine our society’s cultural landscape, the majority of commercials, tv programmes, movies, etc. are geared towards them, our last remaining public spaces are constructed to please them, etc.
In a world where malls are the new polis, and consumers the new governing body, this represents considerable social power.
Yet we don’t hear about the “spending gap”.
3. Women are less likely to be hired by orchestras.
I did a search on that interesting factoid.
Here’s what I found:
“In the population of auditioners, we’re 95% sure that women were between 2.46% less likely than men and .36% more likely than men to be hired.”
Usually 5% is considered the cut off point for statistical significance.
BTW, just as an aside. You never responded to my question about what constitutes a “totality of oppression”, absent government and media. Now that you’re in your own space, could you explain?
I believe some of the issue here is this… the “anti-feminists” are looking to the feminists to describe a causal factor for men’s power. Not just examples of discrimination, which can be found for men and women. (And when we look at
To explain…
Let’s take a male infant. At what point during his growth does his patriarchal privilage emerge and allow him to benefit himself? And what is the causal component of this power? In other words, what causes it and what gives it it’s potency?
This, I believe, is Amp’s totality of oppression.
To follow your analogy, then, I go to such a website and DO NOT ask for proof of his badness. I agree that his decision in 1974 was bad (as I admit that male privilege exists). Instead, I point out that they are basing their overall conclusion of his badness on a single incident (or several, for that matter). I ask them for reasons why they believe, based on his entire coaching career, that he was a bad coach. If they can’t do that, I ask them if they can cite any instances in which he made good decisions.
This is how they would respond if they responded like you (that is, to continue your analogy). “You must be an NBA fan [and, therefore, bad]. You just want to shut down football stadiums. You’re just like that other poster asking about the 1965 Rose Bowl who refuses to take the correct point of view. It isn’t our job to take care of NBA fans. Trolls, trolls, trolls.”
If this is how you think they’d act, then you don’t know sports fans. You chose this analogy.
I keep hearing that, apparently, anyone who questions male privilege is an MRA. Most of the time, between feminist boards and MRA boards, I see two playpens and one nursery. I also haven’t proscribed any definition. Make up your own.
It’s a small world, that nursery. But you are on the WWW! How much more obvious could it have been that the Ms boards closed down because feminists had become embarrassing to feminism? Ever consider the lurker-to-poster ratio here? There’re lots and lots of them and they’re watching you Radfem. Is this the way you want to portray feminism to the teeming masses?
did i not say “unless you’re speaking about women going to a car dealership?” would that not imply that i agreed that there was discrimination?
so if they both exist at the same time, and essentially you believe that male privilege is the greater of the two, then logically speaking, shouldn’t there be more powerful black men? certainly two elements of discrimination can exist. the problem is that “privileges” often to not extend to all parties. clearly all men do not have these privileges. they cannot throw their maleness around and get their way. so it would seem, much like every other “privilege,” that it really only extends to a small, select group of people, not everyone.
that would appear to contradict what has been said on this thread, and also the notion of “the patriarchy” and male “privilege.” if you are not blaming men, i.e. holding them responsible, then who is actually responsible for their (the patriarchy and male privilege) existence, or more importantly why would you even make an issue out of it? certainly someone would have had to have caused this in the first place, right? and if men are to blame, then why throw it in their faces?
actually, you really didn’t address it all. you merely stated it does exist, backed it up with your own checklist, and then dismissed any questions about it as MRA nonsense. to say that it is a red herring is disingenuous because the point of contention is that “male privilege” is not in agreement. we don’t agree that men always have the better deal, so asking for proof this is hardly a red herring. no one is attempting to dodge your proof. they are simply demonstrating that your proof does not hold up to scrunity, which you choose to ignore, as with the fact that minority men have no real power or privilege.
“Ever consider the lurker-to-poster ratio here? There’re lots and lots of them and they’re watching you Radfem. Is this the way you want to portray feminism to the teeming masses? ”
—————————————–
Omigoddess, LOL….
I’m just one person, but if people want to watch, then at least as far as this discussion goes, that’s fine…
jaket, minority men have no power and privilage. Do you have any expectations among the more white and privilaged members of your gender in terms of how that will be addressed, OR do you expect women to handle a situation that in large part, one race of men is manifesting on others. Is blaming the oppression of men of color on feminism, a way for many of these culpable White men to dodge responsibility for the fact that patriarchy has not treated all of its men equally?
radfem says:
:D
I, too, am deeply moved and humbled at the notion that the eyes of the entire WWW are upon us. If only someone had warned me yesterday, I could’ve done someting with my hair, maybe boughts some new lipstick, etc…
OTOH, if Tryptophan hadn’t showed up, I would never have learned all that stuff about Frank Lloyd Wright’s alternate-universe love life. :p
When on earth did I say male privilege is the greater of the two? I don’t sit around ranking race, sex and class privileges, dude. Again, you’re making up strawmen.
Okay, clearly you didn’t understand what I said. Let me try again:
I stated it exists. I stated that it’s impossible to prove, because logically you can’t prove “X” when there’s no consensus about what “X” means empirically. I stated that I could prove individual issues, including some on the “male privilege” checklist, but I acknowleged that proving individual issues is not the same as proving “male privilege” as a whole. And I didn’t say that “any questions” were MRA nonsense; I said that this particular demand, to prove something that lacks a consensus definition and so can’t be proven, is nonsense..
I didn’t deny that the existence of “male privilege” is in contention; also, I never said men “always” have the better deal.
I think sexism is a system that disadvantages both men and women, and that it’s quite common for men to be screwed over. There are obvious cases where men don’t have the better deal, such as if you look at the narrow issue of workplace accident deaths. To pick another example, a boy who is constantly beaten up in school because he can’t live up to expectations of masculinity could not be said to have a better deal. (However, I don’t think there’s any hope for that boy from MRAs; I think his best hope is feminism.)
On the whole, I think that the gender-roles system gives men an advantage; especially when the male advantage is combined with other advantages, such as being white, straight, ablebodied, wealthy, talented, etc. However, I’ve never claimed that there aren’t exceptions; I’ve never claimed that men aren’t harmed by sexism; I’ve never claimed that someone who is black, poor, disabled, gay and male rules the world or whatever bullshit it is you’re attributing to me; and I’ve never claimed that society as a whole can be understood with reference purely to sex, ignoring race, class, and other factors.
Saying that men (as a whole) aren’t to blame doesn’t contradict the idea of male privilege, or patriarchy. Neither male privilege or patriarchy are conspiracy theories, in which men are advantaged because they sit around plotting to be advantaged in smoke-filled rooms. I don’t think that “someone” had to start it (you’re sounding like you believe in intelligent design); things evolved over time, out of conditions that no longer apply in modern society. If “someone” did start it and should be blamed, that “someone” – whoever they were – has been dead for thousands of years and is long past being blamed.
I don’t think anyone’s to blame for how they were born, or conditions that existed before their birth. I’ve almost certainly been advantaged by my race, my sex and my class. In job interviews, it’s likely I’ve been given an advantage over equally-qualified or better candidates who were non-white, or female, or spoke with an “uneducated” accent, or some combination of the above. That isn’t my fault; blaming me for a system of race, sex and class advantage that existed generations before I was born would be silly.
Where I disagree with you is that you conflate blame and responsibility (e.g., ” if you are not blaming men, i.e. holding them responsible”), where I make a distinction. I am not personally to blame for all the ills of society. That doesn’t mean that I don’t bear responsibility for trying to improve those ills. And the more advantaged you are by society, the greater the responsibility for trying to improve it, in my view.
Yes, that means I think men with power – even if it’s only a little power – have a responsibility to try to improve things. But I also think the same thing of women with power. I think people should do what they can to make things better.
Finally, I don’t agree that minority men have no real power or privilege; compared with similarly-situated minority women, they sometimes do. I do think that to intelligently examine this question, we’d have to admit it’s not simple and talk about the ways that different kinds of power and privilege come to bear (or don’t come to bear) in different situations. In my view, anyone who says that minority men are NEVER advantaged by their sex is being as over-simplistic as someone who says they are ALWAYS advantaged by their sex, regardless of how sexism interacts with racism. Both views are too simplistic to be true.
I thought of a better way to put this.
When pathologists are in the process of identifying a new disease, they start with a set of symptoms, identify a causal agent (virus, bacteria, etc.) and then create a causal hypothesis to connect the two. For instance how does virus X create symptom Y.
To apply this to the feminist notion of patriarchy… Men are the causal agent (obviously), male privilage and female disadvantage are the symptoms but what is the causal hypothesis?
By what mechanism do men create the symptoms of patriarchy? In other words, what avenue do men have to influence others, that women don’t have?
Quite a few of you are giving me the idea that you hold great distaste for discussing the foundational aspects of feminist theory. (Sort of reminds me of christians actually, don’t like discussing the subject they are, apparently, most fond of.) I would think there must be some eager young feminist scholar chomping at the bit to be the one to discover the “causal hypothesis” to great and lasting acclaim. Or perhaps it has already been discovered and I haven’t come across it yet.
Amp, you say that on the whole men(causal agent) are advantaged over women. (Symptom)
Advantages result from some sort of influence(causal hypothesis). Therefore men have access to an influence that women do not have access to.
What is that influence?
No, it’s more like I’ve absorbed a great deal of feminist theory over the years, and it’s a great deal more sophisticated than you’re imagining. Listening to you talk about what you imagine theory is, is like talking to someone about comics who is convinced: 1) That they, personally, have a highly sophisticated understanding of cartooning and 2) Garfield is an important and influential comic strip.
This blog is not intended to explain why Garfield isn’t important to people who think they already know everything about comics – and especially not when that person is rather condesending. Go get your basic education somewhere else.
Beginning feminist theory is readiliy available, for people who have sincere interest. I recommend bell hooks for a basic grounding in liberal feminism, and Allan Johnson for a highly readable introduction to radical feminism.
If you’re particulary interested in what influences my thinking, read Susan Okin and Sandra Bem, as well.
One thing all four of these books have in common: None of them will say anything as asinine as “Men are the causal agent (obviously).” My problem with you isn’t your ignorance; my problem is that you don’t know you’re ignorant, so you confidently state things about what feminists believe that relatively few feminists actually believe. It’s as if your grouding in feminist theory both began and ended with reading “The S.C.U.M. Manifesto” or maybe an anti-feminist quote page.
What is the causal agent of patriarchy? If it’s not men, then who or what?
BTW, if the question is so basic, why not answer it?
Where did I say “the question is so basic”? I don’t think the question is so basic (although some would diagree with me). I think the question is highly complex and difficult, and made more so by the fact that patriarchy goes back to before written history began.
My problem with you is that you seem to be insisting that everything must be simplistic, when the reality isn’t simple at all. Not unlike the standoff we had on SYG.
What makes you assume that patriarchy has a single causal agent? Do you think anti-Semitism has a single causal agent, for example? Does the current situation of the Kurds have a single causal agent?
Well, we could start with one and work our way up to more.
I believe the causal agent for anti-semitism is the anti-semite. Likewise with the Kurd’s situation, the causal agent are muslims.
For the most part in situations of persecution you can point to a group of people, defined by the beliefs that they hold and/or their ethnic background, and say, these people are the ones who are causing harm. I have yet to hear of oppression or persecution against a group of people which wasn’t perpetrated by another, definable, group of people. I can’t see a situation of organized persecution arising from random acts of random people with no connection to eachother.
Patriarchy inevitably has to be the result of the individual choices of a group of people working within some sort of consensus. Who are these people? Why do they hold the beliefs they do? And how do they come to hold influence over others?
BTW, I was unclear when I said we could start with one and work our way up. I meant we could start with one causal hypothosis, one way patriarchy (whatever group of people patriarchy is composed of) enforces men’s privilages and women’s disadvantages, and then find others.
I imagine this will be far easier once we figure out how to define the group of people that comprise the patriarchy.
Nothing says male privelege like three trolls spending all their time whinging about feminism,after one of them has declared it to be a mere pass time for his arrogant ass.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I could speculate on the connection between inane and obtuse trolls and that high male murder rate but I won’t.
Alsis, I don’t drink beer. I think we need champagne.
Yes but… I’m not a man so I can’t have male privilage.
[Deleted by Amp.]
i’ll ask this again: what makes you think i’m white?
read my post again. i said minority men have no power and privilege, not that it was feminism’s fault. and i find it particularly disrespectful to pretend that women have been and are the only ones handling race issues, and extremely offensive to suggest that white women haven’t played an extremely important role in the oppression of minority men.
I’m quite certain you can. I’m sure you can speculate on the connection between patriarchy and Life, the Universe and Everything and every single detail within except the connections that prove the most basic assumption of feminism.
In today’s information-intense world, those trying to sway public opinion try to make their message as simple as possible. Perhaps feminism needs to work on this. In any event, the Male Privilege Checklist doesn’t seem complex at all. Why is the other side of it so complex?
If you’ll recommend a single book that’ll come closest to answering my question I’ll head straight on over to Amazon.
Pasa, could you clarify for me precisely what your question is?
Typhonblue:
Oh, I didn’t realize that you were looking for shallow tautologies. Okay, I think the causal agent for sexism is sexists. Sexism, in turn, is the causal agent for male centrism, which is the term I prefer to use instead of “patriarchy,” if we’re gonna get technical.
I just don’t see any of that – what you said or what I just said – as useful or interesting. Yes, anti-semitism is caused by anti-semites; but that’s an inane statement, unless we can also say something about what makes anti-semites anti-semitic.
Nearly all Kurds are Muslims themselves – are you saying that the Kurds are the causal agents? Furthermore, not all non-Kurdish Muslims have anything to do with the Kurd’s problems. Some non-Kurdish Muslims are even advocates for Kurdish rights. Are they causal agents of Kurdish oppression, in your view?
I guess you could say that “those muslims with anti-Kurdish views are the causal agent,” but that’s another tautology.
Again, I don’t understand how putting things in simplistic terms is supposed to be helpful. As your comments about anti-semitism and Kurds demonstrate, being simplistic usually means being useless or wrong.
I’m curious, as well, what you think the causal agent of racism is.
Ampersand,
You are the same reasoning used by Christians to “prove” the existence of God. Male privilege is not an element of faith. You cannot simply state that it exists but that you can’t prove it. The lack of consensus of the definition of male privilege is a strawman. Clearly we know what it means. The actual point of contention is as I stated, whether it actually exists in the all-encompassing manner in which it has been claimed to, which you apparently now disagree with it.
Can you show me where I said you claimed that someone who is black, poor, disabled, gay and male rules the world? If you are focusing on factors, then that would imply that there is not an overall “privilege.” Certainly being male would help in some instances, but the same is true of being female.
Also, can you show me where I claimed male privilege and the patriarchy are conspiracy theories? I can find where I said “clearly all men do not have these privileges. they cannot throw their maleness around and get their way. so it would seem, much like every other “privilege,” that it really only extends to a small, select group of people, not everyone.” But I cannot find anything I have stated remotely close to your strawman.
What definition of “blame” are you using? It must be one that is different from the one I am familiar with because it means 1. To hold responsible; 2. To find fault with; censure; 3. To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning. If you are saying men are responsible for it, you are indeed blaming them for it. And if you say that the more advantaged you are in society, the greater your responsibility to improve it, would this not also apply to feminists, who clearly have a political advantage? Would this not mean that feminists would then have a responsibility to help everyone, not just women? (Personally I do not think it is feminists’ responsibility as the goal of feminism appears to be a shift in power rather than the creation of equality between the genders.)
By the way, I find it interesting that even as you admit that men can face discrimination, you feel the need to immediately diminish it by calling it “narrow.”
Jaket, I didn’t make that assumption. You did. And that’s indicative of certain things in a poster.
Read the above again, especially the first sentence. Feel free, however, to continue to dodge the question. I just put it out there to give you the option of answering it, not mandating that you must do so.
Beer, champagne, either is fine, just make sure either comes with plenty of popcorn and kazoos…
ooops, my quote disappeared! It wasn’t the stuff that’s blockquoted in the above quote, it was something I had posted which made it clear that I was not assigning Jaket a racial classification, despite his protests that I was doing so.
Trippy, never fear, you can be a woman and still work enthusiastically to reinforce male privilege. Just look at Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand. I gather from your own writings and tone that you’ve dog-eared at least a few chunks of Randian babble in your spare time.
Ginmar, it’s a toss-up whether champagne or trolls give me a worse headache. But I’ll stake you to a bottle, no sweat. I have it on good authority here that as long as woman-focussed marketing exists, there’s no male privilege and to say otherwise would be downright churlish. What woman wouldn’t– given half a chance– gladly submit to battering for the chance to go on a big shopping spree afterwards ? Hell, it sounds like it could be a great reality show. After our drinks, let’s ring up LA and see if we can’t find one of Murdoch’s flunkies to pitch it to.
I suppose my question is, where is the proof that, considering all privileges that men and women enjoy, men enjoy more. If no book you can think of answers that concisely, then recommend the book that you think will best persuade me to your point of view. I’ll read it with the best blank slate mindset that someone who has lived long and seen can muster. Just one, please.
Amp,
I believe you misunderstood the term “causal agent”. I was using it to refer to an entity not a motivation or context.
But I’m glad you’ve finally admitted there is a group of people responsible for male-centrism. Namely sexists.
Now, please correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s how I see the situation:
Sexists hold a belief that informs their treatment of individuals of a certain gender, this results in the oppression of that gender. That belief, simply stated, is that women are less valuable then men. The rest of their sexist belief system is an extension of that core belief.
In order for a society to be sexist a critical mass of people must hold sexist beliefs and act on them in a way that affects others. And in order for a society to remain sexist that critical mass of people must be able to influence the next generation to carry on their sexist beliefs. After all, sexists are not born, they are made.
Therefor it behooves us to examine *how* sexists are made.
I assume that sexism is taught. The question is, when and where?
You say that men are not the only ones responsible for sexism, therefore women are also sexist and teaching sexism to others. (Unless men are the ones manipulating women into sexism, in which case women’s involvement in sexism is coerced, against their will, and once again the problem lies with men. Which can’t be, because you have said it isn’t just men’s fault.)
That means there are, roughly, two spheres of influence a sexist works in. One is female dominated, child care, early education, nursing, etc. And the other is male, politics, corperations, media. After all a sexist society divides men and women’s influence along those lines.
What I’m curious about at the moment is how male sexists, in the domain of politics, corperations and media, influence others to value men more then women, to become sexists?
(As an aside, I quite like your hereville comic, particularly the character of the Stepmother, when are you going to update it?)
radfem, you are correct in that you did not question my race. however, before you suggest that i am dodging your question, do recall that you explicitedly refused to answer my questions: can you show me where i asked feminists to drop what they were doing to focus on the needs of men? or more specifically, can you show me any instances in which money has been taken from women’s shelters to open shelters and services for men?
i think that is only fair that if i am to answer your question, you should answer mine.
ampersand, i wanted to address this separately as it has little to do with our other conversation, if you don’t mind.
firstly, i am a skinny guy, short, little muscle, and i read novels (mostly political and historical texts), i write, i play video games, and i have zero interest in sports or sitting around and talking about women (which might surprise you). so i would say that i don’t fit the high-school definition of a “man.” certainly i was picked on in high-school, especially since i didn’t speak that much and rarely fought back. and yet, i still prefer being around other males. i have no dislike or serious distrust of males, and honestly my interests are more in line with guys who are called “geeks” and “nerds.” so i have no place within feminism as i am not ashamed of my masculinity, and i have no desire to behave in a less “masculine” or more “feminine” way. (i put them in quotes because i do not personally find emotions and sympathy to be “feminine.” i do not think there is anything wrong with expressing them, though i often do not, so long as one has control over them.)
secondly, it would be rather silly to base your assumptions about masculinity on the actions of high-school teenagers. they are not men, and don’t know what it is to be a man. so while it was painful and cruel, they are not men, and masculinity is far more complex than high-school antics. again, here it would seem that feminism offers men few choices. masculinity is whittled down to something that is base, unrefined, brutish, and undesireable. if one does not conform to the feminist view of masculinity (that one should be androgynous at the least, and more feminine at best), then one is deemed “misogynistic.” for instance, i have been told that i am a misogynist because i prefer hanging out with an all-male group.
thirdly, given the response on this thread when i mentioned my abuse, i can hardly see how feminism would be better for a boy who went through hell in school unless he prefered the company of women. no one wants to be shamed or made the scapegoat. and that is something i have yet to see happen in the men’s movement. i have seen feminists do this to men and boys, from my experiences in foster care to my experiences with rape centers. i do not think the best hope for a boy would a) over-simpiflying masculinity, b) demonizing masculinity, or c) going to women to understand what it is to be a man. one of the foudning principles of feminism is that men cannot define who and what women are. i would say that would apply in the reverse as well.
You didn’t come in for disparaging remarks from feminists because you were abused. You came in for disparaging remarks because you’ve deliberately posted antagonistic and anti-woman comments since your arrival here.
they are not men, and don’t know what it is to be a man.
Can you please tell us what it is “to be a man.” How old does one need to be before one knows “what it is to be a man?”
so i have no place within feminism as i am not ashamed of my masculinity, and i have no desire to behave in a less “masculine” or more “feminine” way.
This sentence demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about feminism. Please do some reading (several books have been recommended) or take a class before continuing to make comments on something of which you have no knowledge of even the most basic concepts.
alsis, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? “feminist” isn’t synonymous with “woman”. that’s like saying that because i don’t support christianity i’m anti-religion. that makes no sense as the two are not the same.
squid, since you did not find any issue with my comment about men defining womanhood, why would you take issue with my comment about women defining manhood?
if this is not true, then why is it that feminists are consistently “deconstructing” masculinity? why is it that feminism focuses on creating a “new” masculinity if it is accepting of the old one? more importantly, why is it that these new forms of feminist-based masculinity always includes a degradation of tradtionally acceptable qualities of masculinity as “repressive and dominating”” in men, but “progressive and liberating” in women?
i took two gender studies courses. i’ve also read several of bell hook’s books, susan faludi, andrea dworkin, and betty friedman to name a few. interestingly enough, i attended an irish catholic high-school, studied the religion, read christian authors, read the bible, or rather parts of it, have an interest in old christian texts and eastern forms of christianity such gnoticism, and i have attended mass with my best friend who is very catholic. yet, i’m not a catholic or a christian. but i do have an understanding christianity, of both the positive and the negative view. simply because i do not agree with it does not mean i do not understand it, which appears to be what you think.
if i might ask, what men’s movement books have you read? criticism of feminism? books on the abuse of males, whether as adults or children?
What do you mean by “what it is to be a man?”
i thought that was fairly clear. it means what it is like to experience life as a man.
Nope, wasn’t clear to me at all. It seems to be a strange definiton. “To know what it is to be a man” means to be a man? Okay, maybe the proper question would be, what is your definition of a man?
I think it is a very weird thing that you are saying when you write:
secondly, it would be rather silly to base your assumptions about masculinity on the actions of high-school teenagers. they are not men, and don’t know what it is to be a man.
It seems that you are saying that you can only know what it is to be a man if you are (or have been) a man. Do I have that right? If so, how is that relevant to what Amp wrote?
At what age would you say that one can “know what it is to be a man?” And are you saying that high-school teenagers cannot be defined as “masculine?” Are you saying that only a man can be masculine? For that matter, what is your definition of masculine?
Maybe that is where all this confusion about what you’re trying to say is coming from.
i took two gender studies courses.
and on and on.
It’s too bad you didn’t actually learn anything in all your studies of feminism.
When you say, “so i have no place within feminism as i am not ashamed of my masculinity…” you show that you don’t grasp any of the basic concepts of feminism. I’m not ashamed of my masculinity, either, but I believe that I do have a place within feminism.
Shame or pride over how much you fit into a culturally defined gender role has nothing to do with whether or not you can be a feminist. Demanding that people conform to rigid gender roles, however, does have something to do with whether or not there is a place for you in feminism. Can you see the important difference between those two concepts?
Oh, and before I forget…
so i have no place within feminism as i am not ashamed of my masculinity…
is an example of sexism in that it says that only men who are ashamed of their masculinity – that is those who are not real men – can be on the side of feminism.
The importance of enforcing gender roles is, I believe, one of the major differences between feminists & anti-feminists.
Really?
I don’t believe in enforcing gender roles at all.
Eh ? I don’t go to blogs teeming with misogynist twits to talk about how I am Woman, hear me roar, etc etc. Why the hell would I want to ? Misogyny is all around me every day. It’s not like I need it to experience the bloggers version of an exotic day-trip.
Big deal. First of all, women’s shelters may be by and large the product of feminism, but no woman who goes to a shelter wanting help has to trot out a highlighted copy of some work by Dworkin or Daly in order to get in. No battered woman is required to emerge from a shelter a card-carrying feminist, last I heard. So I fail to see the harm or confusion in using the term “feminist” and “woman” interchangeably in this case.
Furthermore, this is a feminist board. You landed here and started posting a bunch of shit that you knew full well would piss off the women here, most of whom are feminist. To get all weepy and defensive about it doesn’t make me feel sorry for you, and it wouldn’t make anybody feel sorry for you who had a lick of sense. All your attitude here proves is that you can dish it out but you can’t take it, like most trolls.
There’s a world of difference between saying, “I don’t believe in the Christian faith” and going to boards teeming with Christians who want to discuss specific tenets of their theology (or Christian-sponsored good works) and bullheadedly demanding that they drop whatever specific issue or good work that they are debating in order to prove to you, the loud, proud, non-Christian, that their general beliefs are valid;Especially if you are told over and over again that there are plenty of links and threads already discussing these more general overviews of the faith, and that they are there for you with just a click of the mouse. There’s a difference, IOW, between having a genuinely inquiring, respectful mind, and being a self-centered lout. You are behaving like a lout, and in an all-t00-cliched fashion, I might add.
You wouldn’t have the guts to do that to Christians anyway, I’ll wager. Christianity is the dominant faith in this culture, so it’s a poor parallel for how feminism is viewed in this culture. Trolls and bullies don’t, in general, go for targets who already operate from a position of dominance, or at least a position in which they consider themselves “the norm” and all others, “the others.” Trolls and bullies go for the vulnerable and the few in number. Trolls and bullies do not debate, they guilt-trip and play endless games of “NUH-UHHH !!” They want the spotlight off “the other” (in our case “other” = “woman”) and back where it belongs, on “the norm,” the male). I presume that’s why you’re here and not on some Christian blog somewhere.
In my experience trolls go anywhere they’re guaranteed a rise.
BTW, I have had heated discussions with Christians. Particularly the anti-homosexual, pro-life, fundementalist cadre.
I came here because of jatek… and when I saw the opportunity to question Amp further on the “totality of oppression” I jumped on it. Unfortunately this blog doesn’t have threaded discussions so it’s hard to keep conversations… well… railed.
Yeah, another thread derailed by trolls who want to whine. Bravo.
Can’t imagine why that gets the regular posters pissed.
Anybody who supports Jake the troll doesn’t deserve patience.
Oh, ginmar, you know that the Christians in this country are beaten, raped and harassed daily by the mean hordes of pagans, Jews, and Moslems ! Why, being a Christian in America is exactly like being a woman in America ! Didn’t you get the memo ?
Well, Troppo, now that you’ve been fed for a few days, perhaps you’d like to go back to your own LJ and share your premature pomposity with people actually fool enough to seek it out themselves.
I’m waiting for Amp to respond to my question.
BTW, Christians feel they’re persecuted too. And whenever I discuss anything with them they are constantly on about mainstream “christian-bashing”. Plus, logically, over half of them are subject to the same abuse as feminists.
I’m pretty sure they blame anti-christian culture for that as well though.
if i were to tell what i think a man is, would that not just be my opinion? and how is saying that it is one’s life experience that determines one’s masculinity wrong? it seems as if you are under the impression that there either is, or that i think there is, only one form of masculinity. also, i think you have a serious misunderstanding of my meaning, either intentionally or through accident.
here’s a basic question. do you think a 16 year old is a man? if not, why? if so, why? in other words, what it is that you think makes him a man?
as i said, it is one’s life experiences that teach one to be a man. and i doubt you would deny that being male is a unique experience. so would it not be logical then to assume that if one wanted to better understand masculinity, one would seek out a male who has had more experience? after all, if you want wisdom and advise, you would not ask a 2 year old, would you?
that is not to say that someone who is young cannot be a man, merely that it is unlikely that one without experience will have that understanding. the same holds true for wisdom, or do you disagree?
that would contradict amp’s statement then. he stated that boys who could not fit into society’s view of masculinity have a place in feminism. if it did not involve an element of shame, why would feminism offer them solace? would the purpose of feminism not then serve to remove that shame? likewise, you didn’t address my questions about how feminism responds to traditional masculinity if feminism is accepting of variations in gender roles. as i stated, i don’t fit into the “traditional” male stereotype, just like the vast majority of men. but would it not be equally sexist to deem traditional masculinity as “bad” or “rigid” simply because they do not work for you?
btw, typhon. thanks.
because every woman is not a feminist, and feminism is a political ideology, not sex or gender. using your logic, the words “liberal” and “gay” should be interchangeable.
but that is not what was going on. it would be more akin to christians patting themselves on the back because of a reduction in the deaths of US soldiers in iraq (which would be a good thing) despite the death rate of muslim iraqis doubling (which would be a bad thing), and then proceeding to ask why they should care since it isn’t their problem.
another personal attack… you would lose that bet. after all, i went to a catholic school. and what makes you think that i don’t visit other blogs? you seem to be making a lot of assumptions without any evidence. it would seem then that some feminists have more in common with the christian right than they think.
Sorry for the above, I forgot to close a blockquote.
And as I said, feminism is not required for a battered woman to gain entry into a shelter. I know you have a hard time believing this, Jake, but that’s actually what this thread was supposed to be about: Battered women.
[snicker] I guess you’d know all about that, wouldn’t you, Jakey ? Well, now that it’s been well established that this thread belongs to SYG trolls, and that actual feminists don’t belong in it, I guess I’m all done here. You two enjoy yourselves.
Aside from both being woman-centric?
Aside from both being woman-centric?
Wow. That’s one of the most obtuse things I’ve ever seen, and that is a hotly-contested title.
A religion that worships a woman who became pregnant through an abstraction, gave birth to a chaste man who died for *men’s* sins (not women’s since Mary absolved them of sins by giving birth to Christ) and that considers any sex involving a penis to be debased… seems somewhat pro-woman.
Add that to the fact that all Christian societies see a gradual but definite generational improvement in women’s position and only Christian societies give birth to feminism, seems like Christianity might have some woman-centric tendancies.
Yeah, that’s like saying prostitution is woman-centric. Xtianity worships some men’s vision of women, TB, not real women. Furthermore, it punishes real women. Yeah, gee, thanks.
How does Christianity punish women? Does budhism punish men by holding them to a standard, an ideal man?
Christ, I’m not going to re-invent the wheel here, TB. This is exactly the sort of question people ask when they’re being disingenuous trolls. “Gee, is the sky blue?”
Go google double standard and virgin/whore. Then try and convince me you’ve been living under a damn rock your whole life.
I’m guessing you’re talking about punishment for sexual transgressions.
Historically Christianity was unique as it held men to the same sexual standards as women. Adultery was a sin, regardless if it the adulterer was male or female. That was a radical notion for it’s time and was probably one of the many reasons Roman Matrons embraced it. (Romen Matrons were the avenue by which Christianity grew to pre-eminence in Roman society, btw.) St. Augustine surmonized on this very topic; he essentially told off the men of his congregration for being weaker then the women because of their adulterous behavior.
Christianity also enabled women to embrace a chaste life undefined by men’s sexuality via service to the Church. Prior to Christianity a Roman woman was either a wife or a prostitute, she had no other function but to serve men’s sexual and reproductive aims.
Now when Christianity became main-stream and Christian societies took over the task of enforcing law… men and women’s adultery were punished differently. Because they were viewed, economically but not spiritually or morally, *as* different. Without a wife’s fidelity, a man can’t be assured that his economic investment is going to his own children. The same can’t be said in terms of a husband’s fidelity. But still, a woman’s infidelity was only seen as more severe then a man’s in *economic* terms, and legal punishments reflected that, requireing economic restitution not additional spiritual or moral punishments. Men’s infidelity was still spiritually and morally wrong, even if it’s economic impact on a wife was negligable.
And then there is the issue of same-sex sexual transgressions. Throughout Christian history, it has waged a deadly war against men’s same-sex transgressions while, at the same time, ignoring women’s. That fact alone supports the contention that, historically, Christians punished men far more frequently and severely for sexual transgressions then it has for women.
As for the virgin/whore dichotomy… men in Ancient Rome were also divided into catagories based on their sexual actions, namely man vs. cinaedus, does that prove they were oppressed?
You’re being disingenuous and long-winded here, TB. Are you actually trying to deny that Xtianity isn’t the biggest purveyer of sexism there is?
No. I’m not at all.
I think we’re just disagreeing which sex is the whipping boy of Christian sexism.
BTW, even if virgin/whore is a common meme in christian society… if it doesn’t translate into actual punishment for sexual transgressions then how is it anything more then a catty insult leveled at women (often by other women)?
Just like cinaedus was a catty insult among male Roman citizens.
Now a more pertinent question would be, have Christians historically punished female fornicators more then male?
The answer is, no. In fact the opposite might entertained since male fornicators could be punished by being forced to pay money to the woman they took “advantage” of.
As for being unable to condense a historical argument into convienent “four legs good, two legs better” sound bite… my appologies but where I come from contentions need to be supported with fact, and fact does need a bit more space to elucidate.
The answer is no? Well, gee, let me just overlook the real world and take your word for it.
I’m constantly amazed when people try this.
the virgin/whore theme doesn’t exist in all of christianity. it’s a particualrly western element. eastern churches interpret the bible in many different ways, and their views of women aren’t all the same. more so, early christians in the US actually viewed women as purer than men. it was man who was vile, man who was corruptible. this is the reason why when the witch trials began that it was so easy to target women. what would be the best guise if not those who are the purest?
and honestly, if you look back on the history of the church, there has been a far greater deal of violence, cruelty and truly unecessary and bizarre restraints placed on males within the western church, particularly during the medieval period. that’s not to say women haven’t been targeted, but if we were being honest, we’d have to admit that most religions demand far more from their male members.
I would like to see on what is the study based upon. On the surface, it seems like one of those agenda oriented studies, as there is a much simpler explanation to the decline in women’s murder rate: a decline in ALL murder rates, men and women alike.
Furthermore, there is little correlation between women’s murder rate and misogynism. In Japan for instance, a country far more patriarchal and misogynistic than the US, women’s murder and rape rates are far lower than in the US. This is true regarding many countries. I would venture say that in strict Muslim countries the murder rate is relatively low, even though they are highly patriarchal and misogynistic. The simple explanation is that in those countries, for many different reasons, violence in general is lower than in the US, so violence against women is lower too. It has nothing to do with misogynism or feminism.
Besides, the anti-Feminists do not object to Equity Feminism (the notion that men and women ought to be equal) – few today would object to women being equal to men! – but object to Gender (aka Radical) Feminism (the notion that the definitions of gender, particularly the male gender, ought to be redefined and molded anew via coercive legal measures and irrespective of scientific data). The vast majority of Americans, and I suspect Brits too, are uncomfortable with the ideas and methods of the latter. So before we use this study to bolster “Feminism” in general, we ought to be careful to note which brand of Feminism are we talking about: Equity Feminism or Gender/Radical Feminism? If this study has merit, it might bolster the anyway-agreed-upon Equity Feminism, but hardly the controversial Gender Feminism.
MrZ wrote:
MrZ, with all due respect, did you even read the linked article? The article makes it clear that both murder rates of men and the overall murder rate has been increasing, not declining:
As far as I can tell from the article (and we’ll know more when the study itself is published and available), it’s specifically the murder of women by men that has been declining. Clearly, your alternative explanation holds no water.
Regarding Japan, I don’t think that’s a meaningful argument, because there are so many confounding factors that you’re ignoring. The murder rate in the US is ridiculously high compared to all other countries; I could just as easily say “Sweden has a much lower murder rate, and is much more feminist than the US, therefore misogyny causes murder.” That’s obviously not a reasonable conclusion to draw from such simplistic data; but your conclusion drawn from Japan’s low murder rate is just as unreasonable and simplistic.
Nor is it clear that Japan’s rape prevalence is all that low; more than one study has suggested that Japan’s official rape statistics severely undercount the incidence of actual rape. What you’re saying is proof that misogyny has nothing to do with rape prevalence, may just be proof that in a more misogynistic culture, women are much less likely to report rape to the authorities.
I wouldn’t know – and even if you were correct, that doesn’t logically establish that misogyny has “nothing to do” with the rate of murdering women, only that it’s not the one and only factor. Again, international comparisons that don’t control for any confounding factors at all are meaningless.
The Gender/Equity feminism dichotomy is not one I take seriously; it is incompatable with any serious intellectual analysis.
Shorter Jake the troll: PHMT! Or better yet: Patriarchy hurts men more!
uh-huh… thanks for demostrating yet again that when one is incapable of debasing a point, there is always unprovable, all-encompassing biased rhetoric. it’s almost like being in catholic high school again…
Just in case you want to know what the original article was actually about, a summary:
http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/publications/commentary/red_pepper_inequality_kills.pdf
all the best…