Blog PostsNavigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Matt Loewen at Mar 03, 2009 |
|
I have a question that I've been pondering on for a while now, but I wasn't willing to ask anyone who might be able to answer my question for whatever reason. What I've been pondering is the difference between sexism and sexuality. I've taken a few courses in Women's Studies in University, and am currently taking a course called Gender and Politics, which covers the political aspects of gender. Needles to say I've had some formal training in understanding gender. Some, but not a lot.
In every one of these classes, I have learned that women are oftentimes reduced to mere sex objects. I notice this on campus everywhere, all the time. Whether it is overhearing the two guys in front of me virtually drooling over a group of girls giving a class presentation, or on the weekend when guys on campus are talking about how many 'chicks' they're going to 'bang' or those same guys during the week talking about how drunk he was and whether he banged his quota of chicks, or whether it is myself, whom I oftentimes catch staring- ogling, really- at women around campus who wear those damned Lulu Lemon yoga tights as pants. I've read Margaret Atwood's poem Helen of Troy Does Counter Dancing: They gaze at me and see Here she is talking about how women are only seen as body parts: they aren't whole or full or equal people. Now, unforuntately, I find myself in the chainsaw massacre position. I catch myself just sitting there, staring at, for lack of better expression, tits and ass. I'd like to think that I don't drool while I do this, but I do stare. This makes me feel extremely guilty. Is it wrong to wrong to stare? The message I have gotten, while not explicitly stated in my classes, is that yes, it is wrong for a guy to stare at T&A. Its wrong because I'm reducing them to a mere sexual object, or weighing them against the body type preferences that were socialized in me at a very young age. But is this guilt necessary? I hesitate to write this at the risk of sounding essentialist, but as a male of this species, I have biological urges. The two primary ones are arguably get food and get sex. Of course, this is tricky territory, because another supposed male trait is the fight urge. This is the problem with essentializing things, or reducing things to a statement of "it is natural for men to be so." This is the type of argument that justified women's subordination for so many years, and indeed still informs their unequal position in the world today: "a woman's place is in the private sphere, not the public sphere!" The public/private dichotomy goes back to the times of Athenian democracy. At any rate, if I am to follow this Freudian reading of things, what with biological urges, which I think played a big role in his understanding of humanness, then we have a superego, based on social standards in order to keep these urges of the id in check. I should note here that my understanding and reading of Freud is limited at best: for instance, the superego is supposed to be the idea of the status quo. But the conscience that informs me seems to run counter to the status quo, or counter to patriarchy. My point is that I realize that we have the ability to overcome these so-called natural urges by reasoning, with help of social peers. This is partially why I am trying to reason through this question here, with you, my peers. In attempt to resist the biological urges, I have removed myself from looking for relationships. I don't even know how to approach women. Its like I have this religious guilt about how sex is a sin and I know that this shouldn't be the case. Sex isn't some sort of terrible act. It is a private act, at present, and from what I've heard, some of the most fun you can have. And so here I am, reduced to stealing furtive glances at women walking by, not approaching any of them, or even the ones I know, even the ones I like, because Im scared of being some sort of male oppressor, and so sexual urges build up, and instead of a healthy release, both literally and figuratively, its a self-reinforcing feedback loop of guilt and self-denial. I wasn't realizing that there is a difference between sexism and sexuality. Should attraction be based on more than just outer features? When taking into consideration how beauty is constructed, and my attraction to certain body types, I would argue yes. Unequivocally. Shouldn't it be based on a beautiful mind, or a compassionate heart rather than a chainsaw murder right before it happens? Of course it should. And this might be some explanation as to where guilt comes in. For so long I've had the idea that noticing the body is wrong. But I no longer think that is the case. Because in not noticing a woman's body, then I'm not really noticing or appreciating her as a whole human being. Holistic love, one could say, is what Im looking for. I realize that patriarchy affects men as well as women. Men have imposed standards of behaviour, gender norms, and pressures one them as well. One of these pressures I have detailed here: the pressure to 'bang the chick'. In my attempt to remove myself from patriarchy, I drew on feminism's critique of male behaviour towards women, namely their sexual objectification, and took that as a guide for correct action; namely, do not touch or look. Unfortunately, I think I have been mistaken. Human beings are sexual beings. To deny that women are sexual beings, or to deny my own sexuality is to deny my humanity. Only recently have I come to realize that the point is that women are not MERELY sexual objects. They have a sexual side, just as do men, but that is not their only side. I am still terrified of relationships. Maybe this is because feminism has done a good job of draining the patriarchy right out of me. I appreciate that: Im not sure if patriarchy exists in me still (I would like to think that it doesn't), but I know that it needs to be purged. But it seems as though the part of me that is capable of loving relationships was being drained out as well. As Thrice sings in their song All That's Left: We tried to bleed the sickness Since I'm quoting poems and songs, I figure I should mention that it was this song, Refusing to be a Man, by Propagandhi, that prompted this line of introspection and self-analysis. It is also one of my favourites. I'm not going to try to tell you that I'm different from all the rest. I've been subject to the same de-structure of desire and I've felt the same effects; I'm a hetero-sexist tragedy. And potential rapists all are we. But don't tell me this is natural. This is nurturing. And there's a difference between sexism and sexuality. I had different desires prior to my role-remodelling. And at six years of age you don't challenge their claims. You become the same. (Or withdraw from the game and hang your head in shame). I think that's exactly what I did.
a chain-saw murder right before it happens,
when thigh, ass, inkblot, crevice, tit, and nipple
are still connected
But we drained our hearts instead
We are, we are the dead
I tried to sever the connections between me and them. I fought against their further attempts to convince a kid that birthright can bestow the power to yield the subordination of women and do you know what patricentricity means? I found out just a couple of days/months/years/minutes ago. It means male values uber alles and hey! Whaddaya know... sex has been distorted and vilified. I'm scared of my attraction to body types. If everything desired is objectified then maybe eroticism needs to be redefined. And I refuse to be a man.
Re: Paul
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 14, 2009 08:34 AM
Hi Paul! You say words - that I can't understand (even after 10 minutes intensive thinking) and it make me miserable and sad...:-)
Moshe, females can do bad things to males, sure - but it has no (or insignificant) structural basis, whereas male disempowerment of females does.
I can list for you (and actually already did it here - you just some how missed my previous replies) plenty of ways - female can "
disempower" male - all have solid "structural basis"...
Now - explain me - which way (that have structural basics have a male to "
desimpower" female??? I am just curious....
I many times in this thread shown - that patriarchal society was not "
genderlydisadvantaging" females - actually - if will take into account whole spectre of life aspects, and only those - that suite some predefined narrative - that we want to prove -we will immediately see that it was quite opposite...
Paul... Unfortunately - Society do not exists only from ruling elite... 99.99% of population just in case do not belong to those elite... And if we will look on those 99.99% - we will see that males leave some 10-15% less time then females, are systematically alienated from their children, and converted to pay machines ( I saw estimations - that in close 15 years - more then 60% of American children will raise at least part ofchildhood without father), are discriminated in health services... But - - once more - I explained it few times in this thread...
So - if it is patriarchal society advancing males and oppressing females - we could expect - that oppressors will leave more , forceoppressed to do all dangerous jobs for them and take everything most important (children) to their self... Why do not we see it??? Obviously - because it is not a case...
I also think you are generalising quite carelessly when you describe females as seeing 'males as easy source for financial exploitation'.
Really??? How many women pay for their counterpart on date??? How many men??? How many women pay alimony/child support (in IL for example - even if women leave child for father's custody - she is absolutely free from any financial duties...)On which planet are you leaving men???
If you notice my description of gender oppressive attitudes towards women in my previous comments, I never generalised about male behaviour towards females, only stated that males have the option of utilising their socially-granted power to degreade females.
That is exactly - what I asked you... Which options of "oppressive behaviour" males have in today western society toward female counterparts , and which "socially-granted powers"
theycan "utilise" for those low purposes??? without generalisations...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Paul
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 14, 2009 23:49 PM
Moshe,
i know there are some family law regimes that have a before the fact preference of giving the children of divorced parents to the mother, I agree that it isn't fair and there are efforts being made (at least in Australia) to reintroduce some balance to the law.
However, I don't think a few instances of imbalances in family law can be used to define a whole system of gender relations, in which women have historically been worse off than men, and disempowered by men.
Next, you say that it is often customary for men to pay for women on a date. Does this support the assertion that females see 'males as easy source of financial exploitation'? How could you even prove that it is how women think? It is just a massive generalisation. It would be just as wrong as if I said 'males see females as sexual objects'.
Finally, you ask what oppressive behaviours and socially-granted power males have in western society to achieve their 'low purposes'.
First off, I never said anyone had low purposes. It's not that males are evil, or that capitalists are evil, etc, etc, it's that institutions exist which empower them relative to females.
In Western society males still, to a large extent, fill institutional roles that empower them relative to women. There continues to be a social stigma that discourages females from being sexually assertive, while it is considered 'normal' for males to be sexual conquistadors. Many women in positions of power often find it hard for their opinions to be considered equally to those of males. Social norms encourage women from childhood to take greater interest in child-rearing and housework, while males are encouraged to take interest in active, constructive pursuits. In other words, social norms around kinship empower men and disempower women. I can't think of any more examples right at the moment, but you should get the idea.
Moshe, beyond that I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think I've been as far from the truth as you portray. And it would seem to me, though I don't know this for sure, that you come to this venue with a set of opinions and attitudes that are not open to challenge or criticism such that your participation seems to be limited to criticising others without offering anything yourself for examination. Why don't you articulate your understanding of gender relations, or perhaps why you think gender relations are not important in Western societies in a ZSpace blog, and let others critically react?
Or are you just here to gawk at activists like animals in a zoo?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Paul
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 15, 2009 13:34 PM
Ok... Let us begin from end... I do not gawk on Matt, or - have some diehard set of opinions... From beginning - I even thought - that Matt is really in trouble, before I understood - that he actually is simulating some personal problem to advance quite absurd (in my point of view) agenda about fancied oppressive(degrading) behaviour of young males toward females in general... I am not political activist ( I never participated in demos) but - I am dedicated left-winger, and I think - that unconditional, blind support by of feminist ideas by left wing - cause great damage to that wing...Here is my "I believe" on this issue - antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/feminism-really-left-movement-14978.html
I am quite surprised by your question - "Why don't you articulate your understanding of gender relations". In this discussion I all the time do exactly this - articulate it with examples , references and explanations, but get in return general phrases about "pure females" desimpowered" by evil "patriarchy" (with no any concrete explanations - who and how actually do it...)
Your paragraph about "it's that institutions exist which empower them relative to females" I once more - can't understand - what about are you speaking... That is right - that traditionally women were more concentrated on family field (when it still existed), and men in industry, military, politics... And I many times explained - that if we will take total look on pro and contras - it did not disadvantage females... But - all this is history... Today in NY region for example - females outnumber males in high salary positions by more then 16% , Majority of college and university students are females... So??? When males outperformed females - special commissions were created ( in evil patriarchal society), special programs(funded by state) of academical help (additional lessons and so on) for females were established... And today - when males are in trouble? Where are special programs to help a boys in school , academy??? As you understand - they just do not exist... And feminist leaders , especially - working in education field cry - that "boys crisis - is myth and nothing have to be done" (Google for Boys crisis - and you will have an enlightenment)... That is real gender oppression - not mythical one...
But real fun is of cause your passage about "social stigma that discourages females from being sexually assertive" Where are you leaving man??? Look onto window, or visit some pick up bar...
Social norms - that "encourage women from childhood to take greater interest in child-rearing and housework" - that is also good... Where exactly did you find those women??? When 2 years ago I and my wife took our son to program "weight management" - Social worker asked parents (some 25 - most of cause mothers) - who systematically cook food for children at home - it appeared - that only in 3families from 25 - mothers systematically cook at home...... What about are speaking??? Wake up from your wander land...
And finally - if more then half marriages end by divorce ( I actually saw estimation - that in US 60% of today children will leave part of life in fatherless home) - and almost always mother (if she is not total alcoholist , or crazy) get children - it is not "some laws- that are little bit unjust" - it is major gender oppression against males population - that affect majority of this population - or - you also here will disagree with me???
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paul
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 16, 2009 05:26 AM
Sorry to doubt your motivations, it wasn't really called for.
Maybe from where you sit, Moshe, you don't see this. I dunno, maybe in your personal experience you haven't encountered persisting norms and attitudes that are well, patriarchal, that exist to disempower women.
I grew up in the suburbs, went to an all-boys catholic high school, my parents never divorced, though 90% of my friends had divorced parents.
From what I have observed in my life, the attitudes towards women, the household tasks that women seem to get compared to men, the work women seem to do compared to men (concentrated in low-status, low-paid industries), etc - the male-superior version of gender relations to my eyes is a lot closer to the truth than a female-superior version.
I don't doubt that there is a boys crisis. I don't see it as a manifestation of women are superior attitudes and structures however. The education system sucks for boys and girls. The way our society is atomised, it seems children are kind of locked away, either in the home, school or supervised consumption activity, from wider society. So the role-model problem runs both ways.
In any case, what harm could there be for males in outlining a system of equitable gender relations?
Moshe, I might read your post later, my internet is slow and i'm tired right now. Why don't you post it on ZSpace so that this discussion doesn't have to take up the comments section fo someone else's blog?
Also, please don't paraphrase me using terms like 'evil'. I've never used that term to describe anything. It's the nature of oppressive institutions in general that genuinely good people can be shaped into behaving in pathological ways.
I'm leaving this thread for history to judge.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paul
By Loewen, Matt at May 16, 2009 10:49 AM
I agree with Paul, here; please write your own Zblog! Then we can move the discussion to that venue. Also, your insistance that I invented my dilemma in order to advance a feminist agenda is fairly insulting. If you want to insult me, I just won't respond. Sorry to ruin your fun.
Reply this comment
Re: Paul
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 17, 2009 01:42 AM
Hi Paul! I also am from family - where parents never divorced... I also have 2 children and no plans to divorce... But - when I have reestablished contacts with many my school/university friennds - I saw - that 90 % are divorced all divorces initiated by women , many my friends see children ocasionally (if at all), but of cause all pay heavy child support payments... I was shocked (especially taking into account my left wing viewwpoints) - and actually - it is what have brought me to MRA ideas.. I wil not repeat third time my arguments - that I mentioned in this thread... If you will want - you will read it... If you will not want - it will not help - if I will repeat them even 3 more times... Now - it is up to you...
I have no plan to open Zblog ... If you will look at number of messages in Zforum on gender and feminism, and number of comments on blogs here - you will see - that it lack any meaning... Anet became godforsaken place, and I originally entered this discussion - since really believed - that MAtt really has personal problem , and really need help and look for answers... But - of cause - it is far from reality... So - I also leave this place for dust of history...
And for MAtt - it is not much fun to speak to wall and empty air in desert... I am quiter sure - if we would check read hints on this place - we are only 3 persons - that look here... So - you can continue grow stonger in you femi self education and discuss your ideas with your own self... IT is great idea to play chess with yourself - you will alway win...
Have a great time Guys...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Paul
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 17, 2009 01:44 AM
I meant Znet - instead of Anet
Reply this comment
Re: Matt
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 14, 2009 08:23 AM
Hi MAtt! I think - that "shared understanding" of basic terms on spoken issue - is not only "something - we should attempt to find out"... IT is absoluteley required for intelegent meaningfull discussion... Other vise - if every oneunderstand by samothing different under same words - discussion is meaningless and actually useless
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 12, 2009 04:25 AM
A really insightful, personal post Matt. i read it a while ago and wasn't sure how to respond, but here I will have a go.
You are spot on that the problem we can have when we're conscious of one oppression or another is that we go too far in the opposite direction. It's like once we're aware of the injustice we can be hyper-aware of reproducing it.
However, I don't know that is possible to have a relationship (whether personal friendship or loving relationship) in this current society that is completely free from unjust relations of power. It's always in the background, there. The white person always has the option of calling upon his/her social privilege whether he/she chooses to exercise it or not, the black person never has that option. Similarly, the man always has the option of invoking patriarchal relations in a relationship with a female, exercised or not - the female never has that option. A 30 year old and a 10 year old, the same dynamic.
So when you noticed female physical beauty, you became aware that you had the option as a male to respond to that beauty in patriarchal ways. In fact, as you acknowledged, social pressures might even encourage you to respond to that physical beauty by objectifying and conquering - 'banging the chick.' Females may even be expecting men to relate to them in patriarchal ways, right or wrong, and modify their willingness to endure unjust relations if it means they can fulfill their needs for intimacy. This makes it difficult for someone wanting to relate to another in a just way, as the shared understanding of what a just set of relations looks like is not there.
So, as people rewarded with social power for being male and white, we can be humanists and choose not to exercise that power out of principle. But the real challenge will be creating shared understanding of alternative structures where relations of power don't exist as options in the background.
As mentioned that shared understanding does not exist, so patriarchal behaviours have a sort of inertia to them, in that they're the only game in town, despite the massive improvements made by the women's movement.
In the meantime, I agree that we shouldn't be afraid to recognise our desires for fulfilling activity such as sex just because the means for fulfilling those desires can entail relations of power. Imagining what the fulfilment of those desires would look like and be like in a just, non-oppressive society will help us all to understand that while sex isn't the problem, our current society is.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 12, 2009 23:50 PM
Hi Guys! I really enjoy your and sorry interfere onto exquisite discussion on "surplus/basic characteristic of well-being" and so on (I hope - that at least you yourself have an idea - what about are you speaking...)... But - I am just very curious - what you Paul mean - when you says:
"So when you noticed female physical beauty, you became aware that you had the option as a male to respond to that beauty in patriarchal ways"
What does it means - to respond in patriarchal way??? IF I get it right - to date women (and pay on dates - you know - drinks, cinema, restaurant), buy her presents, make a sex with her - is "patriarchal way" (oppression)... So - what is non patriarchal way??? I am just curious...
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 13, 2009 05:33 AM
Thanks for your questions, Moshe.
You ask: "What does it means - to respond in a patriarchal way?"
Firstly, it might help here to have a definition of patriarchy. It's a set of attitudes, institutions and behaviours that empowers men at the expense of women.
To your question, it's quite clear through my post and subsequent comments that I meant he could respond to that beauty by acting or developing a set of attitudes that is degrading and disempowering to women.
There are many ways this could happen. A male could perhaps disregard the opinions or intelligence of females, and instead respond to them as if their worth was a function of their bodies. A male could see the value of a female in terms of his own sexual fulfillment. A male could develop expectations that are consistent with females being their servants or subordinates. These are all possibilities and realities created by patriarchy.
As for the second part of your question, you ask how could males and females concievably relate in ways that aren't patriarchal. Short of proposing an alternative set of social institutions that could better facilitate gender equality, here are some starters: the male partner could be just as responsive to female emotional and sexual needs as the female is to the man. The male partner could treat the female as a human being with capacities and desires no less important or real than his own. The male could share equally with the female the burdens and pleasures that affect them both equally - such as raising a child, keeping the house clean, being there for each other in equal measure. Perhaps you could think of some more ways, Moshe, in which males and females could relate that allows both to fulfill desires and needs without disempowering the other.
Finally, I never stated that the activities you described are "patriarchal", so that seems to be a projection of your own understanding of patriarchy. You could reread my aforementioned definition of patriarchy and subsequent scenarios, then perhaps imagine how it, when applied to things like sex, relationships and dating, could possibly manifest itself.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 13, 2009 12:46 PM
Hi Paul! I have read your post with big advertence - and did not find there even one point - that I can agree even approximately... :-)
First - I do not know source of your definition of Patriarchy, but - it is definitely out of reality... I already pointed in this discussion to wikipedia and Latin translation... So - in short - Patriarchy is social arrangement based in institute of family... Main purpose of this institute- obviously is effective raising of off springs for which purpose gender roles separation is implemented... In translation from Latin Patriarchy is right of father (for his children)... As I already mentioned - in final account Patriarchy actually advantage females on expanse of males, but gives meales something - they never had before - THEIR children...
From that point - as I already mentioned - modern western society is definitely matriarchy - men lost right for children (50% divorce rate 80+% - initialised by female, almost always children by definition are passed to sole mother property...)...
There are many ways this could happen. A male could perhaps disregard the opinions or intelligence of females, and instead respond to them as if their worth was a function of their bodies. A male could see the value of a female in terms of his own sexual fulfillment. A male could develop expectations that are consistent with females being their servants or subordinates. These are all possibilities and realities created by patriarchy.
I am - let us say surprised... Are you from moon??? And how females regard males??? As I already mentioned - much worse way - as sex objects (which is same as from males side) plus - walking wallets... So - if we will ask sacramental question - "who abuse whom" - it is obvious - that today males are definitely abused side, since both sides see counterparts "in terms of his own sexual fulfillment", but females also see males in addition as easy source for financial exploitation... But - I already mentioned it in my previous replay's...
Last sentence of this paragraph (about "females being their servants") - I did not understand at all... How practically male can do it??? If they are just cohabiting - she just can take her belongings and go out (or - throw his belongings together with him if it is her flat)... If they are married - in 2 hours he is divorced ex - that loose his children, house and most of his assets and becomes for close 20 years cash machine for empowered princess (you know - alimony's , child support)... Where are you living man???
And about your last 2 paragraphs - I already mentioned this link -www.thehappymisogynist.com/index.php(http://www.thehappymisogynist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:a-prayer-for-joe-bob&catid=1:articles&Itemid=2)
There you will find all answers...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 13, 2009 17:56 PM
Moshe, females can do bad things to males, sure - but it has no (or insignificant) structural basis, whereas male disempowerment of females does.
Ok, you were obviously confused by the concept of patriarchy. How about we think of it as "gender oppression of females" to be less ambiguous.
You also imply that matriarchy, not "patriarchy" is how western societies are organised. If that were the case, Moshe, wouldn't we expect to see a majority of females in the empowering positions of our society? Wouldn't we expect to see females as systematically economically advantaged compared to males?
We don't, because it isn't the case.
To the extent that hatred of men exists among women, I think it is on the margins of social institutions and not really a systemic phenomenon.
I also think you are generalising quite carelessly when you describe females as seeing 'males as easy source for financial exploitation'.
If you notice my description of gender oppressive attitudes towards women in my previous comments, I never generalised about male behaviour towards females, only stated that males have the option of utilising their socially-granted power to degreade females.
generalisation is not a very useful basis for making predictions about the structural basis of some or the other social relations.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Loewen, Matt at May 12, 2009 13:25 PM
Hey Paul, thanks for your reply. This will definitely give me some food for thought. The part at the end: sex isn't the problem, but it's framing, perhaps, in our current society (as a reflection of society itself) is the problem.
Very insightful, though, the other part you mentioned in the last para: we shouldn't be afraid to recognize our desires despite their inherent power relations. I guess I am still hesitant on this point because it poses our desires against the well-being of another.
Do you think our desires, for instant, the desire for sexual relations, are a type of surplus characteristic of well-being, and as such can they be realistically weighed against someone else's basic (vs. surplus) well-being? Isn't privilege simply capitalizing on itself in this situation?
About the near impossibility of having friendships/relationships in the current system, I see what you mean, such is that - to use a few greek workds - philia/agape is destroyed, along with healthy eros marred, by hierarchical relations.
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 12, 2009 16:21 PM
Hey Matt,
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by 'surplus/basic characteristic of well-being'. Do you mean that sexual desire is first and foremost a desire to meet one's own needs at the expense of the other person's needs?
Well sexual desire in and of itself is harmless, it's just thoughts and emotions in the mind of one person. It's only when those desires are acted out in unjust ways, in ways that utilise existing unjust relations, that sex becomes someone's desire against another's well-being. Of course, it doesn't need to be this way but without shared understanding of a freer alternative we tend to gravitate to existing ways of relating that aren't so healthy.
I wouldn't say it's impossible to have friendships or relationships in current society, it's just that without a shared understanding of what a "good and just" relationship is, there is always the possibility of introducing relations of power into those friendships and relationships.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Loewen, Matt at May 14, 2009 07:19 AM
Sorry for getting so abstract! By surplus and basic characteristics of well-being I was asking if you think that there is a hierarchy of charactersitics, like sexual gratification or personal security or nutritional proficiency or something- they would all be included. Now that I've thought about it a little bit, ranking these things may not be the best way to go about doing things, because then it may be such that only the things that are prioritized are taken care of, instead of thinking about an inclusive and holistic sense of well-being in which tension (ie. between two different chacteristics of well-being) is included as healthy. This is one problem with human rights discourses that see civil and political rights as more important and socio-economic rights as less important, and therefore largely ignored (this is usually done by governments who recognize the significant costs that upholding socio-economic rights entail).
With regards to shared understandings, I wonder - is there a possibility of having a shared understanding of one alternative in something to personal and complex as interpersonal relationships? Perhaps I misread you - by shared understanding do you mean a singular, unifying "right way"? Is this something that we should even be attempting to find? What are the limitations of a singular right way, or, dare I say it, relational formula?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 14, 2009 17:45 PM
Hey Matt,
I mean shared understanding in the same sense as we need a "shared understanding" of an alternative set of economic institutions. So for example, when we have Parecon as a shared understanding of a better set of economic arrangements, we are not limiting or before the fact deciding what people will end up co-operatively deciding to produce and consume, we are just saying that production and consumption should take place within a framework that does not create structural injustices.
Same thing with interpersonal relationships and gender relations. It would indeed be terrible if we imposed upon people a uniform way of interacting, but that is not what I was getting at. We should have a framework within which people relate that eliminates problems of structural injustice, and enables people to do what they want in conditions where relations of power don't exist. It's basically that idea that we need vision of an ideal set of arrangements/frameworks so as we can judge which behaviours bring us closer to our desired goal and which take us further away. If two people have a loving relationship, and they both have a shared conception of a desirable set of institutional arrangements, they will be better prepared to avoid the pitfalls associated with oppressive relations.
I think it woulkd likely be the case that in institutional conditions where relations of power have been banished, personal relationships and indeed the way we think of gender relations will find quite new, diverse and exciting expressions. So yes, diversity is a good thing.
I think I kind of understand what you're getting at now, re heirarchy of characteristics. yes, all things equal, people can't survive without sources of nutrition, but they can survive without sex, so in a sense one is a basic need the other is surplus to minimum requirements. However, and as you recognised, I'm not sure how that insight really helps us. Does abstaining from sex enable other people's more basic needs to be met? Not really. Equally, if someone is found lost and starving in the desert in a better society, we give him/her some water and food, not sex. Common sense should prevail, I think.
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Loewen, Matt at May 06, 2009 17:25 PM
It is very easy to create an impression with statistics, especially if you only use one or two. You have chosen a statistic that makes it seem as though women are not oppressed, and indeed, that men are oppressed by the women that they must provide for- that women have a longer life expectancy. I would like to see some well-researched evidence to back up your claim that this results from working FOR women, instead of just rhetoric. You also use father's rights as an issue. Taking these two points in isolation makes it seem as though the "Modern Princess" does indeed oppress men.
Let's take a larger statistical view, shall we? In order to have a better, broader understanding of what is happening in the world, in order to have a more accurate picture of the situation, vs. your narrow view of focusing only on two aspects. Will we keep those in mind, however.
The idea that women "belong" to their husbands still dominates gender relations in most countries, and is backed by law, ie. they need their husband's permission to travel, buy or sell property, etc. In some places, widows are "inherited" along with other possessions. That women are "property" of their husbands is a potent ideological prop that legitimizes dmoestic violence.
For millions of women around the world, their home is the most dangerous place they could be- a cradle of violence at the hands of their spouse seeking to keep the woman "in her place" if she resists the husbands patriarchal authority. This violence is often ignored by the state because it is a "private" matter. In the US, 22-35% of women who visit a hospital emergency room do so because of domestic abuse. Moshe, do you claim that these women are beating themselves for sympathy, or to frame their husbands?
At least one in three women in the world have been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime by a member of her family. In Canada, where I am from, 40-70% of all female murder victims are killed by their husbands or boyfriends. In Russia it is 32%. In France, a woman dies every 4 days due to domestic violence. Do you claim that these women are killing themselves to somehow gain from their husband's imprisonment?
Each year, around 200 million women become pregnant. Over half a million of these women die during child birth, and 50 million suffer from long-term illness as a result. These deaths and disabilities are all preventable with basic health care- unfortunately for these women, military spending, and protecting the rich is far more important than women's health. As noted by UNICEF, if millions of men suffered permanent damage to their genitalia, leaving them in constant pain, infertile, and incontinent and in dread of having sex, and if hundreds of thousands of men were dying, afraid and alone, this issue would have been far more widely publicized, and at least some action would have been taken.
Also, it is a near universal that male infants are privileged over girls. This leads to female fetuses being aborted, or female infanticide, with newborn girls killed shortly after birth. Also, girls are neglected in many regions, withholding food and medical attention, to provide for boys who will be able to go out and work for the family, while the woman is only to be an owned womb to produce more boys, who can be beaten for resisting. Simply put, boys are valued more than girls, a view strengthened by marriage, inheritance and dowry practices. If girls are being killed because they have to be "sold" during marriage along with a dowry, for instance, this is clear that women are only seen as objects, rather than people.
Women undergo a staggering amount of suffering in the pursuit of beauty in accordance with norms that are based on male desire. In this sense, social control of men over women's body is so strong that women spend $50 billion in the US alone on cosmetics. A preoccupation with weight and body image has become an intrinsic part of of the lives of women and girls. Do you claim that they use the painful techniques only to lure men into their trap where they somehow destroy them with feminism or something?
Also, have you heard about the global sex trade? Women's bodies are for sale, and part of a multi-billion dollar industry. Worldwide, 12 million people work in forced labor, from sweatshop workers to sex slaves, with 98% of the sexually exploited as women, and 56% in other forced work being women. Are you going to argue that it is women's own fault for being prostitutes? Don't you agree that we live in a system where some women are forced into these positions? In the 50's I would doubt that you would say that it is a black person's fault for being oppressed. Increasingly, girls, young girls, are in demand in the sex trade due to worries about HIV/AIDS and the attempt to find "safe partners".
Work is another place where the inequality between women and men can be seen. Women aren't paid the same amount as men for the SAME JOBS. Is this more feminist trickery to pull the wool over our eyes to hide some male oppression? What about the fact that women's work, when it isn't forced or sexual slavery, doesn't have advancement, which means that it is in the informal sector. What about the fact that women are always seen as the caregivers as children, which means that they are relegated to the domestic sphere, and that all the work they do in raising the children (which they were, until recently, forced into doing based on sexist assumptions) is NOT VALUED. Imagine- the work of raising a family is not paid. Why is that? Because "women's work" is unimportant in comparison to "men's work". Women have to balance this unpaid work with paid work in ways that men seldom do. The glass ceiling remains in place, Moshe.
I think that is enough, without going over literacy, school, higher education, access to food and other resources such as technology, homosexual rights, property ownership, poverty, debt, voting rights, women in government, women in the military, and women as "spoils" during war, all of which point, sadly, to the truly deplorable conditions of women around the world. It should also be noted that "male values uber alles" also creates many problems for men, which I can outline for you as well if you want.
I would like to address your points about rape, however:
Your view of rape is sexist. If you think that women or men aren't allowed to say "no" at any time during sex and have their partner NOT force themselves on them, and act like an adult, and show some restraint, then I think you should re-evaluate the way that you treat, understand, and value women. If a woman says "no" and a man continues, that constitutes rape. That is the very definition of rape: to force someone to have sexual intercourse AGAINST THEIR WILL or WITHOUT CONSENT. You even said it yourself- it is right in front of you. How can you not see it? Have you ever heard the slogan "No means no?" Well, it is a fairly simple one: "No" means no. If a woman gets scared, then too bad for the man, if he wants to continue, he can do so by himself. he doesn't have a "right" to her body, or a "right" to pleasure himself at her expense. Is rape only rape if it is some stranger in a dark alley? No. Rape occurs at the exact moment when "No" goes unheard.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 08, 2009 12:32 PM
Ok.... First of all - Life span and Father's right are not "just 2 issues"... Ask any compos person - what is more important for him/her, then some 10 years of life , and his/her children... I suppose - there are no many such things... So - those are THE ISSUES...
Second - my congratulations... You finally understand - that statistics can lie (as old sentence says - there are lies , there are big lies , and there is statistics...). So - let us look at "example from life... And I choose... my neighbors at floor - Anton and Sonia... I think - both are around their 60... Couple of Immigrants from former USSR... Came to IL some 15 years ago (or around it - I do not know exactly...)Have daughter and 2 grandchildren... Anton works almost from moment of their coming to IL... He is machine serviceman in small plant... Works in subhuman conditions (hot of 35+ Calcium degree + hot of machines, no air conditioning) on very hard physical work, 12-14 hours per day... He earns major part of their joint wage... He has major health problems... Rear joint, meniscus, blood pressure, audition... All - results of hard work conditions + long work hours... At evening - When he comes home - I some times see him... He barely can walk , because of rear and knee pains... some 5 years ago - machine raved his finger (it was sewed back - but he barely can move it...)
Sonia started to work few months after him... She also works on unqualified jobs... But - of cause - she never worked such long hours, and in such conditions... So - what we have here according to "statistics" - served to you on your garbage gender studies... Anton of cause is "wealthy patriarch" - he earns almost 3 times more then Sonia... She is of cause - pure oppressed women - another example of "feminized poverty"... Is it really so??? IS low wage of Sonia result of some oppression against women(glass ceiling)? Or - result of her and his life choices??? Is not broken health of Anton - result of his choices, done by him only to provide Sonia and her children??? (Or - you really believe - that he actually likes to come home by crawling - since he can't straighten his rear and step on his knees???) He know - that he have to provide his family by any price (even - when price is obviously his health and few years of life span)...And - that is actually - what low says... Men is obliged to provide his family... Finally - there are alimony for women , but no - for men ... Men have to pay child support , did you hear about case - that women was forced to do it??? (In Israel it is "fasten in low" - only man pay child support - even in case of joint custody, in Russia and Ukraine - there is no such low , but -that is what exists in practice... In USA - almost same...) Sonia does not feel so - and never chosen to work on such hard , hurtful, but better payed jobs... (And - according to low - she is absolutely right...) But - it was her choice...IF you want statistics- in Russia 96% of death and hard injuries in work place are males( I suppose - it does not differ much in other countries)... Look - who are builders, machinery servicemen, electrician, heavy truck drivers... All those hurtful, dangerous , but well payed jobs... Answer is obvious - they are all males... Let us go back to Anton and Sonia... Obviously - Anton's health is in much worse condition then of Sonia... But - according to low - he have to work 5 years more - before he could get a pension... Why??? And what we see in field of health care??? For women - there are number of specially budgeted health programs, treating special female health problems... What about special budgeting to treat broken rear and knees of Anton??? Answer is obvious - no one gives a damn... Finally - he is just a man...That for men exists - work like dog , die early... Are not them???
Of cause - your claim - that "Women aren't paid the same amount as men for the SAME JOBS". They are... I already mentioned - that difference between women, that never gave a birth and men on same jobs - are around 2%(if will take into account - that they in average live 7- years more and work 5 years less - it is obvious - that we have here howling descrimination of males on base of gender)... Women are paid less - since they have less work experience (they take children care vocations , breaks in career for child care, take much more sickness vocations (for children and their own - may be it is another reason - that men's life span is shorter... But - there is price for it - employers prefer man in many positions - they are much less likely to disappear for few days/weeks/months...) Womyn made children their sole property and privilege(thanks to feminism revolt). No one can say womyn to give birth or not (sure - not her hubby)... when do it , and even from whom (Google for paternity fraud - and you will have an enlightenment)... Number of single mothers is sky rocketing (I think - around 30% in US...) Number of womyn - that birth from sperm bank is also sky rocketing...But - you know - rights and privileges have to come together with responsibilities and duties... You took to your self sole privileges for children - take also sole responsibility for outcomes... No one have to pay for your sole decisions and privileges... Sure - not men - that are denied right - to have off-springs... (You know - each single mom/ mom that use sperm bank - means man that will never have off-springs - regardless - want he them or not...)... Of cause no one can impose on women what to do with her womb... It is her decision (sole one)... But other hand - sole decision produce sole responsibility - is not it???
But what I really liked - is $50 billion spent buy pure women on cosmetics and SPA(I doubt - more then most of it - was payed by hubbies/boy friends...) What a pure creatures!!! I can imagine - how they suffer when they put on their self all those expansive cremes, masks, perfumes... I promise you - if Sonia would buy for Alex good cremes and pay for SPA for him - he would not resist , or complain... But - that was really good... You know to joke man!!!
Your passage about rape and "no" is always "no" - I did not understand at all... Matt - it is me - that English is foreign language for him... In case - I mentioned - SHE DID NOT SAY NO... It is just - that he did not ask her before he (sorry for roughness) actually "inserted" to her... And fact - that he did not ask her is enough to declare him rapist(and put him for 2 years behind bars...) And fact - that she herself stripped, entered his shower, and started sexual games with him - (as appeared in court) can't be understood as definite sign - that she wanted sex with him (may be she does not have hot water at home , or - did not play "doctor" in childhood"...) If he once more did not ask her (something like "can I trust in to you mam??" - I suppose) - he is rapist - even that she had no show any signs of displeasure... This is new definitions of rape - re engineered by feminist low reformators... Welcome into reality...
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Loewen, Matt at May 03, 2009 22:23 PM
>OK Matt... Here we go... As you remember - I suggested you private conversation on this issue - since I did not want to subscribe to Znet sustainers program... Not that 4$ is so big money - but I principally regret from organisations that pretend to populize some right/good idea and on other hand condition access to their forums to "payed members"... But Finally - I decided that bringing some MRA light onto Zblog area occupied by feminist obscurantism - worse it...
So - first of all I conclude - that your "personal problem" actually is totally faked/fabricated (otherwise - you would answer my personal letter), and you actually just want to brainwash young Guys here around by mad ideas taken from your "gender studies", exploiting natural sympathy to your "personal case"...
Part of the reason why I replied so as to end the conversation is because you continue calling feminism “garbage”, you allege that I am somehow attempting to garner sympathy from what is a true predicament that I feel has merit, you call me gay to delegitimize me, etc. I would appreciate it if you didn't make fun of me, but I won't shy away from a challenge, and if you continue to do so, I have no problem returning the favor.
>So - back to some issues - you raised in your answers... 
DV mythology (men are violent)... If you will bother yourself and look at serious researches on DV - you will immediately discover - that women are no less violent then men
I agree here.
>(although - they are weaker physically - and so cause less physical damage)
Yes, but when a woman blows herself up, there is just as much damage as in the case of female suicide bombers.

>But your definition of patriarchy is real fun...
You might want to clarify this. As in, seriously. What the fuck? Oppression is fun?
May be you did not put attention - but in Patriarchal societies men were disposable gender... In case of danger - males(even boys) had to be ready to protect females by any price (and many times - price was life)... Most hard and dangerous jobs were (and still are) performed by males... Hardly looks like "men dominated" If I would dominate some one - I would send him to perform dangerous job and not put myself on risk to save him (actually - her)??? What you actually describe - is - that it was society based in predefined gender roles: males provide and protect (and sacrifice their self )females - born and care off springs... Males really had more privileges on society level (outside of family borders), but they also had much more duties and responsibilities... And women was monarch inside family(you can find plenty of descriptions of this structure in old Russian literature - 16-19 century) so - it was not society based on modern feminist ideas of pseudo equality - but - it was based on balance of rights and duties...
We aren't living in the 16th-19th century of Russia anymore. Anything to say about the present moment? I should also make clear that patriarchy is harmful to men as well as women. However, what an egalitarian society looks like (between the different sexes and genders that don't fit into a strict man-or-woman dichotomy) I am unsure, though I suspect it should be the function of a tension between individual rights and group rights
>80% of females left off springs , and only 40% of males...
Where are you getting this data?

Obviously - it means - that Much more men in human history died before were in time to make off springs - then women...Many of them obviously - died while protecting and providing women... As I - mentioned - it hardly can be seen as form of oppression against "pure womyn"
Where are you getting this data? Do you have similar data on women?
>

When talking about "spousal rape" - you probably mean all those 9 seconds rapes - when Womyn change her mind "in the middle" of originally consensual sex, sue her hubby (when in the middle she told that she forgot to feed her fishes - he did not jump from her quickly enough - some 1.5 seconds later - then expected)
You make light here of a serious issue. Spousal rape and spoual abuse is serious, man! How can you joke about rape? Any rape is still rape? Would you joke about torture? Genocide? Is this what you actually think? That if men are already having sex with their wife and she wants to stop, then its her fault for being raped?
>for rape and take all assets and children??? I would suggest you to look here http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6158731.html
Let us say it clear and square:- today - when false rape allegations are totally scot free, and rape definitions are so broad - that can include almost any thing - spousal rape became in womyn hands handful and safe tool to blackmail "ex" or - just get rid of him in case of divorce...
The point you bring up here is a good one. I hadn't thought of that before. Always blaming rape on the man does seem to play into stereotypical ways of imagining men as always hypersexualized.
>When you say - that not all women can afford contraceptives - I suppose - you are kidding... It does not costs hundreds of dollars... Let us be serious...
I am serious. Do you think women in poverty can afford contraceptives? They need to buy food, feed their kids, clothing, housing, etc. The majority of people in poverty are women; let me guess, you will blame them for having unprotected sex, right? Why not blame them for their poverty as well?
>
What I really did not understand - is how the hell all those "Female Genital Mutilation" and "sexual slavery" are related to spoken issue???
They are related in that they are demonstrative of what patriarchy, and always relying on tradition, can do.
>
By the way - if you will look at real situation with "Genital Mutilation" (and not garbage "studies" - fed on gender studies course) - you will see - that in spoken countries (Muslim and Israel) number of boys - that pass circumcision is incomparably higher - then number of women
True.



>And finally - I do not success to understand - why seeing women as sexual object is "oppressive" (and seeing man/boy as sexual object + walking pocket is OK - and that is exactly - how 95% of moder princesses see them)???
I am not sure what you mean here.
>As I mentioned - first of all - origin of this attitude is in fact - that womyn their self so their self this way... How should those guys that you decibel - look on chicks - they deal with??? As on future wife , mother of his future children??? It is ridiculous... She is not his future wife... She see in him sex object + walking wallet - that will pay for her on dates , buy presents e.t.c ...
True, this shallowness is pretty terrible. Though I think we can agree here that that guy simply wants sex in some cases, and the girl simply wants sex, or simply wants money, or whatever. It isn't a real relationship- it is simply an exchange or reaction between two objects.
>So - as I understand it - in this situation guys are much more honest and neat , and chicks are exploiting and manipulative... Guys want sex and give sex... The do not suppose some one to pay them for it... Chicks do... And it has nothing to do with Patriarchat... In Patriarchal society it just was not this way... No men would behave this way , exactly as no women would walk dressed - like they are going today... Women was first of all wife, mother (future wife/mother) exactly as man was first of all husband/father... Promiscuity, accessible sex, marriage at 35-50 years age - are results feminist revolt and not of Patriarchal oppression...
What is wrong with promiscuity and accessible sex? What is wrong with "late" marriages? I was wondering- do you believe that there should be equality between sexes? What does that look like for you?
>I did not read a books on Feminism, But have read some 2 articles of Dvorkin ( I do not remember exactly which - but something about rape and prostitution), and looked on some feminist sites
Any way - what is written on those books is absolutely of no relevance... If you will read books about socialism - written in USSR - you will think - that USSR was heaven on the earth... Unfortunately - it was not...I judge people by what they have done - not what they says...
What?
>And - why the hell you continue to call women "victims"??? Who "victimize" them??? Once more - if you are female - you can :
expect 10% longer life span then your victimizers
get special health programs - devoted only to your gender (your victimzers - has no such Lexus)
Get total control on your family (you can at any point of time to get rid of your "victimizer" get house and most of family assets and total control on your children) while your "victimiser" is totally on mercy of your good or bad will
So - what is real reason to call women "victims" except fact - that it is what you are told on your trash courses???
Women get special health programs because they are marginalized, and poverty is feminized. And you are right, women live longer so they can't possibly be oppressed. They are probably secretly killing men with feminism, too. I totally agree.
>But any way - I begin to feel - that - that I am just wasting time... When you bring arguments - I answer them with my arguments... When I bring arguments - you answer recommend me to read some books on feminism... That is answer of child or zealot , not of serious, thinking person ,honestly looking for answers...
Well, you know, its hard for me to take you seriously when you blame rape on women, then call me a child or zealot for not wanting to talk to you.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 05, 2009 04:20 AM
When I speak about 80 and 40 % I base on this great article - www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm - recommend to you...
Spousal rape and spoil abuse is serious, man! How can you joke about rape? Any rape is still rape?
Of cause not... Most of what today is called rape - never in human history would be called so... And - absolutely correctly... In good old Patriarchal days :-) punishment for rape was almost always - death... but it was very clear defined - what is rape - sex enforsed by brutal force... Today - almost any thing can be claimed - rape... Few months ago there was large series of "anty rape" publications in large IL newspaper... It was real fun... I will not reproduce here whole bunch of stories and discussions (talk backs) it initiated... But one was just great... OF cause authors of those publications repeated once more whole bunch of explanations - that man have to ask woman 35 times before and during "act" if she still does not want him to jump out through the window and not continue to rape her (can I touch your boobs, can I get your bra out.....) otherwise - he is rapist , even if she by no means show - that she want him to stop... One of cases - discussed there was just best illustration of whole those doom...
Guy meet some chick, they go to bar, after this - to his flat... He goes to take a shower... She BY HER OWN INITIATIVE - undress and join him in shower , and "displayed sexual activity"... After this they gone to bed and did what any couple would do in such case... next day he was behind bars... Appeared - she had some mental problems, that caused her to "freeze" when she wanted to say No to man... So - when he began to actually intercourse with her - she "changed her mind" and wanted him to stop, but "afraided" to say it to him and did not show any signs of discontent, and actually actively participated in act (because she afraided from him)... That is really good... She did not afraid to undress and go into shower with him, and did not afraid to "display sexual activity", but somehow afraided to say him to stop... So - he did not had a chance to ask her if she agree - that he will undress or touch her - she "took care" of everything herself.... What had he to ask her??? How does such question have to sound??? I know 3 languages - no one of them have such expressions (at least - not expressions - that I know...) Guy got 2 years in jail for rape...An whole brace of compulsive fem talkbakists in 2 hours created tens of talk backs - explaining him - what a cruel rapist he is...
And if will take into account fact - that false rape allegations are absolutely "free of charge" - it makes them great mean for blackmail, revenge , divorce conflicts... Look here - http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Miller/miller1.html and you will get an enlightenment...
So - you are right - rape is serious issue -since any heterosexual sex according to feminist vision - is rape- at least in case - womyn for any reason dicide to claim so....... And that is - how laws works today...
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at May 04, 2009 12:34 PM
[q]But your definition of patriarchy is real fun...
You might want to clarify this. As in, seriously. What the fuck? Oppression is fun? [/q]
Lol! we know dirty words!!!
Sorry - it was just funny... For your "General information" i\on "men's forums - we usually use abbreviations - to say from one side - what we want , and to not "warp ears" of beautiful ladies... :-)
So - WTF - I many times explained you - that in Patriarchal society women just were not oppressed... That does not mean - that there was not oppression on those societies (as we mentioned - there were many kinds of patriarchal societies)... But if we will compare oppression -faced by genders , femalesdefinitely were not more oppressed... Let us say - women had to stand in stand in presence of men , and wash foots of r\her husband... But - he had to save and provide her and community in general - even if it costs him health and life... I do not think - that women side here was really disadvantaged...
[q]We aren't living in the 16th-19th century of Russia anymore. Anything to say about the present moment?
[/q]Of cause - I can't bring any examples of patriarchal society in modern western world for simple reason - there are no such societies any more... modern western societies are neo matriarchal... Patriarchy (translating from Latin) is right of father... Of cause - right on children.. Actually - if you will look on wikipedia - Patriarchy and family are almost synonyms... Family gave man HIS children (in matriarchal societies children new - who are their mother, but in many cases - not - who are their fathers... Fatherhood came to existence with Patriarchy and disappear with it destruction... In today western society children are sole property of mother - which can at any moment get rid of father without even explainreasons...(no fault divorce) The thing - that western law guarantee to father is duty to pay child support - rest is up to will of modern princess... So - which examples from modern days do you want ?? I can't give you examples of something - that does not exist any more form almost 100 years...
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Loewen, Matt at May 03, 2009 21:18 PM
Sorry Moshe, I guess I owe you an apology. It seems as though we both assume this is a lost cause. However, I will continue the discussion, and address the points that you have flagged. Please see my next posts.
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Loewen, Matt at Apr 29, 2009 20:19 PM
Well, Moshe, sorry for not replying! I am sort of saddened to hear your views on feminism, which is basically blaming the victim. I have been busy, and therefore unable to reply. I still find your suggestion that I seek psychiatric help a little ridiculous, as if feminism created a nuerosis in me. I find your essentialized comments to be quite sexist. I suggest reading some elementary books on feminism. Unfortunately, you seem to have bought into the whole patriarchy thing. I am sad for you, and I wish for your speedy recovery from your rather sexist mindset.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 30, 2009 03:44 AM
Hi Matt! Not everything is really so bad...:-) I did not call you to get psychiatric help - I just put your attention - that if you will continue to go to those gender "studies" courses and believe all garbage- you hear there - you could reach point - that you will really need it... I hope (for you) - you still are not there... Women are only women no more and no less... Sure they are not semi divine creatures - that have to be worshiped - like you seems started to believe... They are just - you know - women...
Your recommendation "to read some basic books on feminism" is of cause ridiculous and for few reasons...
And - why the hell you continue to call women "victims"??? Who "victimize" them??? Once more - if you are female - you can :
So - what is real reason to call women "victims" except fact - that it is what you are told on your trash courses???
But any way - I begin to feel - that - that I am just wasting time... When you bring arguments - I answer them with my arguments... When I bring arguments - you answer recommend me to read some books on feminism... That is answer of child or zealot , not of serious, thinking person ,honestly looking for answers...
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Loewen, Matt at Mar 18, 2009 20:58 PM
Hey Moshe, sorry it took me so long to reply.
>I do not know - what you mean by "harmful parts" of masculinity...
Masculinity is fluid, and experienced differently by everyone. I understand the harmful parts of masculinity are the ones that make men violent rather than peaceful, competitive or egoistic rather than cooperative, and rational and apathetic rather than emotional and caring. These are of course reinforced by the media and informed by social institutions- but that doesn't absolve us from any responsibility to making change in ourselves if we see ourselves behaving in this way. I suggest reading 'Masculinity as Homophobia', an article written by Michale S Kimmel.
I even found a link for you! http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/F7587Z.pdf
>And US proud brotherhood of Gays (that already constitute almost 11% of US males population - another "achievement" of feminist revolution) will accept another proud member...
I don't know why you're insinuating that because someone renounces traditional, harmful masculine characteristics that they are automatically gay. Just because someone is effeminate doesn't mean you can automatically call them gay- I would caution you from doing this in the future as it can be seen as being sexist. It seems as though you are trying to delegitimize my argument by calling me gay. Please don't ever do that again.
>where from the hell did you get - that patriarchy was "inherently oppressive" toward women??? What does it means , and on what is it based?? First of all - try to ask even more basic question - what is patriarchy???
Patriarchy is a type of society that is male-centered, male-dominated, and male-identified, according to renowned sociologist Alan Johnson, and I like his definition. It is male-centered in that men are measured by their accomplishments (usually in material gain) whereas women are measured by their obedience, or how well they preform subordinate to men. It is male-dominated in that way more men are in positions of authority than women, which creates a power differential. It is male-identified in that men and traditional masculine characteristics are the norm, or desirable: for example, someone who is rational, competitive, and tough rather than caring, and cooperative is more likely to be in a position of power, or even get a normal job. Patriarchy is also oppressive to men, as there is this constant pressure to obey norms of masculinity, upon punishment of being emasculated, which results in men fearing each other.
>- 80% of females left offsprings , and only 40% of males... Strange form of oppression...
I have no clue what you mean by this. Men and women have to make offspring together. The oppression comes in power relations. Its not as if women planned to have more women in the world. That's like saying, given white hegemony, that "there are more Asians than whites... strange form of oppression" as if the destitute poverty of many Asians was somehow vindicated by their larger population size. That doesn't make sense.
> Women can be or be not mother... That is her choice - no one can force her...
If this is what you actually think then I suggest doing some reading on the subject. There is a large body of evidence of spousal abuse, including spousal rape, all around a woman's unwillingness to have sexual relations or have children. Plus, even if people don't force here, there is always socialization and enculturation that encourages women to have children upon the pressure of social stigma.
>Womyn got pregnant (causally or not... Do you believe in "casual" pregnant of adult woman with today number of contraceptives - available for her???)
Not all women can afford contraceptives.
>Man has no say - even if he want this child and is ready to raise him by his own... She can continue with it - even if man does not want child - he has no say, but will be obligated to take full, sole responsibility for child support for next 21 years... She can give him possibility to see his child , or prevent it... As she wish... So - who is oppressed here... Women have all choices on her side ... Man has no choices, actually he has no even say on those choices - but have to take full and sole responsibility on outcomes of those choices - made without even ask him... Or - to be behind bars... So - who is oppressor , and who is oppressed here???
True, father's rights is an issue that needs to be dealt with. That does not mean that a man is able to control his wife's body, which includes pregnancy, no matter what. If a women having the right to choose what happens to her own body is something you find oppressive, I suggest briefly viewing Female Genital Mutilation in some countries, or honor killings in others, or sexual slavery. These are forms of oppression that are more widespread and rampant, and I would say arguably worse than having an abortion despite a sexual partner's wishes.
> IF you do not want to be "ordinary guy" - that want to sleep with women - you can be ordinary gay - that want to sleep with men... That is your choice
I think you are misunderstanding me - I don't want to be a man who sees women as only sexual objects, or is oppressive to them in personal relations due to my position of privilege. Just because I am not a rampant, sex-crzed fiend, or even an "ordinary guy" who treats women like sex objects doesn't make me gay. It makes me someone who cares about women's feelings, and how I interact with them. It doesn't make me someone who wants to sleep with men.
>When modern girls walk around in all places semi naked - it is not men , but them their self - that see them as primary sexual objects... No one force them to do so... (Just do not tell me - that they do it because of global warming)... Modern female mode is extremely oversexed... It is not result of patriarchal oppression - it is result of feminist revolution...
No. Remember how I said that women's success is measured by their obedience? Well perhaps they are obeying what men want to see women as- sexual objects, who may or may not be people. There are socialization processes at work here, from a very young age, teaching young girls how to act and behave. They should be sexual objects when they are young, then get married and have kids who grow up to be in the army or go into business or work in a factory, and they should be mothers who stay inside and clean the house and pray to God every day and do exactly as they're told by their husbands or the patriarchal state.
But your question intrigues me- if a woman did chose to dress however she wished, then yes, she is presenting herself as a sexual object. How do I respond? Do I say - 'No. I can't treat women solely like sexual objects, that is wrong.' Or, if a consensual purely sexual encounter is offered, then is that okay to accept, given that in this sense I am a purely sexual object as well?
Reply this comment
Re: rape myth
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 26, 2009 03:36 AM
80% of females left off springs , and only 40% of males...
Obviously - it means - that Much more men in human history died before were in time to make off springs - then women...Many of them obviously - died while protecting and providing women... As I - mentioned - it hardly can be seen as form of oppression against "pure womyn"
When talking about "spousal rape" - you probably mean all those 9 seconds rapes - when Womyn change her mind "in the middle" of originally consensual sex, sue her hubby (when in the middle she told that she forgot to feed her fishes - he did not jump from her quickly enough - some 1.5 seconds later - then expected) for rape and take all assets and children??? I would suggest you to look here http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6158731.html
Let us say it clear and square:- today - when false rape allegations are totally scot free, and rape definitions are so broad - that can include almost any thing - spousal rape became in womyn hands handful and safe tool to blackmail "ex" or - just get rid of him in case of divorce...
Reply this comment
If you delete my comments - detete whole our discussion
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 25, 2009 23:23 PM
MI Matt - if you want to delete my comments - it is your right - you are owner of blog... But - if you wish to do so - delete all my comments , and all your replys to my comments - otherwise - it is little bit dishonorable - let us say it this way... Although - not something unusual for feminists...
Reply this comment
Matt - delete my previous angry comment
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 25, 2009 23:26 PM
Sorry Matt - delete my previous angry comment... Something strange is going on with thi blog... I opened this page - and saw all my comments delted... when I posted additional comment - thy appeared once more... Just miracles in sieve...:-(
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 23, 2009 07:26 AM
I do not know - why did you decide - that I try to legitimise your views by calling you Gay... I just want ed to tell you that man ca want a woman, or - can want to be a woman... Nature did not gave any other options... And - I personally am not big Gays fun, but arguments have to be judged by their logic and not by who proposed them...
But your definition of patriarchy is real fun... May be you did not put attention - but in Patriarchal societies men were disposable gender... In case of danger - males(even boys) had to be ready to protect females by any price (and many times - price was life)... Most hard and dangerous jobs were (and still are) performed by males... Hardly looks like "men dominated" If I would dominate some one - I would send him to perform dangerous job and not put myself on risk to save him (actually - her)??? What you actually describe - is - that it was society based in predefined gender roles: males provide and protect (and sacrifice their self )females - born and care off springs... Males really had more privileges on society level (outside of family borders), but they also had much more duties and responsibilities... And women was monarch inside family(you can find plenty of descriptions of this structure in old Russian literature - 16-19 century) so - it was not society based on modern feminist ideas of pseudo equality - but - it was based on balance of rights and duties...
Reply this comment
Re: #4
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 26, 2009 05:42 AM
When you say - that not all women can afford contraceptives - I suppose - you are kidding... It does not costs hundreds of dollars... Let us be serious...
Father's rights is not just "an issue"... IT is the ISSUE - I think - main one - uniting all MRA orgs...
And your passage about man ability to control his wife (or partner) pregnance choices - I totally agree with you... No one have to be able to control womyn choices on her body... Her body - her business... Just - it have to be also her responsibility... IF "she" want to decide unilaterally to give a birth - against wish of her partner - "she" has also to take sole responsibility on outcomes of her unilateral choice... No "father against his wish" and no society (state) have to be responsible for her unilateral choices... Clear and square...
What I really did not understand - is how the hell all those "Female Genital Mutilation" and "sexual slavery" are related to spoken issue??? What does all it have to do question of father's rights and female unilateral choices...
By the way - if you will look at real situation with "Genital Mutilation" (and not garbage "studies" - fed on gender studies course) - you will see - that in spoken countries (Muslim and Israel) number of boys - that pass circumcision is incomparably higher - then number of women
And finally - I do not success to understand - why seeing women as sexual object is "oppressive" (and seeing man/boy as sexual object + walking pocket is OK - and that is exactly - how 95% of moder princesses see them)??? As I mentioned - first of all - origin of this attitude is in fact - that womyn their self so their self this way... How should those guys that you decibel - look on chicks - they deal with??? As on future wife , mother of his future children??? It is ridiculous... She is not his future wife... She see in him sex object + walking wallet - that will pay for her on dates , buy presents e.t.c ... So - as I understand it - in this situation guys are much more honest and neat , and chicks are exploiting and manipulative... Guys want sex and give sex... The do not suppose some one to pay them for it... Chicks do...
And it has nothing to do with Patriarchat... In Patriarchal society it just was not this way... No men would behave this way , exactly as no women would walk dressed - like they are going today... Women was first of all wife, mother (future wife/mother) exactly as man was first of all husband/father... Promiscuity, accessible sex, marriage at 35-50 years age - are results feminist revolt and not of Patriarchal oppression...
Reply this comment
Am I missing something here?
By Andrews, John at Apr 26, 2009 07:37 AM
Moshe
Am I missing something here? You seem to be having a conversation with yourself. Still, it's probably for the best given your rather disturbed view of women.
Reply this comment
Re: Am I missing something here?
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 27, 2009 01:56 AM
Yes - you miss something...:-)
I replyed to long answer by Matt... I (may be naively) thought- that when Matt posted some claims - he actually supposed to get an answers... But - may be you are right - and I am really speaking with air (and you :-) )... We will wait and see... And by the way - I see nothing disturbed in my viewpoint about feminism(not about women)...
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at Apr 23, 2009 07:02 AM
OK Matt... Here we go... As you remember - I suggested you private conversation on this issue - since I did not want to subscribe to Znet sustainers program... Not that 4$ is so big money - but I principally regret from organisations that pretend to populize some right/good idea and on other hand condition access to their forums to "payed members"... But Finally - I decided that bringing some MRA light onto Zblog area occupied by feminist obscurantism - worse it...
So - first of all I conclude - that your "personal problem" actually is totally faked/fabricated (otherwise - you would answer my personal letter), and you actually just want to brainwash young Guys here around by mad ideas taken from your "gender studies", exploiting natural sympathy to your "personal case"...
So - back to some issues - you raised in your answers...
DV mythology (men are violent)... If you will bother yourself and look at serious researches on DV - you will immediately discover - that women are no less violent then men(although - they are weaker physically - and so cause less physical damage)... Numbers of DV excesses initiated by both genders are close... But - that is not whole picture... Women although cause less physical by direct violence, but they are much more violent in emotional sphere - and this is totally ignored by official DV industry... Look here http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/view/2765/#blogComments and you will immediately see what about am I speaking...
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Loewen, Matt at Mar 07, 2009 18:36 PM
Thank you all for your comments! I apologize for my tardy reply. G.L.- Yeah, your comment that I should take the whole person into consideration is something that I will try to use as a guiding principle. Same with staring and comfort level; as I said, I like to think that Im not drooling but I will still keep a close watch on my own behaviour. My main concern is to avoid sexism at all costs, regardless of whatever 'biological urges' I have. Leif- I can see what you mean about craving some sort of perfection. That's what guided me for a longish time. I was talking to my friend about this and he said that you don't ever really find perfection; you make it. I generally don't strive for perfection, Im more a fan of imperfection, if that makes any sense. As a fan of polyamory (maybe ironic given my situation) I also think that multiple relationships are possible and desirable between more than two consenting individuals. It should be interesting to see how that pans out over my lifetime. Terence- Fingers crossed eh haha Arif-Thanks! I will see what I can find and put my possible relative on the ol' summer reading list.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at Mar 08, 2009 04:33 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Loewen, Matt at Mar 08, 2009 22:53 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Zuisman, Moshe at Mar 10, 2009 03:46 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Ishaq, Arif at Mar 05, 2009 03:20 AM
I suggest you read Alexander Lowen (you even have a name affinity!), something in the line of Love, Sex and Your Heart or Love and Orgasm. If you search the web, you should find lots of useful stuff written by him. I'm sure you'll get a lot of answers. Including the difference between sex and sexuality, getting rid of any feeling of guilt or shame or terror of relationships.
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Hegarty, Terence at Mar 04, 2009 22:18 PM
Don't worry, soon some woman's going to like you a lot and save you with her powerful sexuality.
Reply this comment
Re: Navigating Sexism and Sexuality: I Refuse to be a Man
By Petersen, Leif at Mar 04, 2009 19:17 PM
Hello Matt, I think many men suffer from this bad conscience.
I have a friend who's hasn't slept with anyone at the age of thirty, and hasn't even had a girlfriend, because his notion of love is so pure, that any communication freezes before it gets physical. If women approach him, they are cheap, and if he lusts for them, he's a beast. How can he possibly make his move, he says, before true love has been firmly established?
My analysis is, that the men who feel like this have a strong desire. They desire to be with an angelic creature of a woman, and share everlasting love with her. I think this fantasy is very sexual. The woman is just as much an object in this fantasy as she is in an directly sexual one.
Personally, I think very highly of women. They are, in general, more caring and self-sacrificing than men, and I could go on rambling about womanly virtues, just as I could go on rambling about how sexy many of them are. There is no conflict, no dilemma between the two things for me.
Another aspect of mens' guilt could perhaps be that they don't want to break a womans intimacy and then leave her afterwards, because they would think of themselves as virtual rapists. People thinking this way have a inhibited view on sex, and possibly a possessive way of thinking about women (like many religions have virgin cults). Having a passionate love affair between two free people, and parting ways afterwards without hard feelings, is perfectly possible.
Good luck with it.
Reply this comment
By Rendon, G.l. at Mar 04, 2009 07:29 AM
I don't really have any insight to your question, because I think that can be based on really personal factors, but I can say that the fact that you're pondering all this means you're already way ahead of the game when it comes to confronting sexism than, let's be honest, most men, and that's a great thing.
I have simliar questions sometimes - even being a woman who's attracted to women. My main conflict has always been at, basically, strip tease and burlesque type things. Sex-positive events and displays, and sex worker support, is kind of the newer trend in feminist and queer womens' circles yet I still have that, maybe more old school, some would say, feminist thought that makes me really uncomfortable watching some of this. What I then say is "to each their own" - if the women there, performing, are embracing this as a positive display of their sexuality then fine for them, and if I feel on some level guilty and uncomfortable with it then I should just follow my guilt/instict and be uncomfortable and say it's not for me, as long as I'm giving healthy questioning to those insticts and feel I'm giving satisfactory answers.
So for you, the fact that you're examing your guilt and asking questions is good, and maybe some of these things will only work themselves out with more experience and in the process of relationships. You're going to be attracted to women based on physical appearances - I think that's all but unavoidable. That doesn't mean that's the only thing you should take into consideration. You're going to probably have sexual thoughts about women. Just make sure you respect women, as you do already, I'm sure, as beings that are way more than just sexual, just like men, make sure you don't infringe on somebody's comfort level by them catching you staring them down, and hopefully things will become clearer.
Reply this comment