What constitutes Misogyny?

[Canadian_watcher]

So we think we are free because we don’t see soldiers on the streets with rifles, but we’ve internalized the threat and police ourselves and each other:

The concept of the Feminine is connected to the Earth and the Land? That idea is dangerous to the social order – stamp it out.

The same hold true for men’s erm, let’s call it virility, especially in young men. That’s also dangerous to the social order, particularly when groups of men are moved to protect their families from oppressive or genocidal policy. Stamp it out.

Sometimes when I read history I can see the march of it - from the time of Egypt right up until today. Burning and hoarding knowledge, mass executions of spiritualist healers, shamans, witches, artisans, teachers, philosophers - the destruction of the commons - propaganda - the separation of domestic and public spheres - legal personhood for corporations - the poisoning of the environment - the education system - separation of workers from the fruits of their labour - war - technology - it has been an endless onslaught.

Girards theory says that competitors become more and more alike. So we would expect that in competing with men for control of the Empire, even if our intention is to change it, women would be come more like men and men more like women. And so we have the phenomenae of masculine and feminine metrosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual

yeah, I don't know about this one... androgyny comes in and out of fashion although until recently it has been the sole purview of females ... I view this as a commercial propaganda phenomenon and very much an upper-middle class one, too.

It’s a chain of support that is growing organically, just because of choosing towards caring, you could say.

Merely out of curiosity are there more women than men working there? I ask because I see this as a big part of the divide - again the devaluation of the feminine, which in this case is 'caring.' We don't expect men to be caring (well, we *do* but when they are they are devalued. I have been an advocate for fathers rights largely because I see it as a key to creating wholeness in individuals as well as in society at large. I of course also care about the individual fathers, children and mothers as well, and each case is different.

I like the idea of chains of support, and if I had to give my solution to the economic problems in North American culture it would be that we have to move to a more local model - a kind of chain of support.

[Canadian_watcher]

In an equal society, NOTHING excuses the fact that levels more men are executed, incarcerated or have their rights taken away. Yet some hens on this board (and cocks who apparently wish themselves to be hens)

Two problems here:
1. One thing excuses the fact that more males are executed and incarcerated: they are more frequently violent repeat offenders and they, overall, commit more crimes. I will not dispute that men receive longer sentences than women - stats almost everywhere will show this.
and
2. "cocks who wish themselves to be hens."

Do you see what you're doing with #2 there? You are not only saying that it is 'us' against 'them' but you are trying to shame males for agreeing with any female perspective. Further, you are shaming them is a classically misogynistic way - by saying that they want to be girls.

See why I got my back up? I can only assume that you were trying to provoke an angry response. If not, you might want to modify your approach.

Would you like to know how it came to be so easy to scapegoat such a disproportionate number of men in this society? By holding them to matriarchal standards.

Do you know much about matriarchal culture? I know a bit about it, and believe it or not 'matriarchal standards' are about harmony between the sexes with men doing a lot of the traditionally 'male' stuff. Hunting, slaughtering, having sex with multiple women ... seriously. Matriarchy isn't the female version of patriarchy. Here's something to think about though when you're looking at a culture and trying to determine whether it is matriarchal or patriarchal:

Whether a society be "matrilineally produced," "patriarchally" organized, or marked by complementary dualism the opposite sex always plays a crucial role. No sociopolitical order is single sexed. Even where males dominate, women are always heard from. Whatever the nature of the dynamic duo of male and female, whether the terms of the sex pair be posed in dialectical tension, benign opposition, or harmonious synthesis each member of the pair gives legitimacy to the other. Considerations of matriarchy, patriarchy, or diarchy should not be about which sex rules but how gender is represented in archetypal scenarios and reflected in social practices. Certain questions need to be asked: which sex bears the symbolic and social burden for conjugating the social universe? Which sex is imbued (naturally or socially) with the reproductive powers that recharge the sources of supernatural fecundity? What is the gender of the dominant symbols tying the archetypal to the social? How do males and females complement one another in the political arena and how is this arena tied to the cosmological order? As an examination of Antigone and the Trobriands suggests, in a strongly tradition-based society ultimate authority does not rest in political roles but in a cosmological order. If this cosmological order pivots around female oriented symbols and if this order is upheld by ritual acts coordinated by women whose social salience is also grounded in this order we can speak of matriarchy.

I do not disagree that misogyny is a big problem globally, in other countries where women are oppressed outright by the state. I do not disagree that at the wholly corrupt top of the American pyramid there most likely is a misogynist component to its operation, but 21st-century American middle and lower class culture is no more misogynist than it is the opposite.

I'd argue until I'm blue in the face that it is indeed more the opposite, but unfortunately that seems to be against the board rules... more holding the brothers down.

it's not against the board rules, I just would rather you didn't argue that here. Can we please focus on the way our society denigrates and holds down the feminine in this thread? I think if you look at the rest of General Discussion most every other topic is about a man or men. Lots of opportunity to inject cultural observations of the whys and wherefores that these men might be in the situations they are in.

I'm sorry I told you to kiss my ass or whatever I said. have you ever tried to do your taxes with a couple of little kids running around the table? That's kinda what I was feeling like.

[Canadian_watcher]

And one more thing:

I have a theory that is coming to me ...

It seems that men badly want a space in which to speak about the cultural pressures on them and I believe this would be completely worthwhile. I think perhaps part of the dynamic at play here is that when men observe females in a group, organized and working towards social change a couple of things happen:

1. They worry that since they aren't included in the group that the group must be 'against them.'
2. They look around for their own group and find they are looking into a void.

I would be frustrated by that too if that's what I experienced. Unfortunately for men, they are not encouraged to get together and dissect the ways culturally manipulated ideas about masculinity hurt them. Talking about 'hurt' at all is taboo for men. (if I were inclined I could find three or four recent instances where I've said "you've got your feelings hurt" and the man in question will immediately deny it)

I do think it'd be worthwhile to have these discussions. Let's just not make it us vs. them. Believe it or not the idea of misogyny is not an us vs them thing the way I see it. I do get angry and hurt and frustrated when I witness individual men practice it (whether intentional or not) but it is a cultural phenomenon that is internalized and as people have said time and again here it hurts ALL of us, just as the warped notions of masculinity hurt all of us. In a big way.

[Canadian_watcher]

I agree. It is very difficult and wearying. And re-traumatizing.

If you choose to step out, take a break for a while, that entirely understandable.
video

(It's a lame video but a great song)

Thank you.. that is a great song and I'd never heard it before. thanks for your kindness, too.

[charlie meadows]

Sometimes when I read history I can see the march of it - from the time of Egypt right up until today. Burning and hoarding knowledge, mass executions of spiritualist healers, shamans, witches, artisans, teachers, philosophers - the destruction of the commons - propaganda - the separation of domestic and public spheres - legal personhood for corporations - the poisoning of the environment - the education system - separation of workers from the fruits of their labour - war - technology - it has been an endless onslaught.

Maybe so, but you seem to miss the dance of history.

Girards theory says that competitors become more and more alike. So we would expect that in competing with men for control of the Empire, even if our intention is to change it, women would be come more like men and men more like women. And so we have the phenomenae of masculine and feminine metrosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual

yeah, I don't know about this one... androgyny comes in and out of fashion although until recently it has been the sole purview of females ... I view this as a commercial propaganda phenomenon and very much an upper-middle class one, too.

The most sublime form of androgyny is not a fashion or a commercial propaganda phenomenon but a survival strategy, an evolutionary mechanism.

[Plutonia]

Sometimes when I read history I can see the march of it - from the time of Egypt right up until today. Burning and hoarding knowledge, mass executions of spiritualist healers, shamans, witches, artisans, teachers, philosophers - the destruction of the commons - propaganda - the separation of domestic and public spheres - legal personhood for corporations - the poisoning of the environment - the education system - separation of workers from the fruits of their labour - war - technology - it has been an endless onslaught.

The long view informs the present with a certain awareness, does it not?

Girards theory says that competitors become more and more alike. So we would expect that in competing with men for control of the Empire, even if our intention is to change it, women would be come more like men and men more like women. And so we have the phenomenae of masculine and feminine metrosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual

yeah, I don't know about this one... androgyny comes in and out of fashion although until recently it has been the sole purview of females ... I view this as a commercial propaganda phenomenon and very much an upper-middle class one, too.

It could also be considered adaptive behavior - men valuing the privileges they see accorded to women; women valuing the privileges they see accorded to men? If Girard is correct, it's a dangerous trend.

It’s a chain of support that is growing organically, just because of choosing towards caring, you could say.

Merely out of curiosity are there more women than men working there? I ask because I see this as a big part of the divide - again the devaluation of the feminine, which in this case is 'caring.' We don't expect men to be caring (well, we *do* but when they are they are devalued. I have been an advocate for fathers rights largely because I see it as a key to creating wholeness in individuals as well as in society at large. I of course also care about the individual fathers, children and mothers as well, and each case is different.

Well, a fellow co-owns (with a woman) the company that administrates the grants for the literacy center and book shop, and most of their staff are women, but most of the people they service are men- mental illness, disability and homeless. Where I work is a family-run business so that's my boss, her husband and father and me. Yesterday we had a disabled man come in because my boss helped him out last month and he's repaying his debt by doing some simple work. Like an indentured slave, you might say.

I like the idea of chains of support, and if I had to give my solution to the economic problems in North American culture it would be that we have to move to a more local model - a kind of chain of support.

And even a chain of kind support.


"I have been an advocate for fathers rights largely because I see it as a key to creating wholeness in individuals as well as in society at large."

What you said ^^^

[Canadian_watcher]

The long view informs the present with a certain awareness, does it not?

It sure does. I feel that we are at the bottom of the wave, at the moment (at least I hope we are) - reaching for utopian set ups is a constant throughout history and the whole world over. They ebb and flow (charlie meadows is that what you were saying in your Socratic method up there?) but always it is a battle of ideologies.

It could also be considered adaptive behavior - men valuing the privileges they see accorded to women; women valuing the privileges they see accorded to men?

absolutely this is what it is, and it is a complete and utter shell game. They might put on hair products to try and imitate the benefits they see accruing to females, but they are missing what is truly of value in being feminine. The opposite is true, too. I give you Margaret Thatcher as an example. I don't know who said it upthread, I think it was one of the things I agreed with Morgan on - the sexes are imitating the worst in each other. Not always, but often. I still think this comes back to the low status of the feminine half of nature, ie. misogyny.

[Plutonia]

it is a battle of ideologies.

Absolutely!

Redemption Song:

The song urges listeners to "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery," because "None but ourselves can free our minds". These lines were taken from a speech given by Marcus Garvey in Nova Scotia during October 1937 and published in his Black Man magazine:[5]

"We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind. Mind is your only ruler, sovereign. The man who is not able to develop and use his mind is bound to be the slave of the other man who uses his mind ...[6]"

[charlie meadows]

It sure does. I feel that we are at the bottom of the wave, at the moment (at least I hope we are) - reaching for utopian set ups is a constant throughout history and the whole world over. They ebb and flow (charlie meadows is that what you were saying in your Socratic method up there?) but always it is a battle of ideologies.

The Socratic method involves question and answer. I asked no questions but made only simple statements.

You show awareness of the content of history books written by the winners, but your references are basically of one kind and ignore processes at work that seem to escape your awareness.

[Canadian_watcher]

It sure does. I feel that we are at the bottom of the wave, at the moment (at least I hope we are) - reaching for utopian set ups is a constant throughout history and the whole world over. They ebb and flow (charlie meadows is that what you were saying in your Socratic method up there?) but always it is a battle of ideologies.

The Socratic method involves question and answer. I asked no questions but made only simple statements.

You show awareness of the content of history books written by the winners, but your references are basically of one kind and ignore processes at work that seem to escape your awareness.

whatevs. I was right the first time.
ignored. again. and no, not because you're so smart and cunning that I just can't compete, but because there's just no give and take with you. I choose not to engage.

[psynapz]

You show awareness of the content of history books written by the winners, but your references are basically of one kind and ignore processes at work that seem to escape your awareness.

Wait... her references ignore processes she's unaware of?

SHAME ON YOU C_W!

(Ignorance is no defense in the Judging Eyes of the Omniscient!)

[Canadian_watcher]

^ i hang my head.

[charlie meadows]

You show awareness of the content of history books written by the winners, but your references are basically of one kind and ignore processes at work that seem to escape your awareness.

Wait... her references ignore processes she's unaware of?

SHAME ON YOU C_W!

(Ignorance is no defense in the Judging Eyes of the Omniscient!)

psynapz,

ig·nore: Fail to consider (something significant)

as in... "your references are basically of one kind and fail to consider processes at work that seem to escape your awareness."

Hello?

[Plutonia]

Sorry, don't want to detract from the current direction the discussion is going in but I'm behind on a few responses:

I agree with one reservation. Those adults are doing essentially what that baby is doing, not much difference besides the leotards, motor skills and the impulse to display, so is that infantile behavior and if so, might it not be considered maladaptive?

No, they're not doing the same exact thing. Besides, how on earth can it be considered maladaptive to emulate the behavior of an adult who is perceived by a majority of society to be ridiculously successful and to therefore be enjoying all of the benefits and privileges of her station (save for where misogyny may knock her down here and there) that is, if you're only addressing the mimicry aspect? The mimicry itself isn't the problem, it's which behaviors the others chose to mimic. They should try mimicking her confidence or business acumen perhaps. So, no, figuring out and then copying what the most successful individual is doing is pretty damn adaptive behavior for social animals.

All that would be true if we weren’t for the concomitant environmental crises.

I came across this in a thesis I’m reading on mimetic desire and consumer culture which seems pertinent re Beyonce as a model of success:

The desiring subject sees in the model what it lacks in itself. The subject feels itself to be without a self, but sees in the model .a divine autosufficiency. Through imitating this model, the subject sees itself on the verge of attaining this same autonomy, but it is a mirage, an illusion projected by the subject.s idealization of the model

A “divine autosufficency?” What a great concept!

That's funny because Girard's theory points to the opposite- that none of us is immune to the violence of our natures and that the unification and peace that civilization is built and sustained on, is due to sacrificial violence and scapegoating. The lie we tell ourselves is that we would never do it, that terrible thing that those other people over there did or are doing. But of course we do, in small difficult to see ways sure, but that impulse to persecute can easily flare into events like the Rwandan genocide. Mimesis makes us a danger to each other.

The opposite? And I thought I enjoyed being oppositional. You haven't heard my theory yet, at least wait until I present it, and that's going to take awhile, because I also have job(s) I have to work.

I look forward to reading it.

[Plutonia]

I've been away for a while and missed the worst of the shitfight on this thread. Apologies if this has been dealt with before etc etc.

The thing she said that night that has stayed with me is that working class women have more freedom to define themselves and live creatively, than more privileged women professionals, who experience more pressure to conform to standards of appearance, sexuality, lifestyle, values etc. That does seem to be the case, which makes the “lower class” an invaluable site of resistance to the dominant culture, and thus can help make a safer, fairer social order for women- don’t you agree?

- Plut

Same applies to men, thats why so many have worn suits for so long. I suspect womens "professional" clothing has the same function, to reinforce conformity with the economy basically. I read something the other day, a quote by Nina Powell, who was pointing out that the the image of a successful woman these days is one of what capital wants. (The "professional" class is part of the ruling class, and they expect conformity whatever gender/sex of the members cos thats what defines as the ruling class.)

Which fits with the glass ceiling. Its a subtle form of oppression.

Plutonia are you kind of suggesting that in some ways breaking the glass ceiling means moving from the role of oppressed to oppressor?

Cos you have a point. Really who gives a fuck if Gina Rinehart is a successful businesswomen, she is still evil as and the same sort of fascist capitalist scumfuck as Clive Palmer or Andrew Forrester (the 3 of them run mining cos in Australia.)

Welcome back Joe. I’m interested in that thing you said “image of a successful woman = what capital wants.” Have you got the source handy?

About the glass ceiling, I guess I don’t see that as being the lid on our rat cage. The only women who get close to it are the ones serving the moneyed elite, so maybe it’s the ceiling of their rat cage. Besides, as Girard says: “Being is obviously more important than having”, even if that “having” is a high social position.

That would still be a rejection of the feminine. I want the culture to change to adopt the feminine into everything it does. I want the cultural 'take' on femininity to change. I don't see how that can be accomplished by vowing to stay out of the culture.

C_W

I dunno if Plutonia is talking about staying out of culture, or rejecting one aspect of it.

I’m suggesting participating in alternatives to the dominant culture as much as possible. We can’t really get away from it, but we can refuse to take on and propagate its values and ideologies. Think of it as informing and directing a "way of being" in the world. There are other ways than those of the dominant culture.

You all know Poolan Devi right? The "Bandit Queen". Everyone remembers her dacoity but it wasn't till she willingly surrendered, did her time then got elected that she really accomplished stuff that did some good in the world for lots of people. That series of decisions and what she did after is really amazing.

Thats a great example of what you're talking about actually I reckon C_W. Dunno how breaking the glass ceiling fits with that. Corporate success is a different thing from equal pay, rights and protections isn't it? (In practice anyway, I accept the principle that equal access to corporate success is a fundamental right and something that doesn't exist now.)

I didn’t know about Phoolan Devi, so I looked her up. She was an unusually fierce woman, involved in a massacre and whatnot, must have scared the bejessus out of the authorities.

Which puts me in mind of the most recent article that American Dream posted in his Economic Aspects thread, I don't want to change my lifestyle - I want to change my life from 1973 where the author(s) suggest:

If that doesn't work, we can take part in action -- sabotage: my boss was a bastard and his account books will never be the same; erase your company's computer with a handy home magnet; and wildcats: we all got sick of the job - on the same day; the customers were pouring into the restaurant for lunch, when all of us waitresses told the manager we had been working too hard and were all going to take a break.

Fight dirty -- Life is REAL.

viewtopic.php?p=401142#p401142

Shocking to think about doing things like that, isn’t it? Still it seems like it might be tempting for Americans who are opposed to the State’s torture regime.



Here’s some more highlights from that essay:

“The work that we do keeps the whole system going. If it weren't for the rest of us, the Rockefellers would starve.”

“Our common oppression as women just isn't enough. I think that 90% of the people in this country are oppressed and exploited by the ruling class; yet when I walk down the street they don't feel like my sisters and brothers.”

“Congresswomen, advertising executives, businesswomen and college professors are not the kind of slots that are open to most women. So while I don't think that there is anything wrong with an oppressed group trying to get a bigger piece of the pie, I don't think that we're talking about the same pie. They want to get rid of some of the more neanderthal notions which are keeping them out of the executive suite -- I would much rather blow it up.”

“This system has a lot of leeway in it for making reforms -- but not for making real changes.”
“We never sufficiently realized that this is a capitalist system -- that we and the other students were going to get out of school and go to work for wages (if we could get jobs); we didn't directly fight the purpose of school, which is to make sure that we would have all the requisite technical skills and no more, that we would follow orders, that we would never refuse an assignment, even if it involved murder, and to throw enough academic fog in our minds so that we could never understand what was going on. The point of our classes was to make us believe in the Keynsian reformed version of capitalist exploitation, the B.F. Skinner updated version of psychology, the new relevant version of religion, the inviolability of ART, the Walt Rostow humanist version of imperialism and our own innate superiority over all those beneath us and our innate inferiority with regard to all those above us. The university made sure that we would carry those ideas around in our heads and never trust our own feelings.”

“The movement is that group of people who say, Your (our) discontent has a more general cause than just that particular boss, husband, school.”