What constitutes Misogyny?

[charlie meadows]

Speak!

WOOF!

Now that's funny, because when I saw on the front page that you had responded, 'woof' was my first thought. Is that intuition?

[Stephen Morgan]

WRT to the rest of it, you're wrong on the facts. That's easily demonstrated, for the most part. But (and I say this affectionately) demonstrating is a pointless endeavor in your case. So I'm not going to bother, if that's okay with you.

You're still wrong. I may do a youtube video to try to convince you, perhaps I am more verbally convincing than literally.

I certainly agree that there's a need to discuss how society screws men up, and agree that while the topic is quite relevant to this thread such discussion deserves another thread.

Speaking entirely for myself, I'd rather keep it all in one easily contained place. More threads on gender issues will only get on my nerves, and I definitely don't want a subforum about gender issues, let alone a "Women's Issues" one.

Recently in the USA the House passed HR3 called No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. This legislation freaks me out because it opens wide a window to see how engrained misogynist attitudes are in the USA. As if I didn't already know that. But of course I already admit having to resit my tendency not to pay attention to stuff that doesn't seem to affect me directly. And there's my skepticism about the political process in the USA in general. Just what to do about the sorts of attitudes that make HR3 seem reasonable to people so that how radical the legislation is isn't noticed is a hard problem.

I still don't understand how abortion gets taxpayer funding anyway. I mean, it's America. If the mothers had a malignant tumour on their kidneys they'd die a slow and painful death from it. Of course I'm against abortion. The NHS pays for them, of which I disapprove, except in those cases of medical necessity. The NHS also pays for vasectomies, which are a purely elective procedure and shouldn't be available on the NHS, as shouldn't abortions, with the exception of those required for medical reasons.

I tend to agree with Plutonia that the best thing to do is to participate as little as possible in the dominant culture and to pursue creating alternatives. That approach is necessarily a patchwork and the patterns one chooses rarely seem pleasing to others and even to us trying to piece things together. Sometimes the patterns are pleasing and in general I think those of us trying to create alternatives would do well to provide positive feedback to others when the patterns they create are nice.

Seems a bit like running away. No alternative is ever going to displace the mainstream, although it might influence it a bit. Better to try and enact reform through the democratic instruments of the system.

I agree that opposing Matriarchy to Patriarchy is rather a wrong turn. I rather do like Riane Eisler's distinction between dominator and partnership models of social construction. Just by the nature of the roles women often take up like nurtue and caregiving, I think women often find it easier to imagine partnership models.

I like horizontal organisation and voluntary association and participation and demarchic rule and so on, unless you're going to insist on calling it matriarchy. This idea that matriarchy isn't like, or a polar opposite to, patriarchy boils down to "this is nice, it shall be called woman-archy, and this is nasty, it shall be called man-ocracy".

I mentioned Chris Dilley's piece about Laurie Penny's rant on the over fascination with princess fantasies and the Heresiarch's retort that the fantasies have a positive economic role in the development of girls to women. Dilley points out that the Heresiarch is probably correct about the sorts of traits which princess fantasies encourage do have a positive economic impact for low to mid level employment. But the traits which are encouraged tend not to be advantageous to higher level employment. More generally Dilley's point is princess fantasies restrict the rainge of imagination of the varieties of ways we can be.

I must look this up at some point, simply because I struggle to see how fantasising about being a princess is going to be useful for any employment, and especially how it will only be useful for low-level employment. I mean, you can't get much higher than being a princess, employment wise. If you consider royalty to be employment, that is. Princess Anne came to my town on Tuesday. I didn't see her, just the incredibly massive number of police all over the place, dozens of the fuckers. Seems to have done alright for herself.

[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

They have them already. Interested and/or qualified women can even participate in them, too, if they want to.

true, true.

But I was thinking more along the 'what it means to be a man' theme. I can see that they really really really really want to go off about it. They keep doing it here, and in response to it I have gotten angry and you have and others have and I'm not saying we didn't have every right to, since FFS we're simply trying to talk about what we'd like to talk about!

Since masculinity/femininity are cultural concepts that hinge on one another I would welcome the exploration of both here.

[Plutonia]

I just wanted to say one thing here....



You people are awesome!


Carry on...

[tru3magic]

They have them already. Interested and/or qualified women can even participate in them, too, if they want to.

Men do have places of gathering. Every thursday (except for the first thursday of the month which is mixed), my father goes to a stag meeting for a 12 step program. I think the major difference though is not the venue or the participants, but the material that is discussed. I personally don't feel there are many places for males to discuss their oppression (which is mainly emotional), or at least there are not as many as there are for women to discuss their oppression (which is both emotional and physical). I don't know the statistics, but I can imagine that some of this is due to the fact that women are more often put in these situations of oppression, so naturally more peer help has become available.

[Canadian_watcher]

I mean let's drop the 'women do this and women are guilty of that' bullshite for a little bit, can we please?

Something of a mischaracterisation of my position.

you might want to reread your posts.

I don't bother with showing emotions, emotions are something best left inside. Still waters run deep, that sort of thing.

well there's the first way that you're trapped into the socially defined gender role of 'masculine.'

I especially hate it when women cry, makes me very uncomfortable. Men crying would make me uncomfortable too, but I've never seen it happen, now I think about it.

I had a boss who cried during staff meetings on an alarmingly regular basis. FWIW, there have been times in my life when tears have come out of my eyes, but I wouldn't call it crying. It is happening more as I age... I think some people might just have an overactive response. Also, I went for a great many years not being able to cry.. so.. crying might not be that strongly linked to emotion sometimes, I don't think. I don't know. That is a whole funny subject for me.

I actually think the gender roles assigned to men relieve pressures from the society as a whole.

I'd say that kind of goes for both men and women, if only we'd stay where they try and put us. It's handy for TPTB for men to be ready to fight (for them) and work (for them) and not get wishy washy (for them) etc.. etc... and it's handy that women want to nurture and look pretty so that they'll make men want to make babies and so that the women will raise the babies.

Obviously there are aspects of these pressures which provide a challenge to the dominant culture, as when the "heroic" impulse takes the form of loyalty in gang warfare, or the provider impulse inspires profitable criminal activity.

you think that its a provider impulse that makes a man a criminal? Do you think that would go the same for women? .. I mean there are a hell of a lot of women who have to provide for their kids alone these days.

If men were to abandon the provider impulse, however, and women were to abandon any expectation to be provided for or paid for the pleasure of their company,...

ha ha ha! that's a good one.

Very probably the earlier fathers don't show any interest and how much of that is due to a combination of men-don't-do-children social pressure and the knowledge that they can be cut from their children's lives by the mother at any time discouraging any great forming of emotional bonds is beyond any possibility of knowing.

Oh my goodness.. please imagine the Hallelujah chorus chiming in ...

Certainly in my social strata families tend to focus entirely around the mothers because the mothers are the ones with the tenancies in council accomodation, due to their having children, and the men they live with, sometimes fathers of one or more of the children, live there entirely on the sufferance of the mother, providing income and being allowed to stay in the home and with the children.

In Canada they didn't even allow this to happen. Single women (and men I assume) with children who were on the dole could not have an opposite sex roommate. And that was only last decade. In fact, it may again be the case. It goes back and forth which is fantastic for family stability.

The removal of social pressures on men to follow traditional male paths in such a situation is literally beyond imagination, as the effects would be both unpredictable and of extreme but unknowable extent.

well, I don't think it'd be catastrophic unless we only released men from their gender role expectations and not women.

I think men are at a disadvantage from being expected to disassociate themselves from anything feminine.

I had to read that a few times to make sure I had it right. I'm happy that that's how you feel!

So I don't necessarily think there's an innate loss from disowning femininity, as a personal choice.

well, I can agree insofar as if you're just born to be a stereotypically masculine male, then so be it. Sure. The world really does need all kinds of people and I admire all kinds, too. (okay I do not admire sociopathic or psychopathic types.. but otherwise...)

One thing Otto Weininger got right, going a dozen or so pages back through this thread, is that there are no "absolute" men or women, all people have aspects of maleness and femaleness about their psyches. I happen to find traditional masculinity more admirable,

okay, but here's a question: Do you find it admirable in women? And, as a follow-up, why do you think one is better than the other when clearly we can't ONLY have stoic, war-ready, non-carers who don't like to make things pretty. You see that, right? We need people who are willing to sit with others in their hours of need and we require attention to beauty and harmony?

Also, I'd really like it to be acceptable to wear a skirt.

There's a picture somewhere of David Beckham in a white suit jacket with a white sarong. It is over the top hot. I can't find it though..
but here:

So what I'd basically like is for women to be more like (good) men and men to act more like women.

Hope that's the sort of thing you were looking for.

yes it was. And I'm kind of surprised (but also not) by your answer. Thanks.

[charlie meadows]

Since masculinity/femininity are cultural concepts that hinge on one another I would welcome the exploration of both here.

This reminds me: Some to much was made many pages back about aggressive male reaction to effeminate/androgynous males as evidence of misogyny. Not necessarily so. Just as negative male or female reaction to masculine/androgynous females is not evidence of misandry--or even misogyny.



It may be instead a negative (homophobic?) reaction to gender confusion or androgyny itself. As in, men should be men and women should be women.

[Canadian_watcher]

They have them already. Interested and/or qualified women can even participate in them, too, if they want to.

Men do have places of gathering. Every thursday (except for the first thursday of the month which is mixed), my father goes to a stag meeting for a 12 step program. I think the major difference though is not the venue or the participants, but the material that is discussed. I personally don't feel there are many places for males to discuss their oppression (which is mainly emotional), or at least there are not as many as there are for women to discuss their oppression (which is both emotional and physical). I don't know the statistics, but I can imagine that some of this is due to the fact that women are more often put in these situations of oppression, so naturally more peer help has become available.

and also we're 'natural carers' - I mean society doesn't punish us for caring like it does to men a lot of the time.

and the big one, I think, is that women knew early on that there would be no power unless they got together. Like with unions only for non-economic (as well as economic) reasons.

[Canadian_watcher]

Since masculinity/femininity are cultural concepts that hinge on one another I would welcome the exploration of both here.

This reminds me: Some to much was made many pages back about aggressive male reaction to effeminate/androgynous males as evidence of misogyny. Not necessarily so. Just as negative male or female reaction to masculine/androgynous females is not evidence of misandry--or even misogyny.



It may be instead a negative (homophobic?) reaction to gender confusion or androgyny itself. As in, men should be men and women should be women.

what is homophobia if it isn't a rejection of the feminine within men?

[charlie meadows]

Since masculinity/femininity are cultural concepts that hinge on one another I would welcome the exploration of both here.

This reminds me: Some to much was made many pages back about aggressive male reaction to effeminate/androgynous males as evidence of misogyny. Not necessarily so. Just as negative male or female reaction to masculine/androgynous females is not evidence of misandry--or even misogyny.



It may be instead a negative (homophobic?) reaction to gender confusion or androgyny itself. As in, men should be men and women should be women.

what is homophobia if it isn't a rejection of the feminine within men?

The difference would be a rejection not of the feminine itself but the feminine within men.

[Plutonia]

Just a quick interjection here - don't want to distract from the conversation that's in progress, but I was listening to music at work this morning and heard the following song and found it very moving.

This is Springsteen, who has a working class hero kind of image, and it struck me that maybe he's an American equivalent to Bob Marley. I heard him talk about his father one time in an interview- his feelings for his father have shown up in lots of his music and he, Bruce used to compulsively drive back to his old neighborhood, and past his "father's house" in the middle of the night after gigs.

Seems he is doing something uncommon for men which is expressing an enduring longing for his absent father.

I'm wondering what you guys think?

[wallflower]

Dang it! This thread is hard to keep up with.

I do think that the experiences of LBGTQ people can often be quite revealing about misogynistic attitudes, but it isn't always quite simple. Some gay men are misogynists. And I don't really think that gay women are necessarily more masculine and gay men necessarily more feminine. Clearly ideas about gender are something that queer people think about and experiment with. Just in a general way though, most gay people are surprisingly ordinary in outlook.

Recently I've been playing around at Tumblr and it seems to me that the site skews younger. Anyhow I'm quite interested to read there what younger people think about sex and gender roles. Yesterday I read a transgender rant about cisgender privilege. I had to laugh to myself because the rant rather got my dander up. For those who follow feminist blogs at all you'll know that discussions about trans-women tend to set the house on fire. Whatever set me off in the transgender rant I read gave me a little appreciation for the dynamic on feminist blogs when the subject comes up. Also, having in the past thought often times at feminist blogs what was happening was over-reaction, I had a bit more sympathy with the writer of the rant's position.

It's a little off-topic, but I thought it was a good story and would like to share it. The story goes to some of the complexity around thinking gay men means feminine man. http://bialogue-group.tumblr.com/post/5364685286/guyscanberapedto

When i was 16, i had a fake i.d. and decided to go to a gay bar by myself because some friends bailed on me. while there, an older gentleman bought me a drink. he wasn’t a creeper, and he definitely wasn’t unattractive. i accepted the drink and began talking to him. no big deal. as the hour progressed, i felt myself feeling strange. i mentioned that i felt like i had a headache, and this guy helped guide me out of the bar. as we were walking down the street, the thought of, “oh god, he’s drugged me. i’m going to die” came to my head. i tried to get away, but i was so drugged up that i could barely walk, let alone speak. it also didn’t help that i had really large “goth” platform shoes because i was going through a phase. anyway, so this guy brought me to his suv and began undressing me. as a final act of defiance, i hit him over the head with my platform shoe. he then punched me, and i remember thinking, “why don’t they ever give workshops to gay and bi, and queer, etc. GUYS about being victims of rape too?” while i was as careful as possible, i never saw the guy slip something in the drink. i even watched the bar tender make the drink. anyway, i lied there completely paralyzed while this pervert was lubing up. i locked eyes with his for a moment, and that’s when it happened. a very large and angry drag queen opened the door of the vehicle and beat the shit out of my attempted rapist. she and her other drag friends helped dress and care for me while the police arrived. i was saved by a group guardian drag queens. they were basically the modern day “angels from heaven.”
– god bless drag queens

Stephen Morgan responded to my pointing to legislation in the House of Representatives as evidence of a mysogynist mindset. Because the legislation involves abortion, that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. I'm pro-abortion, but the legislation is not just about abortion. I brought the can of worms to this party, but I fear too much talk about abortion will derail this thread. I have to think how to construct a response and still remain more or less on topic. The short version is I don't mean to ignore you Stephen Morgan, but for the sake of the thread probably do want to ignore talking about abortion much at this juncture.

[Stephen Morgan]

I mean let's drop the 'women do this and women are guilty of that' bullshite for a little bit, can we please?

Something of a mischaracterisation of my position.

you might want to reread your posts.

Takes long enough typing them, not going to read them as well.

I don't bother with showing emotions, emotions are something best left inside. Still waters run deep, that sort of thing.

well there's the first way that you're trapped into the socially defined gender role of 'masculine.'

What's so good about showing your emotions? I don't want any passig nosy bastard knowing what I'm feeling, thank you very much. Raises the interesting question of whether you can be trapped somewhere you want to be.

I especially hate it when women cry, makes me very uncomfortable. Men crying would make me uncomfortable too, but I've never seen it happen, now I think about it.

I had a boss who cried during staff meetings on an alarmingly regular basis. FWIW, there have been times in my life when tears have come out of my eyes, but I wouldn't call it crying. It is happening more as I age... I think some people might just have an overactive response. Also, I went for a great many years not being able to cry.. so.. crying might not be that strongly linked to emotion sometimes, I don't think. I don't know. That is a whole funny subject for me.

Male or female boss? Not that it really matters, it's inappropriate either way to be crying in the workplace.

I understand that some people can make themselves cry. Actors, fraudsters, sociopaths and so on. The only women I've seen crying, or the only ones I can think of immediately, have been genuinely upset for normal reasons.

I actually think the gender roles assigned to men relieve pressures from the society as a whole.

I'd say that kind of goes for both men and women, if only we'd stay where they try and put us. It's handy for TPTB for men to be ready to fight (for them) and work (for them) and not get wishy washy (for them) etc.. etc... and it's handy that women want to nurture and look pretty so that they'll make men want to make babies and so that the women will raise the babies.

True, but I don't think women taking on men's roles has been as disruptive as men abdicating their own roles would be.

Obviously there are aspects of these pressures which provide a challenge to the dominant culture, as when the "heroic" impulse takes the form of loyalty in gang warfare, or the provider impulse inspires profitable criminal activity.

you think that its a provider impulse that makes a man a criminal? Do you think that would go the same for women? .. I mean there are a hell of a lot of women who have to provide for their kids alone these days.

Well, it's not just "provider" as in "providing for your kids", although that'll play a part. There's a certain burden placed on men to be expected to pay for things, outings and gifts and so forth. If you're a criminal type, or rather if you're a poor man surrounded by criminals, and you see gangstas covered in bling, getting respect, getting more ho's than you can shake a stick at, that's powerful. So it's not so much an actual need to provide for oneself or others as to appear able to, ultimately perhaps to attract women.

If men were to abandon the provider impulse, however, and women were to abandon any expectation to be provided for or paid for the pleasure of their company,...

ha ha ha! that's a good one.

Well, you see what I'm getting at.

Very probably the earlier fathers don't show any interest and how much of that is due to a combination of men-don't-do-children social pressure and the knowledge that they can be cut from their children's lives by the mother at any time discouraging any great forming of emotional bonds is beyond any possibility of knowing.

Oh my goodness.. please imagine the Hallelujah chorus chiming in ...

Not sure if that's good or bad. Although I do like that song.

Certainly in my social strata families tend to focus entirely around the mothers because the mothers are the ones with the tenancies in council accomodation, due to their having children, and the men they live with, sometimes fathers of one or more of the children, live there entirely on the sufferance of the mother, providing income and being allowed to stay in the home and with the children.

In Canada they didn't even allow this to happen. Single women (and men I assume) with children who were on the dole could not have an opposite sex roommate. And that was only last decade. In fact, it may again be the case. It goes back and forth which is fantastic for family stability.

I was rewatching Evidence of Revision a while ago and it has JFK giving a speech about that exact thing. Fathers having to leave their families to allow them to claim some sort of benefit.

The removal of social pressures on men to follow traditional male paths in such a situation is literally beyond imagination, as the effects would be both unpredictable and of extreme but unknowable extent.

well, I don't think it'd be catastrophic unless we only released men from their gender role expectations and not women.

Ah, but I see the expectations placed on men as more onerous and less likely to be fulfilled without an aspect of coercion.

I think men are at a disadvantage from being expected to disassociate themselves from anything feminine.

I had to read that a few times to make sure I had it right. I'm happy that that's how you feel!

Well, I believe in freedom of the individual. I also dislike expectations and enjoy not living up to them. Also, I really want to be able to wear a skirt.

So I don't necessarily think there's an innate loss from disowning femininity, as a personal choice.

well, I can agree insofar as if you're just born to be a stereotypically masculine male, then so be it. Sure. The world really does need all kinds of people and I admire all kinds, too. (okay I do not admire sociopathic or psychopathic types.. but otherwise...)

That'll be me. The stereotypical bit, mostly anyway, not the sociopathic bit.

One thing Otto Weininger got right, going a dozen or so pages back through this thread, is that there are no "absolute" men or women, all people have aspects of maleness and femaleness about their psyches. I happen to find traditional masculinity more admirable,

okay, but here's a question: Do you find it admirable in women?

Of course, I find pretty much the same things admirable in both sexes. The more masculine aspects perhaps more so in women, and the feminine aspects in men, as they are less expected.

And, as a follow-up, why do you think one is better than the other when clearly we can't ONLY have stoic, war-ready, non-carers who don't like to make things pretty. You see that, right? We need people who are willing to sit with others in their hours of need and we require attention to beauty and harmony?

Well, I don't consider non-caring a masculine trait. Just caring in a less ostentatious manner. I like people I know caring if I'm hurt, say, I wouldn't appreciate a load of touchy-feely, hug-it-all-out "comforting". I like things to be pretty, too. Maybe not pretty as in fluffy kittens and rose petals glued to everything, but I like a pollarded tree, say, or a nice bit of gothic architecture. Very bit on the aesthetic appeal of buildings, me. So I don't see those characteristics, appreciation of harmony and so on, as feminine, at most there is a feminine approach and a masculine approach to things like aesthetic appreciation and interpersonal understanding I prefer the more masculine approach.

Also, I'd really like it to be acceptable to wear a skirt.

There's a picture somewhere of David Beckham in a white suit jacket with a white sarong. It is over the top hot. I can't find it though..
but here:

That's not a proper skirt, I was thinking of something more like a Ra Ra skirt. A kilt would do. Either way I'm not in either Scotland or Thailand, so that's not going to be widely accepted. Never understood what women saw in David Beckham. I mean, he can't even tackle.

So what I'd basically like is for women to be more like (good) men and men to act more like women.

Hope that's the sort of thing you were looking for.

yes it was. And I'm kind of surprised (but also not) by your answer. Thanks.

I am a surprising but not kind of person.

[Canadian_watcher]

Springsteen also has that monologue about the draft at the beginning of 'The River' which chokes me up if I'm in the right mood.

[tru3magic]

Hopefully get a few laughs

and also we're 'natural carers' - I mean society doesn't punish us for caring like it does to men a lot of the time.

I see single male fathers praised for filling the female role at times (in terms of "traits by gender"), vice versa for women...Being a single parent is difficult though, so I think this is more an exception to the case. For a family with two parents I feel the roles are definitely more played out and ridiculed if "broken".

CW, are you a single parent as well? Have you felt at times you expressed more "manly" traits because you felt it was beneficial to the child?

and the big one, I think, is that women knew early on that there would be no power unless they got together. Like with unions only for non-economic (as well as economic) reasons.

IMO this idea is backwards. Men were the first to gather for the pooling of resources to enhance power (we see how well that has gone and where it has got us). The liberation movement to dismantle our current patriarchal culture is largely pioneered by women, and I feel some of this has to do with the notions men should not express their emotions. Men need to join the movement, how to do so without being thought less of by your peers I have yet to contemplate.