by jlaw172364 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:56 am
@ Iamwhomiam
I'm well aware of my little aliens, thanks, but are you aware of yours? Your procedure sounds suspiciously like a lobotomy. Just because patriarchies exist in myriad forms doesn't mean Patriarchy exists as a final overarching conspiracy, except maybe in some people's minds.
It also doesn't mean that I have to uncritically swallow every last word that comes out of every two-bit gender studies intellectual's mouth. I like how Project Willow falsely accuses of me of "not listening to women!" Yet, I actually take the time to read some articles written by some women, and then take even more time to disagree with them. I did listen to them, I just listened to them critically, like I listen to everyone else, and lo and behold, I found myself in disagreement with them.
I like Orwell's term: oligarchal collectivism. It's broad enough to incorporate monarchies, banana republics, sham democracies, religious institutions, capitalism, communism. I'd only modify it slightly to hierarchy-based oligarchal collectivism, but since their are so many hiearchies within the oligarchy, and since they criss-cross all over the place, it might not actually be a good modification at all. Maybe, oligarchal collectivism that frequently employs hierarchy as tool . . . but then it also employs decentralized networks, so . . .
It also means that's what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Perhaps you should go spend some time in some MensRights forums and see if you can see any humanity in there amidst all the misogyny, alleged and otherwise. Why not listen to what GirlWritesWhat has to say, since she's somewhat thoughtful and articulate?
In any case, this shallow, "hey hey, ho ho, this penis party has got to go" school of gender studies is an insult to all the good work that's actually been done in the field. I've read a lot of it, and I find a lot of it thought-provoking and informative. I agree with a lot of it, so therefore, I don't bother to write anything critical of it, because there is nothing to criticize, although there are flaws, but most of what I've read seems like it was written in good faith, in pursuit of truth. But this mansplaining thing is BULLSHIT, and I'm calling it out.
* * * *
On a tangential note with regard to gender roles, and all the nuance and complexity that takes place in the real world . . . .
Right now, for my sanity, I'm studying various social dances, particularly the Argentine Tango.
The dance instructors use gender neutral terminology to teach the class. They don't say, "men" and "women," they say, "leads" and "follows." Traditionally, because of socially constructed gender roles, men have "led," and women have "followed." However, in the 21st century, things have changed, and it is not that uncommon to see the role reversed, although the vast majority of students still dance based on traditional gender roles, unless they're dancing with an instructor of educational purposes.
Several interesting observations:
The lead is supposed to determine the course of the dance, but if the follow doesn't like what the lead does, the follow will engage in any number of strategies to try and influence the outcome of the dance. Such strategies include: telling the lead what to do, backleading with varying degrees of subtlety, looking bored or pissed off if the lead does either basic patterns or repeats the same pattern over and over again. What's hilarious to me is that some of these follows, who are all women, upon being questioned, will admit that they have NEVER led a dance . . . at all, since they want to learn how to dance as a follow, as prescribed by traditional gender roles, yet it won't stop them from trying to "followsplain" how lead the dance. However, this is mostly not true of the advanced students, and never true of the instructors. The instructors have so far uniformly claimed that making the mental switch between lead and follow is one of the hardest aspects of dancing.
If the lead doesn't please the follows, the lead will find them making excuse when asked to dance.
So then, who is actually leading? The lead or the follow?
Everything the lead does is to please the follow. Leads works their asses off. They must choreograph the dance on the fly, avoid other dancers, protect the follow, communicate non-verbally with the follow in a clear manner, all to at the same time, to the rhythm of the music, on a crowded dance floor. Every follow has told me that leading is "much, much harder" or "four times" harder than following in the same breath that they'll critique my every move so I can lead them better. Critique of a follow is extremely bad form, unless the follow is a complete newb.
What's also interesting is that every once and awhile, an instructor will make a small, minor mistake. If they are dancing solo, as a demonstration, they have no choice but to say oops!
But if they're dancing with you, they typically blame you. Especially if they're following, and you're leading. So authoritarianism lurks, even in dance class.
Also, while they teach in gender neutral terms, it is clear to me that everybody is MUCH more comfortable when the men lead only. It is acceptable for the women to lead or follow, and occasionally a shortage of women will prompt male instructors to act as follows, but if a male student inquires about taking the class as a follow . . . to better learn the dance, the instructors act to discourage him, or at least, they did when I asked on several occasions, at one particular studio, which may have been doing it for commercial reasons, since many of them men sign up to dance with women and vice versa, so a male follow would mess up "the ratio," although I've seen men dancing as follows with women leading them in practica at other studios.
Yet, in Argentina, when men learned the dance, they only danced with other men . . . for a year, before dancing with women. And they practiced with other men, so they wouldn't humiliate themselves by dancing poorly with a woman. The dance actually originated in part from a dance that was done by ex-soldiers who didn't want to work as field hands and lived on the margins of society. This explains the faux-combative nature of some of the moves. And this all well before gender studies became mainstreamed on American campuses.
The worst follows are always those that refuse to actually follow the lead, but won't themselves take on the role of lead. So when you dance with them in class, if you deviate ever so slightly from the teacher's pattern, even accidentally, they just robotically continue doing the pattern they think they're supposed to be doing, which also involves an unrelated issue of the teacher's subtly undermining the students by calling out patterns that students robotically follow along with, versus letting them figure it out at their own pace, which waste time, and allows for more fee milking. These lousy follows, which are really only a tiny minority of the dancers will also brook absolutely NO criticism, no matter how gentle. According to them, they're doing it perfectly, or they have some excuse, or they blame the lead.
I would also like to learn to dance as a follow, so I can learn to lead better, and yes, because I've followed, and it's actually fun, but in a different way. It appears as though one of the studios I go to as some advanced follows who are learning to lead, so I'll probably be teaming up with them.
Notice how a recurring theme with me is paradigm shifting to deprogram myself?
Okay, you can go back to calling me a mansplaining woman-hater who doesn't listen to women and should just shut up or get a lobotomy, now.
