rigorousintuition.ca

JackRiddler wrote:I don't know when you think it turned into a debate about some supposed dictate that women must always be viewed as victims

That was the original premise which started this thread. c2w can correct me if I am wrong. I believe the thread title bears that out, to some extent.

I would ask not to lock the thread - I have spent some time on a reply to bks Some threads seem to turn into firestorms, but hope this has come under control - otherwise it will just surface somewhere else.

I am still hoping c2w will reply to me (she said I'll be back)

''Rape and all violent crimes are very rare '' S Morgan, you might like to check out One In Four's site.

I had written...
Male hegemony" is a cloud word. What in particular do you see, hear or feel that lets you know Male hegemony" exists?

Searcher08: I'm hoping you are more open than some of the others here. I assume you believe in gravity?

I do not think of myself as 'believing' in gravity - I look on it as a useful way of interacting with the world. It is based on mathematics, which is a rule/axiom based structure. The theory of gravity is useful because it has a predictive ability - in certain contexts. You have to be careful about the contexts though. For example

Situation: I am holding a tennis ball in my hand. I let it go.
Question: What happens next?
Answer: Obviously it will drop...
Well, actually no- not always. If we were on the Space Station and I let go of it, it would just stay there. If we were on the seabed and I let it go, it would rise up to the surface. The concept of gravity is the same , the observed behaviour is very different - but predictable and that ( for me ) is a key value

If so, why? You cannot see, feel or touch it. There is no proof, and can be no proof based on your above requirements, that gravity exists or will continue to exert the influence on objects we believe it does. Yet you believe in it because you can see the EFFECTS of it.

Let's continue carefully. It is important not to conflate these two things, One of these is a mental construct, which may have great utility in the certain contexts (gravity) and the other is behaviour in the physical world. One is a map, the other the territory. Please could you tell me of the behaviour in the physical world that you expect to see from male hegemony / patriarchy approach? Where would the places this behaviour it would be most visible and 'pure'.

Patriarchy, which is closely related to "male hegemony" is somewhat analogous to gravity. Patriarchy is a theory of explanation for the differential, patterned behavior of males and females in society. It is not an absolute concept like we imagine gravity to be; rather patriarchy enables certain behaviors and constrains others.

This reminds me of Lewin's Force Field analysis... my understanding of what you are saying is that patriarchy is a perceptual filter, a mental map, which will mean that the wearer of the patriarchal lenses will tend to have relations with women and these relationships will tend to have certain characteristics which you think decrease the viability of the relationship.

It is a channeler; it sets gender expectations in a million different ways: differential gender socialization in all its forms (the kinds of games girls play vs. the kind boys play, the kinds of clothing chosen for them, the well-known effects of media imagery and their projection of gendered normalcy, and the differential relationship of self to body that boys and girls develop from all of this.) Patriarchy prefers that women take subordinate roles to men in both the public and private sphere (particularly the private sphere).

If patriarchy is a filter, through which we view the world, then it's important to know that we are doing that - filtration - . We will highlighting / letting through some perceptions and *not* allowing other information through. Filtration is a powerful and potentially useful process, however it can also abstract us from and distance us from our engagement with reality. Our responses can become mediated through the filter. So a question - as a concept, what specific value have you personally derived from the seeing the world through concepts of patriarchy and male hegemony? What things does it make viable that other ways of seeing do not?

<warning - talk about rape follows>
There is also another important issue, which is that there are multiple positions from which to view the resulting behaviour. It is generally very important to be able to understand the mental map from multiple points of view e.g. I saw on videoGoogle a really interesting lecture by a detective, who was talking about this. In the context of a possible rape perp he was interviewing. His understanding of the perp was so exquisite that he paced the communication to the point where the detective said "X (the victim) is sooo hot - I bet she wanted it" and the perp then boasted... and incriminated himself. It was an exquisite display that understanding someone deeply doesn't mean you *sanction* them at all.
From the observer position there is also an incredible mismatch between the victim and the aggressor - it reminds me of the pedos who say "the child's hitting me back showed proof they wanted it"

One tiny example of its influence: study after study has shown that the intelligence of adolescent girls gets 'driven underground' around the time when
attention from boys becomes a big factor in their lives (see Carol Gilligan's work on this, for starters)

This is interesting - my understanding was there is a huge body of (UK based) work that shows it is boys whose achievement and grades and literacy can crash around this time. I wonder if these things are cyclical and if the Pygmalion effect is actually the force driving it as teachers focus on one gender after another at the behest of the government?

At bottom, patriarchy is the belief that male dominance is a natural - not merely a contingent - feature of social life. It influence runs through every major cultural institution, most obviously Christianity and marriage. The 'naturalness' of male dominance is the main argument for the rightfulness of male dominance, which is the truly pernicious part of patriarchy. By showing the supposed 'naturalness' of male dominance is itself a social construction, new grounds for criticizing it are opened.

What about the neurology research work that shows many gender differences appear to be hard wired? With the advent of the fMRI, there are loads of studies showing different processing going on across many regions of the brain in real-time. We have only touched the tip of the iceberg regarding gender *differences*. To keep a wide perspective, these sources of information are very important.

I remember years ago, Dustin Hoffman talking about his experience of preparing for the role of "Tootsie", where he said one aspect of the experience that really surprised him was the sense of isolation and lack of self-worth that he felt around men. He felt that "Tootsie" was an intelligent , interesting woman, who was nearly invisible to herself.

I think cultural sterotypes are also created and sustained by women too - lots of hand-wringing about the harm of size 0 models in UK women's magazines by the magazines - but they admitted they were more interested in shifting units than anthing else.

I myself went to a single sex school all through my education. Due to having a very bomb and bullet ridden upbringing, social activities for my generation and in my area could end up being fatal, so I tried to stay alive . During my first lecture at uni - I was sitting next to... a G I R L !!! I was beyond flustered. I literally didnt know how to be do or what to say... more of that another time

If you want a more nuanced, highly interesting example of the way patriarchy operates, read Donna Haraway's essay Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908-1936. It's an account of the presentation of primates in the Museum of Natural History during that time. It's a complex and controversial argument she makes, and I'm oversimplifying from memory now, but one undeniable aspect of it is that the presentation of the primates in the museum's dioramas was manipulated to show them in human-style nuclear families.
This, Haraway argues, helped communicate to the mass of new American immigrants visiting the museum that the middle-class nuclear family, with dad in charge, was a reflection of the natural order of things. Bits and pieces of the essay appear below, in the context of criticism of it:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/466593

http://www.jstor.org/pss/189861

http://books.google.com/books?id=8kyPuUoSFKMC&pg=
PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Teddy+Bear+Patriarchy+Haraway&source
=web&ots=CNOOL6vmAN&sig=5IlD7CtcTtrxMIA_9M5afVVu2b0&hl
=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA37,M1

So the next time you hear the term 'male hegemony', you don't have to think 'cloud word'. You can think: 'Patriarchy is the view that male domination of society is both natural and appropriate, and male hegemony is the state of affairs which enables the message to get delivered and reinforced'.

Thank you for your reply and the interesting book reference, bks

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.

I was editing and it turned into an essay and now everyone's already read the one-paragraph version and responded to it while I was writing the rest and we're on page 13.

Everyone, if you would be so kind, please accept my invitation to back up a page and read me again. Thanks.

I suggest that this thread remain open if there is more than one vote in support of more than one of the following propositions from any poster other than me and GMC. I'm willing to give Stephen Morgan an automatic "Yea" on all points. (Stephen Morgan, please read to the end. I do not equate your statements with those of GMC.) Otherwise, I vote to lock it.

Here we go:

(a) GM Citizen's posts persuasively support the notion that he looks at the issue of rape from a broad view and that there's any serious question that I don't, as he argues/asks here:

"I look at the issue from a broader view, and not exlusively from one gender. The fact that I do this does not negate your viewpoints, and should not be taken as such. But is it vice-versa?"

(b) That I have at any point -- including in the post on Yathrib's thread, in which I acknowledged for the sake of argument that Stokes was wrongfully convicted, and said it subtracted .01% from the story's value that a commonplace unsupported assumption about women and rape was perpetuated by the article -- written anything that stated or strongly suggested to anyone who is able to hear a woman speak of women's experience in without believing she claims that I believe "women are, if not the sole victim in society, then certainly Victim #1."

(c) That GM Citizen has much more substantial evidence that women insist on making all issues about the victimization of women than "here's a pretty good example for you: this very thread," which is, specifically ABOUT WHETHER WOMEN ARE VICTIMS OR NOT;

(d) That the vast majority of posts here do "go on about women as if they are, if not the sole victim in society, then certainly Victim #1," despite numerous posts that argue the opposite, and many posts, including by me, repeatedly stating otherwise;

(e) That it's a little disingenuous for GM Citizen to write of the idea that it's PC to maintain that women are always victims: "That was the original premise which started this thread. c2w can correct me if I am wrong. I believe the thread title bears that out, to some extent," without mentioning that this was a response to his broad-minded statement that "You MUST always paint the female as the victim, without exception. That is unless it is an abusive lesbian relationship, in which case you should just disregard it."

(f) That the first statement below more accurately characterizes the exchange of viewpoints between me and GM Citizen than the second one:

(i) The irony is rich. Haha, shit, GM Citizen answers c2w's questions, and then c2w expands on them, wanting more, and then cries that GM Citizen hasn't given her even more yet.

(ii) c2w has consistently asked GM Citizen to support his assertions using data that show them to be firmly grounded in objective reality rather than belief, as he says they are. And that after GM Citizen emphatically stated that these were considered interpretations of what he saw, heard, read, etc, and not at all merely individual beliefs, she definitely hit the gas wrt to asking him to fucking back that up, and would be the first to admit it. However, he's the one who claims his broad views are thus broadly supportable, and it's not unreasonable therefore to call upon him to broadly support them, which so far, he has not.

(e) That GM Citizen has persuasively explained himself numerous times in here, but because he does not bow to the PC wisdom, this issue has started to creep into other tangents.

-----------------

FWIW, I don't actually object to Stephen Morgan's views as strongly as I do to GMC's, even though they're in part the same views. Because Stephen Morgan's tone and presentation all consistently demonstrate that while he is a contrarian, he is genuinely motivated by concern for social injustice and oppression of the weak by the strong, however little I agree with his definition of those things. Posting Tulpa has not been very active here, but I'd say the same of him. He gives every impression of being motivated by felt or perceived anguish over unjust and unnecessary human suffering. Our perceptions differ so vastly, I doubt we'll ever agree. But disagreement is a fine thing. Makes the world go round, I'd say. Hatred, not so much.

Further, though as far as I can recall, it's not usually a gender-specific thing, I barely agree with tkl about a single issue, and I often find his views reprehensible, a term I have not applied to GMC here, though he thinks I have. Yet I'm enormously fond of tkl, and most of the time we amiably settle our differences on any given thread without significantly impacting each other's views on a permanent basis. Which is what most "discourse" boils down to most of the time, sadly. I also have occasional significant differences of opinion with Brainpanhandler and Op Ed, but it does not lessen my respect and appreciation for their exceptional, beautiful and admirable contributions to this board, none of which bring the hate, and all of which can reasonably be considered broad and thoroughly considered arguments within the parameters they responsibly specify.

GMC, on the other hand, argues from a position that is unyieldingly self-regarding and self-interested and nothing more. He does not even show any concern for victimized men that acknowledges their realities rather than his. The single unifying feature of what he writes is the minimization, denial or dismissal of any issue pertaining to injustice against women as a class. When he's challenged on whether he can support his arguments on their merits, he says he can. When he's asked to do that he says "My opinion is my opinion, nothing more....not right nor wrong...it just "is"."

I call bullshit on this. I don't know what motivates him. But if it's any concern for any or all victims of violence or injustice in any class, I have yet to see a single sign of it.

In any event, I don't think it is at all constructive to leave this thread open simply so that GM Citizen can continue to argue in support of his assertions by referring to his earlier assertions. If there's significant dissent on this point, please express it...1...2...3....NOW!

I'm going to give this thread 10 more minutes, then I want everyone out of here.

c2w, I'm a bit dense on the grammar with the "thats" and the negatives, so I'm uncertain if you're for or against locking this thread, but to simplify to the level that my currently low reading comprehension can handle, I hereby a) basically agree with your assessment of GMC's statements, and b) would prefer this wasn't locked, but would support what you decide to do with your own thread.

brekin, shut up. This is mainly in response to your font size.

Jeff wrote:I'm going to give this thread 10 more minutes, then I want everyone out of here.

Jeff -- I know you're full of Buddha when it comes to your disinclination to point fingers, but I would honestly prefer to be rebuked if I merit rebuke. So please rebuke me if you feel I merit it. I'm not asking for a judgment on anyone else. But this has been an ugly thread. I want to shoulder my share of responsibility for it, and am not in a position to judge it well myself.

Jeff wrote:I'm going to give this thread 10 more minutes, then I want everyone out of here.

No time to respond to c2w's quote, as I said I would earlier.

Jeff wrote:

I'm going to give this thread 10 more minutes, then I want everyone out of here.

c2w, not at all.

locking...