rigorousintuition.ca

Jeff wrote:This thread is starting to stink of '80s beer-sweat after an Andrew Dice Clay show.

a canard?

nathan28 wrote:@ barracuda:

You know, if every man on the planet is getting so much out of "the patriarchy," that really doesn't explain why so many of them are fucking indebted, in prison and enslaved. I even probably agree with most of your points but find the aesthetics of them repulsive. In my more cynical moments I suspect that "gender studies" and "[race] studies" were invented to keep the children of the not-quite-rich and the upper-middle class tied up in shibboleth-loaded parlor games.

Aesthetics? I guess I'm not understanding you here, nathan28. Every man on the planet does benefit from the patriarchy. Just because they are also opressed doesn't make their inherent oppression of women any less real. It more likely simply amplifies that opression. And their dog gets kicked, too. Feminism is not a "game". It is, I think, an attempt to understand and alleviate that oppresssion, which I find to be a worthwhile goal, as is the alleviation of all oppression.

Who is more oppressed, a Manhattan attorney black lesbian or a redneck ex-con making $9000 a year?

The black attorney, obviously. The places where that redneck can and cannot go, the jobs he can and cannot do, etc. on and on, are not constrained by his gender in the slightest.

You can't criticize anyone for making sweeping generalizations about "women" then drop a shrill diatribe about the "eons" of male "conspiracy" against women.

Shrill. Another completely gender biased term you use without considering the implications of it. That you would say it in the context of this discussion tells me roughly how many mainstream articles you've read about Hillary Clinton. I am not making sweeping generalizations. The suppression of women as humans has gone on for eons. Now, please, tell me how it hasn't.

I remember reading of a black student who was asked what he thought of afirmative action at the university he was at. He said initially, he was really in favour of it, because it seemed to give chances at education where there were none previously. A few years later, he became convinced that it was actually quite a bad idea. He was left feeling that he didnt get his degree while having to work hard at it - he was told "off the record" that he was basically sure to pass in order to meet university quotas. He was left with the feeling that he *wasnt expected to succeed* normally and this was a *helping hand*.

In education in the UK, there are huge issues with male achievement, particularly literacy in secondary schools - teachers have had a huge amount of PC indoctrination in their teacher training and the dumbing down effect (helped by the media) is quite extreme.

I find it really depressing to go into London and see the products of "Grrrl power" puke over themselves and each other and passers-by, with an absolute hair-trigger level of physical violence present in the conversation much of the time.

I find I agree with much of what both barracuda and GMCitizen say - the most important question here is, perhaps,

How do we design a future that can include what both perspectives want and need?

GM Citzen wrote:I am not a believer of eons of patriarchal dominance

It's not something you get to believe in or not. It simply is. You are blind to it: it's like not believing in the hegemony of right-handedness. It's all right, your own paradigm of oppression (wealth vs. poverty) is in fact extremely gender-specific, as the income and wealth levels of women have never approached those of men. Tell me I'm wrong.

the black male, soon to be supplanted by the Muslim male, fares worse economically than the black lesbian

Your hollywood-style vision of the lives of black women in America and elsewhere is appalling. Here's my stereotypical vision: after they are beaten and abused by their men, the men are put in jail for being black, leaving the women to raise the children in the worst possible economic situations imaginable.
Patriarchy is not a "catch all" word, as you put it. It has a well defined and understood meaning, which if you don't recognise it, doesn't surprise me.

It's almost misogynist in that it doesn't allow women to be seen as being in control of themselves and their lives. Because if a woman is a victim, then you can help look after her, no?

You need merely swap some other terms for "women" to see how ill-conceived this statement is. Try substituting "child" or "iraqui", etc. Yeah, the Iraquis should take some responsibility, no?

Equating my view of society's preferential viewing of women as victims, with racist ideology simply escapes me.

Of course it does, you are part of the oppressing system, and have benefited from it your whole life,

Everything you say paints a picture of women as victims, and conversely that men are not, and if they are, well then too bad. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. Women are oppressed and have been for thousands of years. Their "victimization" through this oppression is a factor of how far they themselves are able to rise above it. For the most part, I find their courage and strength in the face of it to be enormous.

You prove my points.

Very weak. I take this statement as essentially capitulation on your part. Good. You are making progress. Would I be wrong to assume you are a white man?

Searcher08 wrote:How do we design a future that can include what both perspectives want and need?

My first reaction is to arrive at something inclusive. If you have a cancer in your body, you cannot ignore one half of it. Simplistic, yes, but we need to start somewhere. Currently, the victim industry excludes males for the most part, unless they are in some neanderthal/chivalrous usage, ie., cop, etc.

Have you ever heard anyone say "there is never a reason to hit a man"? Probably have never heard it, maybe because some people believe there are good reasons to strike men, but never women.

How about starting by "There is never a good reason to hit anyone", and work from there.

GM Citizen wrote:

Searcher08 wrote:How do we design a future that can include what both perspectives want and need?

My first reaction is to arrive at something inclusive. If you have a cancer in your body, you cannot ignore one half of it. Simplistic, yes, but we need to start somewhere. Currently, the victim industry excludes males for the most part, unless they are in some neanderthal/chivalrous usage, ie., cop, etc.

Have you ever heard anyone say "there is never a reason to hit a man"? Probably have never heard it, maybe because some people believe there are good reasons to strike men, but never women.

How about starting by "There is never a good reason to hit anyone", and work from there.

I agree STRONGLY with this. If we do not seek to be inclusive, then we end up with a system that can show enantiadromia - turn suddenly into it's opposite. My central london on a saturday night is heaving with girls and women who are trying to out "lad" each other in an epidemic of teenage drinking and violence. Sheesh.

There are themes of "some interventions making the system worse", of the system evolving characteristics which are different from what was desired before - for example, I feel that the people who designed affirmative action at the outset would have been appalled at the disempowered comments of the black student I mentioned.

I personally think that a design type of thinking is needed. As the saying goes, You can analyse the past, but you have to design the future...

Ah, there you are, right on time, Barracuda.

Leftist gatekeeping just isn't the same without you.

I agree with you, in regards to the linguistic bias inherent in male warrior culture which, whether positive or negative in a particular sense, digs at discourse. Note my use of the word "pricks" to describe the asshole police previously.

Though I'd strongly urge you to attempt somehow to distinguish between a born-into cultural effect that tends to benefit men at the expense of women and the intentional oppression of females by males. This inability to draw lines here seems to be causing you much difficulty in establishing your otherwise valid lines of reasoning.

Calling it a "conspiracy" of "men" only exacerbates the tendency towards division. Especially when it really isn't anything even remotely resembling this in a practical sense.

And accusing someone of reading mainstream articles about Hilary Clinton is something no one should do.

I wonder if females are starting to think that evolving males was a bad idea to begin with.

barracuda wrote:

GM Citzen wrote:I am not a believer of eons of patriarchal dominance

It's not something you get to believe in or not. It simply is. You are blind to it: it's like not believing in the hegemony of right-handedness. It's all right, your own paradigm of oppression (wealth vs. poverty) is in fact extremely gender-specific, as the income and wealth levels of women have never approached those of men. Tell me I'm wrong.

the black male, soon to be supplanted by the Muslim male, fares worse economically than the black lesbian

Your hollywood-style vision of the lives of black women in America and elsewhere is appalling. Here's my stereotypical vision: after they are beaten and abused by their men, the men are put in jail for being black, leaving the women to raise the children in the worst possible economic situations imaginable.
Patriarchy is not a "catch all" word, as you put it. It has a well defined and understood meaning, which if you don't recognise it, doesn't surprise me.

It's almost misogynist in that it doesn't allow women to be seen as being in control of themselves and their lives. Because if a woman is a victim, then you can help look after her, no?

You need merely swap some other terms for "women" to see how ill-conceived this statement is. Try substituting "child" or "iraqui", etc. Yeah, the Iraquis should take some responsibility, no?

Equating my view of society's preferential viewing of women as victims, with racist ideology simply escapes me.

Of course it does, you are part of the oppressing system, and have benefited from it your whole life,

Everything you say paints a picture of women as victims, and conversely that men are not, and if they are, well then too bad. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. Women are oppressed and have been for thousands of years. Their "victimization" through this oppression is a factor of how far they themselves are able to rise above it. For the most part, I find their courage and strength in the face of it to be enormous.

You prove my points.

Very weak. I take this statement as essentially capitulation on your part. Good. You are making progress. Would I be wrong to assume you are a white man?

You view everything in terms of patriarchy. How can you possibly know anything else, if you choose to shield your view through those dense shades?

You continue to prove my point that a woman must be viewed PC as a victim. Nothing you have written changes that.

Why do you view all women as victims? You got daddy issues? Sounds like you are either too close to the issue from some personal experience (and cannot stand back to see your myopic views for what they are), or you have been indoctrinated quite well, and may need re-programming?

Wouldn't it help women to view them as strong and independent rather than some hapless victims of some real or imagined atrocity 20,000 years ago? Or is this just your schtick so you can get some, as your girl watches you type?

Who is more oppressed, a Manhattan attorney black lesbian or a redneck ex-con making $9000 a year?

The black attorney, obviously. The places where that redneck can and cannot go, the jobs he can and cannot do, etc. on and on, are not constrained by his gender in the slightest.

Your failure to factor income and class into the equation is exactly the problem.

Shrill. Another completely gender biased term you use without considering the implications of it.

Do you know the very first person who pops into my head when I use or encounter the word "shrill?" Jim Kunstler, wearing a shirt, coat and tie, hardly a gender-neutral individual. For what its worth my initial word-choice was "shrill jeremiad". If you can get 1-1=2 on that one, more power to you. Go ahead and tell me you know my exact psycholiguistics, but without evidence of an ability to read minds, you will be incorrect. If you'd like I'll think of Hillary from now on.

Just because they are also oppressed doesn't make their inherent oppression of women any less real. It more likely simply amplifies that oppression. And their dog gets kicked, too. Feminism is not a "game". It is, I think, an attempt to understand and alleviate that oppression, which I find to be a worthwhile goal, as is the alleviation of all oppression.

The thing is, my department here at my desk jockey job was at one point nearly two-thirds women and is still mostly women, each of whom was earning above the national average to start and promotions are based on chronological experience. My supervisor is a woman. The majority of the candidates we interview are women; the majority of the hires are women. I have a hard time believing that any of them was that oppressed or that their opportunities in life have been cut off relative to someone much further down the ladder.

I have two principle problems with academic feminism and the discourse of male/white/whatever oppression:

1. The suggestion seems to be that every moment, categorically and by definition, all white males are always oppressing women, blacks and gays. This is just utterly ridiculous. It implies that if a man isn't out doing his oppression routine overtly, he's somehow involved in it at some occulted level such that we need to psychologize. You're free to do that, but I'll suggest that your likelihood of error becomes huge.

2. I have heard so much class bias coming out of the supposed harbingers of equality that it makes me want to turn my back on them completely. The suggestion that men in low stations--of whom there are many--somehow have it better than women in the upper two income quintiles--boggles my mind. It's not a reductio ad absurdum for me to say that--you stated that you think someone earning twenty times more than an anonymous and hypothetical white male is oppressed.

The thing is, we can legislate to address economic inequality. You address race as an economic issue. You address female job opportunities as an economic issue. Maybe this even takes the form of quotas. That's fine. it's part of the democratic process and based essentially on utilitarianism and fairness. But if you are going to try to use Lacanian analysis or psycholiguistics to legislate--beyond that, what will you do to address the "oppression"? if you think that "conscious raising" is all that's need--I don't think that you personally do but again i can't think of many alternatives--you don't lead with "all men, including those held in solitary confinement, being tortured and so on, are active agents of oppression" and furthermore that suggests that anyone aware of oppression is doing something about it so they aren't "oppressing" anymore--you are bound for some trouble.

OP ED wrote:Leftist gatekeeping just isn't the same without you.

C'mon, I'm a native San Franciscan, whaddaya expect?

GM Citizen wrote:You got daddy issues? ... or you have been indoctrinated quite well, and may need re-programming?

Okay, you guys are too funny. Ouch. GM Citizen, you are DEFINATELY a white man. I know, cuz my ass hurts.

Wouldn't it help women to view them as strong and independent rather than some hapless victims of some real or imagined atrocity 20,000 years ago? Or is this just your schtick so you can get some, as your girl watches you type?

Honestly, that one got a chortle outta me. If you only knew!

Differentiating between the cultural effect on the one hand and the personal, intentional affect on the other is tough because the latter is usually imbued with the former, and occurs only within the skein of that effect. So there is considerable overlay, and considerable parallelling of motivations.

Like I said, women who rise above through their strength and independance are admirable. I feel however, that viewing them as strong is usually a way to abdicate our own responsibility as men for the conditions that exist for women. As Madge says of her Palmolive, "You're soaking in it!"

compared2what? wrote:Please accept my apologies.

ON EDIT: There's really a little more that needs to be said than that, I think, but I will just have to say it later. I hope that this serves as an adequate place-holder for the moment. It's true in spirit, but not totally in letter.

W'aaaalllllll, heey thar' Prdn'r...

' jes wanted teh saay apologies if'n me 'n Stanky oofended any a y'all...






.
.
...muchaas graass-Eye-aasssss.......

Hey, Ladies and Gentlemen --

I have a little bit of non-RI business still to attend to. After that, I intend to write a post addressing all unfinished business that could properly be called my business. And after that, I hope that my side of the street will be swept clean, all debts paid up, and all loose ends neatly spliced, just as I learned to do back when my ass still belonged to the Marines. And no, that doesn't actually refer to any real experience of mine. I was just doing a little free-figurative-phrase improv.

Needless to say, if my best effort at end splicing raises any further issues or concerns, I'll address them. And everyone else is obviously free to rock on however and wherever they wish.

But in the interests of facilitating a free, frank and open exchange on gender bias, when I'm done addressing stuff already in play here, I'm also going to start another thread with a post specifically written to be conducive to a free, frank and open exchange on gender bias. As opposed to the OP on this one, the beginnings of which are (SPOILER ALERT) obviously one piece of unfinished business, undischarged debts, yada, yada, yada that could properly be called mine. So I'll be back with that and more, as soon as I can.

Sugar, spice, etc.

c2w

Barracuda is right. We are soaking in it.

There are two definitive observations that, if the mind is open, win the case in any argument regarding the importance of sex/gender in society, and their respective ranks:

1. Find a single conversation you've had in your entire LIFE that lasted longer than 30 seconds- at a party, in the supermarket, waiting on line - in which you did not expend mental energy trying to determine the sex of the person you were talking to. Go ahead and search yourself.

I can say with virtual assurance that for every one of us, the answer is: you have never had one. Reflect on that for a moment.

Then,

2. Think of the words that men use to insult other men when they are trying to injure them. I mean the worst ones. What are they?

Most often, they are words for homosexuals [FAGGOT], females [BITCH] or female genitalia [PUSSY]. In other words, when you really want to insult a man, you call him a 'woman.'

Now why would that be?

bks wrote:Think of the words that men use to insult other men when they are trying to injure them. I mean the worst ones. What are they?

Most often, they are words for homosexuals [FAGGOT], females [BITCH] or female genitalia [PUSSY]

for the record, i know plenty of straight male bearers of penises who are COWARDS. Thanks, Ian.

nathan28 wrote:1.

I'd say they are, even, perhaps, when they are actively attempting to do the exact opposite, for instance, I find the male's participation (my own included) on this entire thread is somewhat patronizing towards women. But perhaps of value nonetheless.

2.

If I am correct to assume that you, nathan28 are also a white man, then for you to make the assertion that any woman "has it better" than a hypothetical man is also somewhat patronizing (even if it may be true), for you cannot really walk in her shoes, and I doubt if you'd want to. (Wait, lemme think about that, 'cause it might be fun to be a lesbian for a while.)

But I will say this total non-sequitur just for grins: we have at this moment in the White House, a "first lady" who murdered her boyfriend and got away with it scott-free. And I can't say that makes me happy. But then, I'm a white man.

(IanEye, no offense taken! And your new glasses make you look years younger!)