A very common right-wing anti-feminist argument is that women in the United States need to STFU and be happy we have it as good as we do, because we could be in *insert so-and-so 3rd world barbaric country* where we would really be treated badly. It is the old one two, first asserting that women have nothing to fight for in the States so, "quit yer bitchin" and second, that we are better than other countries, less barbaric, more civilized, etc. It is an old and tired attack, but unfortunately, sometimes it works.
Bob Herbert's Op-Ed from last week rightfully discussed the idea that in the United States we live in a culture of misogyny.
I wrote, at the time, that there would have been thunderous outrage if someone had separated potential victims by race or religion and then shot, say, only the blacks, or only the whites, or only the Jews. But if you shoot only the girls or only the women -- not so much of an uproar.According to police accounts, Sodini walked into a dance-aerobics class of about 30 women who were being led by a pregnant instructor. He turned out the lights and opened fire. The instructor was among the wounded.
We have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that the barbaric treatment of women and girls has come to be more or less expected.
We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment.
To much surprise, Double X ran a piece by Anne Applebaum in protest to this idea of a culture of misogyny and I think it speaks to some of the arguments that feminists have been trying to make with regard to cultural appropriation, relativism and clear ignorance to the role of US backed mis-treatment of women, world-wide.
Herbert's thesis echoes the drumbeat of self-pity that has been coming out of paleo-feminist groups and women's studies departments for decades: America, in their view, is a country where "barbaric treatment of women has come to be more accepted," where we are all so inured to the victimization of the female half of the population that we don't even notice it anymore. Presumably because he is unable to prove this ludicrous proposition in any other way, Herbert uses the case of a single, certifiably insane mass-murderer to argue that all of American culture is anti-woman. The implication: All American men are, deep down, in sympathy with this crazed killer, thanks to our mass media that denigrates women, etc.
I realize Applebaum is blinded by her patriotic lust for the United States (after all, that is her wrapped in an American flag isn't it?), but I think it is clear that for her the US is a safe-haven. As in for her and other people like her, that don't live in poverty, are white, haven't been victim of nefarious immigration policy, the prison industrial complex, homophobia or lack of access to health care and/or reproductive rights. Right, for her, the US is a safe-haven and if you keep yapping, she thinks you should go to Iran so you can see what it is really like to not have rights. Perhaps she needs a crash course on what not to say about Muslim women and I wonder if that is what the feminists in Iran are thinking, who have explicitly defined a feminist movement for themselves outside of the purvey of the Western gaze as have many feminist movements around the world, but I digress. (Oh yeah, and doesn't Germany have a female president?)
In academia, there has been a move in studying women around the world from a relativist approach to one that is relational and understands that based on where someone is and what community they are part of, they experience life and therefore misogyny differently. It is a useful exercise and informs activism to the sense that, we can only work within what we know, for when we try and work elsewhere, it is our agenda that is put forth. It is step one in any type of effective coalition building across difference.
So while we may sometimes have the urge to suggest that we have it better here, what I consider better and what you consider better might be two different things. Applebaum and I have seen a different America, and that difference rests in who we are and what communities we have been part of her. As someone who studies the ways that patriarchy functions in the United States and as someone who is a woman of color in the United States born to immigrants that have struggled through sexism, racism and poverty, Herbert's point resonates clearly for me. Frankly, I don't really need to have had this experience to agree with Herbert says, since the evidence is so clear, but I can't deny standpoint.
I suppose, when you are functioning in a frame of fear and don't want to assess the level at which patriarchy afflicts life in the United States, it is much more comforting to suggest that Sodini's act was not informed by his hatred for women, as Jessica put it yesterday. But since so much evidence has come out to the contrary, it is hard to deny, that there is a relationship between misogyny and his deplorable act.
If we are to build any type of feminist movement and/or stop violence against women we have to acknowledge the ways that misogyny produces hatred towards women and the role the media, popular culture and the government have in it. We have to structurally recognize the way that misogyny plays out in day to day life in the United States and what that looks like here, may be different than what it looks like somewhere else, but the implications are relationally unjust.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Put That Patriarchy Bashing Hammer Down Ladies We Are in the US!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15446
It's just such a poor argument from a logical perspective. Would anyone argue that 1960s United States was not a racist culture because if people of color simply went to South Africa they'd see how bad it could really be?
It doesn't make any sense, but beyond that, it's incredibly patronizing to pretend we know just how awful it must be for women elsewhere, and at the same time incredibly dismissive to the millions of women in the good ol' US of A who actually have seen the face of misogyny here. Do women like Applebaum ever stop to wonder if the way they've lived American culture might not reflect the way other women have lived it?
"It's just such a poor argument from a logical perspective. Would anyone argue that 1960s United States was not a racist culture because if people of color simply went to South Africa they'd see how bad it could really be?..."
Exactly!
Great post. Every time something like this happens, which it does - often, men are so hesitant to look inwards at the ways we contribute to this culture of a hatred not only of women, but femininity. Herbert's point is well-taken - if this had been an attack on a person of another race or ethnicity, it would clearly be rooted in racism and would explicitly be labeled as such. Yet, men are so afraid of acknowledging this crime as an attack against women; an attack which is grounded in ideas that many men find sane (as evidenced by the comments Jessica pointed out yesterday). This attack proves that the good men (IE most of us) must come out of the shadows and start speaking up against sexism, and violence against women in all forms. It's already too late, and we need to start to transform ourselves, our culture, and our sons.
Why is it so hard for men to see that preventing violence against women is OUR problem? WE need to fix it. I've been so distraught over this the past few days I've been close to tears. With the assassination of Dr. Tiller, and now this massacre (among others that have gone un(der) reported), it is not hard to see that a culture of patriarchy and male dominance thrives on controlling women and killing those who demand a woman's right to her own autonomy.
Sodini was not solely some crazy, unbalanced individual. He had an explicit hatred towards women and was raised in a society that produces the idea that if a woman does not have sex with a man willingly, he has the right to take it - or take her life. If the man does go to the most extreme, as Sodini did, then he is just a psycho and not a byproduct of a masculinity that encourages violence and sex by any means necessary, right? BULLSHIT.
Men are part of the solution, not part of the problem. DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE THIS CULTURE. START WITH YOURSELF.
D'oh, that last part should read "Men are part of the solution, not JUST part of the problem". We are a huge part of the problem.
D'oh, that last part should read "Men are part of the solution, not JUST part of the problem". We are a huge part of the problem.
In America is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a culture of hatred torwards women. Violence against women happens regardless, just like shootings happen, just like murder.
I really do not see how violence against women can be fixed, or violence against men can be fixed or murder can be fixed, or drug trafficking can be fixed.
We can try to deal with it as good as we can.
Womanbeating is not looked kindly on in our society, so people who beat women put themselves outside of society, then there are punishments under the law for such an act.
Unlike in other countries, where womanbeating is encouraged and a man who beats his wife is not beeing looked down upon by his peers.
It would be great if something could be done to eradicate violence against women, but I have absoultely no idea.
So if somebody has any suggestions on how to end violence against women, or murder, give it up :) .
Maybe pass the death penality for womenbeating ?
Yes, getting beaten by your husband is a natural part of life, like being blamed for getting raped or driving three miles to get gas because it's the only station in town where the workers don't hit on you. Life's a bitch, then you're called one for having a point of view. No point in trying to fight it. In other words, go sit on something pointy.
I take issue with your stance on the acceptance on non-acceptance of wifebeating. In many places in the US, it's still common and fully accepted. Especially in small, conservative towns. As an anecdote, the rural community that my dad is from considers hitting women the norm. I hated visiting my relatives because I was afraid I was going to be hit. I saw my aunts and grandmother, and even my mother, get hit by men for doing things wrong (or sometimes just being though to have done something wrong). It wasn't uncommon to hear men say that a woman needed sense knocked into her and mean it. And if you think this was years ago, this was within the last two and a half decades - most recently seen at a family reunion a month ago. Some places, beating a woman is fully acceptable in the eyes of the community at large. Something else? The police don't do anything about it if it's reported there, just ask the woman what she did wrong and tell her she deserved it.
Where the hell was THAT at? I highly doubt that that is the norm in the majority of places in the U.S.
It's the norm across the entire globe. People may say they are against rape and/or DV, but once faced with an actual instance of violence, their true colors come out. Ever overhear a conversation about Chris Brown and Rihanna? Ever try to report a rape?
This is exactly what we're talking about, this idea that this doesn't happen in "MY America." "The acceptance of violence against women doesn't exist in 'MY America.'" Then, when someone you know and care about tells you that she's been beaten by her husband or some dude on the street, you ask what did she do to let this happen, instead of being grateful that she actually told someone about it, instead of blaming it all on herself, because that's what she's been taught to do. You know, because blind fury directed towards women for no other reason than because we live in a society that excuses men's failings by blaming them on women simply doesn't exist in YOUR America. Guess what? It exists in everybody's America. For fuck's sake, it existed in MY HOUSE for 20 years. So don't tell me that the majority of the country finds violence against women totally unacceptable.
Womanbeating is not looked kindly on in our society, so people who beat women put themselves outside of society, then there are punishments under the law for such an act.
Please consider yourself extremely fortunate and privileged that you do not have to recognize how egregiously inaccurate this statement is.
Open your fucking eyes. We here at Feministing, and elsewhere in the feminist community, brainstorm and take action to end violence against women EVERY DAY. That is what we are doing. But you just can't think of how we might stop violence against women so might as well give up. Are you really this dense or is this all performance art? Your shtick is offensive at this point.
Yeah, except people will always have some group of violence in their community. To set the standard of "no violence, ever" is to always have a problem.
Reducing violence is a laudable goal, but to treat every evil act as proof of the evil of society at large is utterly foolish.
What about all the other criminal acts? Is the fact that men are far more likely to be victims of multiple homocides, felony homocides, etc. all indicative of societies hatred of men? Is Valerie Solanas indicative of all feminists? Or perhaps you've been kicking this football way past its goal posts.
No in fact the United States is not steeped with misogyny. No people are not so inured to violence against women that they ignore it. Invariably in fiction and non-fiction violence against women is portrayed as more evil, more worthy of an emotional response then violence against men. Why even here, a website which is focused on equality it comes as a shock to people that bad things happen to the men in the Congo as well as to the women. Why would a misogynistic culture focus so exclusively on allieviating the suffering of women to the exclusion of the men? Why would the suffering of women result in such an increased response? All of these traits are antithetical to the hypothesis of a deeply misogynistic culture.
Why would this misogynistic culture devote resources to encouraging women to pursue careers in math and science, why would women be more likely to attain university degrees, why would society devote money and resources to helping women in violent situations to the exclusion of men in those same situations? Why would women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes?
To claim that the actions of a lone sociopath are indicative of society as a whole merely demonstrates a confirmation bias, not an underlying trend.
I am going to address this point specifically because I have seen variations of this claim a number of times in the past few days.
Depictions of violence against women are extremely common on television and in the movies. After two ours of graphic, usually sexual, violence, the perp is typically locked up or killed. Sexual violence against women is depicted in a really disgusting way. It's presented as pornographic. Oh, sure, the rapists are chased or murdered or whatever. But that's almost like a disclaimer at the end: "Oh btw, rape is bad." The increasing popularity of torture porn movies (and rapey porn) is indicative of a society that loves watching women get theirs.
Alright I'll agree that they're common. But they are less common then violence against men and it almost exclusively designed to show that the bad guy is very evil as opposed to just regularly evil, because showing that the bad guy had just killed his way through hordes of men was insufficient to evoke any kind of response from the audience.
Now it is readily excusable that you might miss all the violence because when most people see violence against men in movies it is ignored, or brushed aside. While the violence against women is usually much more noticeable, because it is viewed as more evil.
I agree that in films etc violence against men is portrayed as normal and less evil than violence against women. Men seem to be constructed as disposable in our society (hence millions of men being sent to die in war), whereas women are generally consrutucted as 'precious' (not that this is an example of women being more valued as human beings - women have historically been constructed as part of the possessions and goods that men are fighting to protect). However, this does not cancel out the misogyny inheret in these portraals of violence against women. Violence against women is constructed as almost titillating in its evilness, and men being constructed as disposable is the flip side of that same patriachal coin.
" But they are less common then violence against men"
Stats?Evidence?
Take any action movie, how many guards were killed, what was their gender. This is hardly a questionable claim. But if you would like, peruse this list of movies with the highest body count and point out the ones where violence against women significantly outnumbered that of violence against men, simply because that would be quicker then pointing out every one where the men outnumbered the women in terms of casualties.
Men killing men in a movie made by men that was written by men that espouse the status quo identity that the male construct revolves around. This is not men victimizing men bcause we live in some oppressive matriarchy. It doesnt say that men are disposable or any other exaggerations youre claiming. Men have often also used the reason that they fight as justification to oppress women, ie, the fifties. Get out of your 'what about teh menz' cloud.
"it almost exclusively designed to show that the bad guy is very evil "
Yeah, (sarcastic) thats what I really got from "Observe and Report." How many saw that movie? What movie has come out recently in which they show men getting raped and being abused by a woman?
Wedding Crashers, it was played for laughs, portrayed the female character far more positively, it had a larger box office presence, and they got married.
In fact I can top your example of Observe and Report (and seriously, you thought the main character was portrayed positively?) with an entire page of counter examples
The sexual assault was guy on guy not female on male? And he didnt have sex, like in Observe and Report. It was blatant rape in that movie. Once again, Wedding Crashers was written and made by MEN. Becaus emen dont get raped (exceptthe few minority) they think its a joke, especially if its a homosexual sexual encounter witha hetero guy. And if I remember correctly the guy stopped when Vince told him to.
The sexual assault was guy on guy not female on male. And he didnt have sex, like in Observe and Report. It was blatant rape in that movie. Also Wedding Crashers was written and made by MEN. Because men dont get raped (except the few minority) they think its a joke, especially if its a homosexual sexual encounter with a hetero guy (homophobia is a staple in masculine identity). And if I remember correctly the guy stopped when Vince told him to.
You know, you could have just said, "What about teh menz?!" and saved yourself a lot of time.
If you haven't found the answers to the questions you asked on this or all other prominent feminist and womanist blogs, and if you can't see that Sodini was a misogynist and racist asshole who blamed women and African Americans for his serious issues, and if you haven't read at least 50 comments who agreed with this (or at least barfed before you could get to 50), then you're purposely shutting yourself out of the real world in order to protect yourself from being hurt by the patriarchal norms that run it.
I agree he was a misogynist asshole, I hadn't heard about the racist part but sure.
What I disagree with is that he is indicative of society at large.
There is a difference between misogyny existing and misogyny being deeply ingrained in culture.
Not really. Misogyny wouldn't exist if the environment wasn't receptive to it. Our culture allows misogyny to be pervasive, which is why Sodini is gaining sympathy. It's also why Sodini wasn't the only person to go on a killing spree after being rejected by a woman.
Remember the Virginia Tech shooting? After campus security found out that a gunman murdered his ex-girlfriend and the resident assistant he thought his ex was with, they just wrote it off as a domestic dispute. Campus security figured the gunman got all the shooties out of him, that he simply wanted to murder his cheating bitch of a girlfriend and the asshole that was maybe currently doing her, and they didn't lock down the campus. But I forget how that one turned out *eye roll*
Except that report was false...
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/18/4057296-sun.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/10/virginiatechshooting/main3155117.shtml
Neither of those articles said that campus police didn't treat it like a domestic dispute. The media assumed it was a domestic dispute, because that's how the campus police treated it.
"There is a difference between misogyny existing and misogyny being deeply ingrained in culture."
How would the supposed 'single' incidence of misogyny exist without it being already established by society? You dont pick that up from the air.
So every murderer or crazed individual are a result of the views of the majority of individuals? What about other crimes? Is every bank robbery the result of an anti-bank sentiment? Is every mugging the result of a pro-robbery stance held by the public?
Would Valerie Solanas by that logic, be representative of all feminists, all women, or even society as a whole? Does Mark David Chapman indict Catcher in the Rye and all the people who read it?
The fact that MRAs are still using Valerie Solanas as their singular example of a crazed man-hater is evidence of the fact that misogyny is much more widespread than "misandry."
Not an MRA, and I could have pointed to other crazed individuals who were influenced by various movements or ideas, in fact we could play a veritable who's who of mass-murderers, and assassins and how each one can be used to condemn a particular group of people. She was just particularly notable for having both written a manifesto and attempting to kill Andy Warhol. Makes her stand out.
And I wasn't blaming feminism for Valerie Solanas I believe that there are crazy people in every group and these are not inherent indictments to those groups. I was merely pointing out that for feminism to opine about how the actions of lone individuals describe society at large is foolish considering feminism's own history of being pigeonholed by society as a result of their own extreme members.
"manifesto "
Manifesto thats 60 pages long. Gimme a break. Her manifesto wasnt even known until she shot Warhol. Compare that with Nietzsche, Rousseau or any if not most of the influential male minds since the Roman era. Theyve all done much worse to women with their manifesto's and philosophies.
When its a hate crime against a group of people, then, yes. Double so, if theres a precedent of it. You seem to conveniently overlook this.
"Would Valerie Solanas by that logic, be representative of all feminists, all women"
Valerie Solanis had a troubled past in which she was abused by men and then the last straw was Andy Warhol refusing too give her money. He was used to doing that to his talent. The difference with Solanis is duh, we know not all sorts of women were doing this because its unheard of. Its not so with men. Nor is there a female culture that builds itself off of misandry and violene towrads men, or violence in general.
Anyone that uses Solanis as an example is a coward. It is sooo overused and stupid you lose attention when you even trot it out.
And didnt Solanis shoot Warhol over money and not because he was a man? Its also different since she was held down by men and not allowed to really do anything in life. Sodani was not held down by women in a matriarchy and abused by females.
Seriously, I think "proudfeminist" is a MRA. This poster has written alot of curious comments on other blog posts that I havent seen much by any of the posters. Proudfeminist seems like a very transparent post name as well. Seems that if this poster was really a proud feminist with as much familiarity with feminism that this posters name would imply, that they would not be so ignorant.
Sure, nearly everyone you ask will say they are against domestic violence and the abuse of women but when it happens in reality people start making all sorts of qualifications. If you think that violence against women is considered unacceptable by everyone, I'd like to direct you back to ANY discussion about Chris Brown beating Rihanna. (Obviously there are plenty of other cases, but this was public and no more than a few months ago) I'm sure most of those people would claim to be against DV, but when they are faced with it they concoct all sorts of justifications. "Well, she must have started it." "Well, she was nagging him." "Well, she gave him herpes." "Well, she's a bitch."
Your first claim is even more absurd. You honestly don't believe we have a misogynistic culture? Do you also believe that racism ended because we have a black president?
You haven't really defined where the border lies between a misogynistic culture and a non-misogynistic culture, or where the border between a racist and a non-racist culture, and until you do, you won't provide us with any means to determine whether our culture is misogynistic or not. Fail.
Sure, nearly everyone you ask will say they are against domestic violence and the abuse of women but when it happens in reality people start making all sorts of qualifications. If you think that violence against women is considered unacceptable by everyone, I'd like to direct you back to ANY discussion about Chris Brown beating Rihanna. (Obviously there are plenty of other cases, but this was public and no more than a few months ago) I'm sure most of those people would claim to be against DV, but when they are faced with it they concoct all sorts of justifications. "Well, she must have started it." "Well, she was nagging him." "Well, she gave him herpes." "Well, she's a bitch."
Your first claim is even more absurd. You honestly don't believe we have a misogynistic culture? Do you also believe that racism ended because we have a black president?
It's already too late, and we need to start to transform ourselves, our culture, and our sons.
Why is it so hard for men to see that preventing violence against women is OUR problem? WE need to fix it.
Stephen A, women are just as responsible as men are, in battling misogyny. A lot of women out there (like Sarah Palin) are just as guilty at aiding our patriarchal society.
And why do we need to "transform our sons"??? What have they done??? Are boys to be regarded as potential wife beaters and woman killers? That is sexist to say, that since you're a male, we view you as a potential woman hater and we are going to single you all out in some sort of female sensitivity training that all boys have to go through. BOTH girls and boys need to be taught to respect each other.
Are boys to be regarded as potential wife beaters and woman killers? .. we are going to single you all out in some sort of female sensitivity training that all boys have to go through.
Thanks for the reductive B.S. here. Your mocking of "sensitivity training" shows you think there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the dysfunctional masculinity our culture attempts to normalize and push on its boys. (BTW, I would die to see some "sensitivity training," as you call it, anywhere in our schools. Let me know the next time you find some - 'cause it'll be never.) Men need to learn that they have other, healthier outlets - and not necessarily competitive ones - open to them to vent anger and frustration. As it is, aggression, competitiveness, and violence are integral to becoming a "man" in this culture (see football/wrestling/hunting and other male-dominated sports, homophobia and homophobic bullying), and it's a fricking problem.
Perhaps see Allan Johnson's _The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy_ if you're really having trouble figuring out how expectations surrounding masculinity can contribute to various social problems.
Of course boys shouldn't be treated like little criminals (unfortunately children, both boys and girls, sometimes are). But telling them to just shut up, quit being a fag and shoot the gun, make your dad proud, quit complaining about how your back really hurts and throw the ball, when they don't want to, isn't going to help.
My point is you can't just go after the boys. Women/Girls are just as capable to kill and murder as men are for one thing. Also it's just sexist to single out boys. I used to work with children in a daycare for a while with several women. As the only adult male, I would almost always get stares from new mothers dropping off their children, looking at me suspiciously like I'm there to rape their child or something. I'm not creepy looking or anything. They just think that because I'm a man working with kids, that I'm out to get their kids or something. I get tired of it!!! Anyway, the point is both boys and girls need to be educated on respect and equality.
The patriarchy hurts everyone. The mothers who saw you working with their children probably didn't distrust you, personally; they distrusted the idea of you. Girls grow up being told, basically, that men are scary and might hurt us; we see it on TV, in the news and in crime dramas and sitcoms, and in the movies, and in our everyday lives. It's true that crimes against women are committed my the minority of men, but girls are taught to fear the majority of men because you can't always tell who's a bad apple.
This is not the fault of individual men, or of women. It's the fault of a few men who perpetrate crimes against women and of a society that, on some levels, still accepts violence against women and girls as the norm.
"Women/Girls are just as capable to kill and murder as men are for one thing. "
But yet, curiously,(eye roll) theyre not the ones doing it!
"Also it's just sexist to single out boys."
No, its how you target a demographic that needs to change. Would it make sense to label everyone in 1950's America as racist just to evolve the specific perspective of white people? Of course not.
I used to work with children in a daycare for a while with several women. As the only adult male, I would almost always get stares from new mothers dropping off their children, looking at me suspiciously like I'm there to rape their child or something."
You could thank patriarchal gender roles for that. And arent most pedophiles males? I dont ever recall seeing a woman on "To Catch a Predator." I do know that most rapists are male, so maybe they arent so off.
" I'm not creepy looking or anything."
You dont have to be to be a apist/pedophile.
" Anyway, the point is both boys and girls need to be educated on respect and equality."
No, mainly boys. Theyre the ones at risk of perpetuating a desasterous cycle. Girls can learn to buck it, but its not like society teaches girls to build themselves off of inferiorizing boys. There is no precedeny of it like there is boys. Girls become misogynistic because men (and no, pointing out the perpetuator of a societal ill is not misandrist) established an oppressive patriarchy and established a precedent of oppressing females within it.
Even pragmatically it wouldnt make sense to spend resources on two demographics and waste money on one who does not have a problem rather than the one that does.
I know a lot of women that are homophobic. Don't just say men are homophobic.
Since this is a thread about misogyny - men's violence against women, how about we focus on the issue, rather than sidetracking and saying things like, "Well, women murder, too?"
Surely, we can discuss issues that pertain to a systematic oppression against women without saying that, since women are a part of the problem, too, that it's excusable.
Lack of equality also means a difference in levels of oppression. So, let's, just for a second, focused on those who are systematically oppressed, rather than those privileged, yet-sometimes oppressed.
Girls are taught to respect boys, or at least to defer to them. We're told that we shouldn't be too smart, because boys don't like girls smarter than them; that we should speak softly, because boys don't like loud girls; that we should wear make-up and skimpy clothing, because boys like pretty girls (but not too much make-up, or too skimpy, because boys don't want to date girls that are "easy," and as we know, no good girl ever wants sex without a long-term relationship!). These aren't lessons they teach in school, but they're still taught, explicitly or otherwise.
I can't speak to what boys are taught or learn about interacting with girls. I'd be curious to hear, if you feel like sharing.
"Stephen A, women are just as responsible as men are, in battling misogyny. A lot of women out there (like Sarah Palin) are just as guilty at aiding our patriarchal society."
But dont you think that if there wasnt a patriarchy that Palin wouldnt have been a female misogynist? I do.
"And why do we need to "transform our sons"??? What have they done???"
and by transform our sons we mean that we need to raise them free of a masculine construct that puts women down in order to build him up.
"Are boys to be regarded as potential wife beaters and woman killers?"
Yes, which is why if the masculine construct isnt changed and theyre not raised differently they may become the next Sodini.
I'm copying & saving this post (3rd from top) to re-read whenever I feel discouraged.
I especially like these wise words:
"men are so hesitant to look inwards at the ways we contribute to this culture of a hatred not only of women, but femininity."
Aww, thanks!
For me this sentiment is a combination between a threat and a shameless display of male entitlement. The underlying message is that patriarchy is the natural state of affairs, and we are just lucky we've been thrown the few bones we have been. If we insist on too much equality, it could always go back to the "natural" state of affairs, like in [insert example society].
Oh yeah, and doesn't Germany have a female president?
No, it has a female chancellor. Its president is Horst Kohler, a man.
Dang. Your nerd-tick is even stronger than mine. Beat me to it!
But apart from that, Samhita, this is a brilliant post.
The prez is hardly in the news though. You could say our president is the chancellor.
Oh yeah, and doesn't Germany have a female president?
No, it has a female chancellor. Its president is Horst Kohler, a man.
Are you crazy ? Nobody is any less shocked by the shooting, because no men died or were targeted.
The shooting was motivated by a hatred of women, but not because of society, or because there is no gender parity in computer engineering, it happend because that man was mentally ill or unstable and had deep issues with the opposite gender and not because of something he heard in rap videos (yes, hip hop videos again, please tell me where else in a public space you women being degraded).
That kind of thing happened before and it is unrelated to the way women are seen as leaders or scientists or how high or low the percentage of women in politics is and feminism wont stop mentally ill people from committing irrational acts of violence.
And nobody said thank it were only women who died.
I see women being degraded on the streets every time I walk outside. I see women's bodies being used to sell everything from alcohol to Pine Sol. Women's degradation does not only happen in rap videos, as a hip-hop head I have to call bullshit and as someone who yearns for social justice I have to call racism/classism. What's more, blaming it on "mental illness" is ableist bullshit. His thoughts, that women are to be used for male sexual pleasure and nothing more, are strongly supported by mass media and the definition of hegemonic masculinity in the United States. If you can't see that you have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
What is the big deal with advertizing something with a hot female body ? The women who model, model out of their free will and get payed very well for their body being used. I do not think it is something that needs to be outlawed and banned.
I do not get American feminists on one side I hear many say, prostitution should be legalized then they rant against companies who use scancily clad women to market their products.
Omg can you please be banned already. You're such a troll, and due to this healthcare "debate," my patience is running thin.
You clearly think feminists are incoherent morons with nothing useful to say about anything. Please go to a feminsim101 blog so you better understand what feminists actually think, and leave us to have an actual feminist conversation. Ktksbai.
You don't get it because you are a bone-head.
Two words: male gaze. (Oh, and it comes with a free, bonus word: objectification!) That's what's wrong with using a "hot female body" to sell things.
... please tell me where else in a public space you women being degraded...
-- Yesterday morning, buying coffee. Someone in line saw my school ID and wondered, "If you're a teacher, shouldn't you do more to cover up your hot legs so students won't get distracted?"
-- At a previous school, male students have seen nothing wrong with throwing small objects down the front of female students' shirts.
-- There are more than a few bars and clubs I refuse to visit because men there don't see anything wrong with groping any woman they happen to encounter -- and the employees don't see anything wrong with allowing this behavior.
These are the examples that spring up on 15 seconds' reflective thought. Would you like more?
That xomment proves 'proudfeminist' is a guy. A woman would have no problem coming up with examples and would never have asked such a ignorant question.
I also heard that female teachers/professors will get alot more students (typically male) who will joke around and disrupt the class more often than if they have male instructors.
Thank you for putting all the blame on mentally ill people. I'm sure they appreciate you making their lives even harder by perpetuating stereotypes of them as dangerous and irrationally violent.
I really am curious, though, about what you object to in rap music/videos. Please expand upon this!
Since you're such a proud feminist, pray tell, just what part of feminism do you subscribe to? Sure as hell isn't gender role exists and that violence against women is systematic.
This may be a derail, but I'm kind of curious as to why almost every one of this person's comments seems to display women in the sciences as a measure of equality.
I have nothing constructive to add here. I just wanted to let you know that this is so. right. on, Samhita. Thank you.
Why do you have to be a cultural relativist in order to agree with Bob Herbert's main point? I can see and hear manifestations of the culture of misogyny that you describe in conversations of my colleagues, in movies, in ads, and in other places. I am trying to get it and to change the way I talk about and think about women.
But I don't understand why this means I have to be a cultural relativist. I can decide, for example, that female genital cutting at birth is a shameful and terrible practice. For this reason, I find that cultures which practice it are inferior to my own. Why is my judgment not valid? I understand that my privilege informs this perspective but it seems to me to be irrelevant to the irreparable and life-long physical harm that is done to women by the cultures which practice this. I provided an especially visceral example, but the line of reasoning can be extended - while acknowledging that my own culture is far from perfect in this regard also - to other women's rights that are denied in other cultures, e.g. the right to reproductive self-determination, education, certain professions, ability to drive, etc.
I can decide, for example, that female genital cutting at birth is a shameful and terrible practice. For this reason, I find that cultures which practice it are inferior to my own.
The point is, there really is no reason to condemn the entire culture, a kind of ridiculous thing to do over ONE SINGLE PRACTICE within that culture. I don't think there's anything wrong with condemning a certain practice, but most cultural practices are complex and internally conflicted, and one must be capable of seeing both the good and the bad, if you will. This is how we can simultaneously dislike the institution of marriage and the consumerism that surrounds it, but still fight for marriage equality for gays.
But as you just said, it's never just one single practice - there is invariably a complex and interrelated system of oppression against women. I singled out FGC as an example but in cultures where FGC is practiced the status and rights of women are much worse off. I don't see why I have to be a relativist and accept this as "just different" - cultures that do this need to change, and I refuse to accept them just as they are.
In case anybody is confused, genital cutting at birth still happens often enough these days to intersex newborns and newborns with "ambiguous gentitalia" in North America. If it's "AFRICA" you are alluding to, genital cutting often does not happen at birth, it happens around 7-10 years old. So yeah, cultural relvatism.
If you are attempting to equate the two practices in any way, you are either misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Fetuses by "default" develop into females: the expression of certain genes on the Y chromosome causes male instead of female genitalia to develop. If normal sexual differentiation doesn't happen during development, then sometimes for medical reasons a choice has to be made, which can mean surgery. It's easier for a surgeon to make female genitalia instead of male genitalia, so sometimes a child with an XY karyotype is assigned female genitalia, but never the other way around.
This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with the barbaric practice of FGC. Don't even try.
Though this is somewhat OT, I really cannot just let this go.
I think FGC and surgeries performed to "normalize" the genitals of intersexed babies are certainly not the same; they're different procedures and done for different reasons. I wouldn't say they have nothing whatsoever in common, however, as they're both unnecessary and done to ensure a person conforms to cultural and societal standards of genital normalcy. And I do consider modifying intersexed children's genitals to be barbaric, actually.
I think your statement If normal sexual differentiation doesn't happen during development, then sometimes for medical reasons a choice has to be made, which can mean surgery. It's easier for a surgeon to make female genitalia instead of male genitalia, so sometimes a child with an XY karyotype is assigned female genitalia, but never the other way around. is problematic.
The Intersex Society of North America states that "Medical procedures necessary to sustain the physical health of a child should be performed. Examples of these would be endocrinological treatment of a child with salt-wasting congenital hyperplasia, or surgery to provide a urinary drainage opening when a child is born without one." These surgical procedures DO NOT involve constructing more "female" looking genitalia. I vehemently believe that any "normalizing" surgery performed on intersexed babies is unnecessary. Does the kid need a functioning urethra? Surgery necessary. You think the kid has a micropenis? Leave it alone. Let hir decide when sie is old enough to make an informed decision.
OT indeed, but many parents believe equally vehemently that they do not want their children to develop intersex genitalia into adulthood, when the surgery is much more difficult and physically traumatic to perform, nor do they want to deal with the difficult psychological and emotional conditions of raising an intersex child.
Who are you to judge them and tell them what decision to make?
*Who are you to judge them and tell them what decision to make?*
An individual informed about the history of needless genital surgery on infants in the United States. I'm a bit stunned that someone on Feministing would be in favor of such a practice that, when done solely for cosmetic reasons, has no known benefits except making the parents feel like their child is "normal."
The two practices ABSOLUTELY have at least one thing in common. The motivation for both practices is the same: normalising genitals, "normal" being a relative standard. ta da!
Moreover, the common assumption of "female as default" is extrememly misinformed and oversimplified. Biological sex differentiation in utero occurs through a series of processes that can be disrupted at any point from start to finish, yeilding a possibly different result in terms of sex every single time. This is why intersex does not just mean one thing. I am willing to diagram the full process elsewhere because I do not want to derail this thread any further.
It is barbaric and most misinformed to condemn a practice, especially a culture because of one practice, based on a gut reaction rather than employing some critical thinking. If something scary and disgusting isn't your reality it's probably worth it to exit the ol' ivory tower and dig deeper because in your words, "who are you to judge them and tell them what decision to make?"
The two practices ABSOLUTELY have at least one thing in common. The motivation for both practices is the same: normalising genitals, "normal" being a relative standard. ta da!
Moreover, the common assumption of "female as default" is extrememly misinformed and oversimplified. Biological sex differentiation in utero occurs through a series of processes that can be disrupted at any point from start to finish, yeilding a possibly different result in terms of sex every single time. This is why intersex does not just mean one thing. It's not simply a matter of XY gone wrong. I am willing to diagram the full process elsewhere because I do not want to derail this thread any further.
It is barbaric and most misinformed to condemn a practice, especially a culture because of one practice, based on a gut reaction rather than employing some critical thinking. If something scary and disgusting isn't your reality it's probably worth it to exit the ol' ivory tower and dig deeper because in your words, "who are you to judge them and tell them what decision to make?"
what can I say, Applebaum is pretty much summing up my position a few articles down. And I think she's right.
I realy think the media and the some feminists are going totally overboard on this one.
Its one thing to point out that this guy hated women, and that misogyny is real. Its a whole other thing to claim that western culture has become inherently misogynistic and that it accepts such a horific act as if it where a run-of-the-mill murder.
we don't
I agree to an extent with what is being said here. However, these incidents make the news for a reason: they're ext However, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with American feminists admitting that when our lives are compared with those of women in some other countries, we have it pretty damn good over here. When women in other countries still have to veil themselves, are forbidden from driving or even leaving their home without a man's permission, or have no legal recourse in escaping violent spouses, it makes women's rights in the West look pretty rosy and shiny. (Which is obviously not to say that we should stop fighting the good fight over here...we should just feel fortunate that we've made as much progress as we have, and we should remain aware of the plight of our sisters in other nations.)
Additionally, while I'm certainly not going to deny that misogyny is a big problem and that our culture doesn't always give women the respect we deserve, I don't necessarily think you can look at this one incident and proclaim that our society is composed of nothing but woman-hating, violence-accepting jerks. This man was not mentally stable, and he had deep-seated issues when it came to women. Did our culture nourish these issues? Perhaps, but there's no way to be sure. But the VAST majority of men (products of the same culture as Sodini) would never hurt a woman or commit such a reprehensible crime. We can't focus solely on a few bad apples and claim that they're representative of society at large.
Oops, I meant to cut out that second sentence...you can just ignore that randomness. (It was going to say something about gender-based shootings being extremely rare, but then I decided to focus on another point!)
There's no way to be sure that culture nourished Sodini's misogyny? That violence against women is caused by "a few bad apples"? Just a few. It's pry the same couple dudes raping, beating, molesting, assaulting and killing all the thousands and thousands of American women and girls each year. Sheesh, what's all the fuss about, amirite? :)
Whatever you're smoking, I want some.
Errr, no, that is not Anne Applebaum wrapped in the flag.
I think Anne's problem is that she's spent too much time living & writing overseas. Having lived overseas myself its easy in such a situation to see how good America is, while forgetting how much better it can be. The apartheid example made up above by Arvilla is such a good example it can't be improved upon so I won't bother.
I will point out however that countries are rarely uniformly better or worse. Britain had its first female prime minister long ago, but some might argue that it takes rape less seriously than the US. Germany's Chancellor may be a woman, but the average working mom may find it difficult to justify working. And Pakistan had a woman prime minister long ago, but certainly its rape shunning and victim blaming is a problem. I could go on...
I'm of two minds on this. One is that Samhita is right: there is a major current of misogyny out there that is often hidden but always harmful to women. But on the other hand, I thank God that we aren't living in a land dominated by the Taliban, the Saudis, the Ayatollahs or other extremist Islamic faction. Seriously, these whacko fucknuts make the "male rights activist" misogynists here look like the editorial staff of Ms. magazine by comparison. Any argument that begins "women in America are just as bad off as women in Saudi Arabia" is relativistic garbage.
That said, merely acknowledging that American culture isn't as bad as Saudi culture isn't saying a whole lot and implicitly recognizes the long road we still have before us. The hatred that Sodini put into action lurks in the hearts of men all over the place. Would anyone be surprised if the man trolling this site under the troll name "proudfeminist" one day shot up an aerobics class of his own?
I thank God that we aren't living in a land dominated by the Taliban, the Saudis, the Ayatollahs or other extremist Islamic faction. Seriously, these whacko fucknuts make the "male rights activist" misogynists here look like the editorial staff of Ms. magazine by comparison.
True. But here's the problem with this reasoning. The countries and communities where women have less freedoms are also places where most men (especially lower classes) have less freedoms as well. If you look at many economic and social indicators of life quality there is a correlation with women's rights (especially education and reproduction) and economic and social stability, lower infant mortality, lower rates of HIV, etc. If you consider child welfare and sustainable population, there is further evidence that women's freedoms---including freedom from random acts of violence or threats of violence---affect everyone.
But I don't hear MRA's being told to STFU on their issues because American males are the most powerful in the world, economically and socially--as America is probably the number 1 exporter of culture, influence and military might to the rest of the world.
It's also telling that American men see "3rd world" women as a sort of untapped natural resource.
It's also telling that American men see "3rd world" women as a sort of untapped natural resource.
I don't understand what that last comment had to do with anything you said previous. Human trafficking (which is how I'm interpreting this and thus the confusion) is an entirely different issue.
Unless you're talking about people who fetish "tribalism" or some such term, in which case I still don't get what it has to do with anything related to what was said before.
You are inferring something else here.
I'm talking about a brand of misogynist that warns men against partnering with an American woman---more specifically, good wives must come from countries that haven't had strong feminist movements, generally the poorer the country, the better. I've actually seen these comments with respect to this conversation on other sites.
Now I'm in an international marriage myself and I have nothing against folks marrying abroad; but again, the general misogynistic attitude and assumptions are not cool.
It's also problematic because in some of the communities abroad women face resentment from their male peers for choosing foreign partners, short-term or long-term. Local men feel THEY are being rejected over wealthy, educated foreigners and "their" local women are entitled, gold-digging whores, etc.
Does it ever end?
I think the poster was referring to labor in which the women do more and are paid less. Its exploiting their desperate circumstances.
Why cant people be poor and not misogynistic? I"m really asking. I think its still attached to seeing women as disposable and cultural misogyny, but really, why does the poverty follow misogyny? Its not like you see the women beating the men, so I dont think thats a reason, especially as the women ared doing the most work and taking the harshest treatment. You'd think that if it was poverty that they'd be beating their husbands to.
okay seriously if we live in a mysogeny free society why did I write the blog entry that I wrote yesterday called: a question about rape jokes.
If we really were mysogeny free then this kind of thing would not happen to me, or other girls across college campuses. Nor would the idea that it is okay to shoot a bunch of women because you can't get one to sleep with you. Or would it even be considered so acceptable to cat-call and rape women
It's one thing to find a particular culture's practices horrifying and misogynistic and wrong. It's completely another to insert yourself into their dialogue ("I know what's good for you"/ "I will save you!") when really, at the end of the day, even though your gut feelings might be legitimate, you don't know what you're talking about.
Outside of my own community and experience, I make it my priority not to speak my opinions on other communities, (or to even presume that my opinion matters) but to bolster the voices of people from that community. If I find fault with something in someone else's community, I bet there's someone inside that community who agrees with me. That person's voice is the one that I think needs to be heard, not mine.
Oh, good Lord. People shouldn't use words terms like "certifiably insane" if they don't know what they MEAN.
The woman that killed and ate her baby because she hallucinated that the devil told her to do it was certifiably insane--ie, she could be certified as "insane", legally and medically, by a mental health professional qualified to issue those sorts of certifications, and could theoretically get judged as "not guilty" for the murder she committed on the basis of insanity, and get sent to a sanitorium instead of to jail. This is what the phrase "CERTIFIABLY insane" means. The "certifiably" is there to separate it from a layman's notion of "insane" as "got some kinda weird ideas there."
I can see why it's much more comfortable to try to write off these people as just "insane", and it is true that people who are entirely right in the head generally do not kill people. But there's a big gap between "has issues" and certifiable insanity; this is why some murderers DO go to prison instead of asylums.
This dude had serious mega fucked-up issues. That much is obvious. But there's not a shred of evidence he was actually insane, no matter how much easier that would make it for us to stomach.
Thank you.
As far as I can tell, there's not a shred of evidence he was actually mentally ill. The presupposition that anyone who commits such an act of violence *must* be mentally ill may make things easier to stomach for currently-abled people but has some rather horrific consequences for actual mentally ill people, the vast majority of whom are of no danger to other people whatsoever.
based on news reports i saw, some people that knew sodini said he was clinically depressed. i have no idea if they were experts, but it strikes me as extremely likely. statistics i've seen say that well over 90% of people who commit suicide suffer from a mental illness of some kind, so the overwhelming odds are that sodini was mentally ill.
i personally think it's most likely that he did have some sort of mental disorder that went undiagnosed and untreated, because, in our society, mental illness is seen as super-horrible, especially for men, who shouldn't "talk about their feelings". and there aren't really good ways to find people who may be suffering and help them *before* they hurt themselves or others.
It's already too late, and we need to start to transform ourselves, our culture, and our sons.
Why is it so hard for men to see that preventing violence against women is OUR problem? WE need to fix it.
Stephen A, women are just as responsible as men are, in battling misogyny. A lot of women out there (like Sarah Palin) are just as guilty at aiding our patriarchal society.
And why do we need to "transform our sons"??? What have they done??? Are boys to be regarded as potential wife beaters and woman killers? That is sexist to say, that since you're a male, we view you as a potential woman hater and we are going to single you all out in some sort of female sensitivity training that all boys have to go through. BOTH girls and boys need to be taught to respect each other.
It's not sexist to say that because society sends certain gendered messages to boys, that boys, if not taught any differently, can grow up to be misogynists. It's a fact.
If anything, it's acknowlegment of that fact that both boys and girls have the capacity to grow up to be loving, caring, anti-violent human beings, and that what we teach them matters.
When we live in a society that teaches males to behave a certain way, amd females to behave a certain way, and especially when the things taught to males are often detrimental to females, we need to start evaluating the things we're teaching boys, and how the messages to tell them about what it means to be a man can potential hurt women.
No one is blaming boys or men. We're blaming a culture that fosters hypermasculinity and male entitlement.
(Oh yeah, and doesn't Germany have a female president?)
Well, chancellor, but she is the most powerful person in the country, yes.
Speaking of which, as someone *from* Germany I have to say that article made me see red. I, er, actually quite like it here? And I've never had the impression that we're omg TERRIBLE and much worse than the US when it comes to women's rights, Anne Applebaum's comments notwithstanding?
You know, if you looked I'm certain you'd find places in the US where being a woman with children and a career was socially unacceptable. On the other hand, at *my* school in Germany the vast majority of the mothers worked - I can't remember whether any of my classmates had stay-at-home mothers. I'm pretty sure the proportion was much larger than at the school I went to in the US, as a matter of fact.
If you're going to denigrate my entire country and call the way we're treated "barbaric", could I have more than anecdotal evidence please?
Quick clarification: the proportion of working mothers was higher at my school in Germany than the one in the US.
Also, just to be clear, I am not saying my country is some perfect post-feminist paradise. I'm less aware than I'd like of the issues facing German women as I've lived abroad for quite a while and mainly read American feminist blogs, but I'm certain they exist (in fact, I'm certain a lot of the issues are the same as the ones facing American women - the countries aren't *that* different). I don't object to people pointing out sexism in Germany. I do object to people from another country using a single piece of anecdotal evidence to write us all off solely in order to portray their own country as some shining paragon of gender equality.
Anne Applebaum? What the hell. I thought she wrote a bunch of anti-torture pieces? In fact, I think I regularly assign one to my students.
Oh, well. Shows how easily people can reason that women's rights are different and separate from human rights.
samhita,
what do you consider 'poor'?
did you feel poor or were you poor? Consumption levels? Income? How do you measure it?
Also, if misogyny (and I feel you include all those in the PUA community, whether much-ridiculed and marginal or highly-traffic'd and read) leads to violence, why do you not advocate for public policy which can address this?
Not everything can be addressed with public policy. You can't just make it illegal to be a misogynist. Change must be cultural. In other words, people have to voluntarily dismantle patriarchy - in their own lives and in society at large.
the point, for me, is that coercion is necessary to achieve this end via public policy and it is assuring to know that there are those who recognize this.
we do; violence against women act, rape laws, ect, ect Check it out, look it up.
"look it up." is what passes for civility here? And you are or are not in favor of coercion via public policy to achieve ends unfavorable to misogynists? VAWA seems to not satisfy due process and privacy concerns.
I find it problematic to say that women in other nations have it harder (or we have it better) because, for example, women in some countries must cover their bodies from head to toe. I venture to say that some posters should reflect on why we American women dress the way we do. Why do you shave your legs? Wear a skirt and hose to work? Wear long hair? Wear heels? Wear a bra? Because women are expected to do these things. Women who don't are often ostracized, just as women who don't conform in other countries are. American women are lucky that their government doesn't have the power to punish them for deviating from the "norm." The expectations for women's appearances are just as strong here as they are in other places. I think this shows how deeply ingrained misogyny really is here. Even some feminists don't see it.
I had a long day, so sorry if my point is a little unclear. My point is, it's poor logic to say that one woman's experience is "worse" than another's. I don't appreciate my experiences dealing with misogny being denigrated by people saying women living elsewhere have it worse, just as I wouldn't denigrate a woman from another nation by telling her that her life must be horrible because she's from fill-in-the-blank country. It's called listening, and the people who make comments like these aren't listening, but TELLING women, which isn't very feminist.
Men and boys have the same expectations. We're expected to have short hair, not wear dresses, or wear bows in our hair. I bring this up because as a young boy I always wanted to have long hair, but my mom, a woman, wouldn't let me.
And yet you still oppose feminism.
What is your point?
My point is how many feminist mothers would allow their sons to have long hair, wear dresses or let them wear bows in their hair. I don't think very many!
Troll much? Of course my future son can wear long hair, paint his nails pink, or whatever he wants.
If any mothers are going to let their sons do those things it's feminist mothers.
You are totally confused about feminism.
Dude, have you taken a poll of the feminist mothers of the world to see how many of them are for eradicating suffocating gender roles, period, for both men and women? For not putting people in boxes and telling them what they can and can't be? I may not have kids yet, but this poster is up on my wall, and it's something I feel rather strongly about. You've got the completely wrong idea of feminists. Go look here, a shitload of posts on another big feminist group blog, some by men, some by women, on how patriarchy hurts men too. Your worries about rigid enforcement of male gender roles? You can help that by allying with the feminists, not opposing us. Because guess what, when being 'like a girl' is no longer a bad thing, little boys will have their freedom.
Jakers, this is crazy logic.
Anecodotally, my Colombian mother-in-law didn't bother to cut my husband's hair and so many people often confuse him for one of his sisters in his childhood photos, which are really cute by the way! His hair was down to his shoulders.
My own mother wouldn't let me grow my hair until I was at least 10 - it was easier to look after.
Neither of us suffered any psychological traumas from these experiences!
Its because they dont want their sons getting beaten up due to the precedences that the patriarchy established. In a patriarchy they have to pick and choose their battles. If more parents would be enlightened and raise their sons less misogynistically it wouldnt be a vulnerability for a male to dress in stereotypically girls clothing because it wouldnt be seen as something weak and funny. Thats why theres sless resistance to girls dressing in stereotypically boys clothes; cuz those outfits are privileged.
I've already said this to you in this thread, but to reiterate: the patriarchy hurts everybody.
Well you could thank the patriarchy for that. For a male to do anything which has been associated with females and therefore by designation by men its associated with weakness and inferiority. For men to venture into that territory is to say he's weak and going down from his elevated level.
the fact remains that my mother's (and many other immigrant children would probably concur) options, had she remained in the originating country (yes, including divorce), are very likely to have been different and in meaningful, consequential ways. It is correct and defensible to say that the number and quality of her options in the US would likely have been greater than if she remained in the originating country. That's a counterfactual, and only as useful as they can be, but I don't see anything particularly bigoted in expressing it this way.
Besides, the main homeland-based risk for some who come to the West is dying, not workplace discrimination, and the Western hemisphere afforded the possibility of life without reasonable fear of genocide, extrajudicial killings and unexplained abductions.
Wow, talk about overpolarization by Applebaum! Isn't it possible for one community to both have more freedom for women and girls than another community does and still have a lot of misogyny left to tackle? Seems to me that America is such a community.
Holy fucking shit. I know that we feminists have belong to various schools of thoughts, but Jesus Christ, how the hell does one claim feminism and then reject the notion that misogyny exists?
Feministing, as a community, as seen a lot of strange, patriarchy-existence denying run as of late - and from supposed feminists. It boggles the mind.
Feministing, as a community, as seen a lot of strange, patriarchy-existence denying run as of late - and from supposed feminists. It boggles the mind.
Seems more like an influx of concern trolls.
allegra basically said all I could have said in reply to this statement, but I will respond in my own words. Yes, there are women who say victim blaming things, such as Sarah Palin, who also work towards erasing any strides made by the feminist movement. However, one must look at where those ideas come from in the first place. The culture of patriarchy is to blame for espousing these views and socializing people - of all genders - into believing said views and living out oppressive behaviors. Yes, both girls and boys need to be taught to respect their peers. I do not endorse viewing boys as potential misogynists or killers. Growing up I yearned for a male figure to tell me it was OK for me to cry, and to be well-rounded emotionally. That I could be outspoken if I felt comfortable and passive at other times. Unfortunately for me and countless other boys, this is not how we were raised. If you look at the way boys are socialized versus girls, you will see that boys are taught to be dominant while girls are taught to be passive. I initially misspoke - we need to transform the ways we teach our sons. We need to let them know it is possible to "be a man" while at the same time being vulnerable and displaying a full range of emotions, not simply anger or rage.
It is also worth noting that if you are a pro-feminist man who supports women's liberation and the end of men's violence against women, you must realize that in many women's eyes you may be seen as a potential rapist - since you are male in a culture which prepares men to be aggressive and women to be afraid of a VERY REAL threat of men's violence. It's not fair, admittedly, but I feel our goal within the movement is to prove that we are not violent, and prove we care about women's lives. That starts with us changing the ways we think about gender, challenging our peers to do the same, and speaking out against men's violence so that more women begin to see us as allies rather than potential rapists. This means learning to let go of male privilege and embracing a new brand of masculinity.
This was in reply to a comment left by javalover up on the page
Thank you Stephen for clarifying that. I can tell by your words that you're a very passionate male feminist that really wants to make a change. I felt a lot of compassion in your response. I understand the pressures that you felt as a male to act a certain way.
It seems like quite a few people are inveighing against cultural relativism when no one is actually arguing in favour of such a perspective. Every time a discussion of western feminism's response to women outside the west comes up, someone has to beat down the straw man of cultural relativism. Arguing that maybe western feminists do not always know best is not cultural relativism, nor is arguing that we shouldn't consider another culture "inferior" because of certain practices in that culture.
Also, can people please stop dragging up the veiled Muslim woman as the paradigm of the oppressed "third world" woman? Your Islamophobia is showing. Can't you pick another realigion for a change? Funnily enough fundamentalists of many stripes hold misogynist views, and actually of the many challenges a poor Muslim woman might face wearing a headscarf is probably the least of her concerns.
Considering how aware Feministing's bloggers are of racial issues, large parts of the community seem to have a blind spot when it comes to women outside the west and particularly Muslims.
And all the trolling in the last few days is making the threads hard to read. Please stop feeding them.
This is from Dan Savage's latest column, addressing the killer:
"The women who rejected him obviously saw him for what he was and were right to run in the other direction. But if someone had told Sodini, who hadn't had sex since 1990, to see sex workers—something I advised the guys in my column two weeks ago to consider (among other things)—it might have taken the edge off his anger and kept it from curdling into homicidal rage. Maybe if we, as a society, valued sex workers and sex work, if we legalized and regulated it, and if we viewed "paying for it" as a legitimate option for guys who would otherwise go without for decades, perhaps this tragedy could have been averted."
I still don't see how people manage to paint Dan Savage as a feminist.
Right. Because if a lonely women went on a killing spree against men, we'd start talking about how the lack of lonely women getting laid is part of the problem.
I know, right? Valuing sex workers... by encouraging men to pile all their misogyny onto one woman rather than many.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure what Dan's saying is that if this man had gone to see a sex worker for his sexual needs a long time ago, he might not have become the misogynist he was. Now, I'm not sure he's right about this--we have no idea when Sodini began having such negative ideas about women. Who knows, maybe his misogyny was the reason his last girlfriend broke up with him. I don't think Dan's out to encourage men to be assholes to sex workers, though.
My main problem with Savage's assessment is that he forgets Sodini's actions were not about consensual sex whatsoever - it was about power and control, just as rape is, and just as domestic violence is never about alcoholism or anger management problems - it is about a need to dominate one's partner.
Right, cuz his pent up horniness made him a fucked up misogynist.
I actually don't believe that his pent-up horniness made him a misogynist. Like I said, I have no idea when his rampant misogyny began, if these were ideas instilled in him at a young age or something that happened when he was reading PUA/MRA stuff. And I have no idea when he began reading such things, either. If he didn't start thinking women deserved to die et cetera until he was in his years of pent-up horniness, I'd be most inclined to think that his datelessness (combined with his delusions of what 'kind' of woman he deserved, probably media-fueled) led him to being frustrated, which led him to looking for solutions to his frustration, which led him to reading misogynist books. Had he picked up a book of more sensible dating advice, or not been so delusional, maybe this could have been avoided. His fault, clearly, aided by professional misogynists; not the women's fault.
Anyway. I still think Dan Savage is basically well-meaning here, but he is misguided. And though I usually like his writing, it is not unusual for him to get something wrong. And his advice of "if you're horny, go see a sex worker" might've been good, for the men who wrote into his column last week. Probably wouldn't've worked in the case of Sodini. (And Stephen makes good points as to why.)
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure what Dan's saying is that if this man had gone to see a sex worker for his sexual needs a long time ago, he might not have become the misogynist he was. Now, I'm not sure he's right about this--we have no idea when Sodini began having such negative ideas about women. Who knows, maybe his misogyny was the reason his last girlfriend broke up with him. I don't think Dan's out to encourage men to be assholes to sex workers, though.
Gawd, how fucked up. Sacrificing a woman to apparently keep a man from shooting up 12 makes sense? Just sick. The street prostitutes are humans too. Perpetuating their exploitation is unnacceptable.