[Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

This forum is founded on discussions about T Campbell's work (alone and with artist partners).

Moderators: Gisele, TCampbell

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Artemisia » Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:31 pm

Alice Macher wrote:"Women make unsolicited advances to other women, too... When? Um, like in those women's prison movies, right? I mean, if it's in a movie..."


Actually, yes there are women who will make unsolicited advances on other women. . .Additionally, there are many women- including a number of lesbians- who are rather invested in the whole patriarchal institution. Butch lesbians can be among the worst misogynists out there. I swear, my friend's ex-g/f was one of them. She would utter at least one anti-woman or misogynistic thing a day. I was laying odds on how long until she went to the doctors and had a schlong installed. Typically, the more masculine lesbians out there will make unsolicited advances on other women, and it is not unheard of for there to be woman on woman rape. I have had to report on a couple of incidents of women sexually molesting young girls.
There was a girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, and when she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad she was homicidal.
I am a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife.
User avatar
Artemisia
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:03 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:09 am

So.. because she met jerks in her life, it means that the Patriarchy (TM) exists and all men are involved in it, as they are privileged (TM) by it?

Yeah... that's a reasonable argument.

Pointing to a few men who are jerks and claiming that men have the privilege of being jerks is like pointing out women who are bitches and claiming that women have the privilege of being bitches.
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Artemisia » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:18 am

Y'know. . .somehow having been on both sides of the divide, I can tell you that living as a man is easier than living as a woman. Men tend to be taken seriously more than women do, and tend to be held to a lower standard than women. I've been in academia for a long time, and when I was living as a man, I had professors who overlooked some of the problems that my academic work had, but when I began living as a woman, they marked me down for things that, as a man, they had never complained about.

It took me years to correct those issues.

So, I'm sorry, men actually do have a slightly easier time than women do in our society- even now.
There was a girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, and when she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad she was homicidal.
I am a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife.
User avatar
Artemisia
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:03 am

Re: [Off-Topic] This.

Postby Trefle » Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:24 am

Valerie wrote:
Artemisia wrote:Well, she could try hanging around here. . .I mean, you guys are all nice, including the men :)


It's true. It's like all the sexy, amazing, intelligent, enlightened people on the internet gather here. And then we talk about a webcomic.

inorite.

For a forum about webcomic, almost all the talks you're having here are incredibly building, deep, and not to mention; sane. Too bad I'm not here at Missing Person...I'd be glad to see what it's like here.

@Kchoze:
You've got a perfect point, but while acknowledging your point;
I think the point of the post is, yes; Patriarchy(tm) STILL exists. Even if it's within the depths of the trashes of mankind /hyperbole.
Not everyone have the same life as far as gender equality are concerned, and for those who have a less-than-perfect lives, the rules they are being subjected on tend to be-- that. What would be described as patriarchy.

Again, not everyone have the same life and experiences, no?
Trefle
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:16 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:07 am

Artemisia wrote:Y'know. . .somehow having been on both sides of the divide, I can tell you that living as a man is easier than living as a woman. Men tend to be taken seriously more than women do, and tend to be held to a lower standard than women. I've been in academia for a long time, and when I was living as a man, I had professors who overlooked some of the problems that my academic work had, but when I began living as a woman, they marked me down for things that, as a man, they had never complained about.

It took me years to correct those issues.

So, I'm sorry, men actually do have a slightly easier time than women do in our society- even now.


I think you make an error, you assume that what was true for you is true for everyone. I think that the two genders are treated differently, yes, but which one has it easier depends on your perspective and your personality. You're in academia, and from your experience, women in academia are treated less seriously than men, okay. But most people aren't in academia, so I think generalizing the conclusion from your experience is jumping to conclusion.

For example, if someone loves being around children and wants to work in a daycare, is it easier for that person has a man or as a woman? Let's be honest here, a man like that will be looked at with suspicion, a lot of people will think "must be a pedophile". If this person had a chance to experience the two sides of the social gender divide, do you think they would draw the same conclusion about which gender has it easier?

About the text at the origin of this thread. Basically the author is saying that she's getting a lot of sexual and romantic attention that she doesn't want (plus some of these expressions are just nasty, but let's put that aside for a while). How many men think the exact opposite? That they desperately want romantic and sexual attention and aren't getting any? You spoke of your experience, this is mine. Who is better off, the one with a surplus of attention or the one with a complete lack of it? Why can't we just agree that both suck and try to find solutions? Why do we have to be in Oppression Olympics and designate a "winner"... And then blame the "loser" for everything?
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Trefle » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:50 am

Kchoze wrote:About the text at the origin of this thread. Basically the author is saying that she's getting a lot of sexual and romantic attention that she doesn't want (plus some of these expressions are just nasty, but let's put that aside for a while). How many men think the exact opposite? That they desperately want romantic and sexual attention and aren't getting any? You spoke of your experience, this is mine. Who is better off, the one with a surplus of attention or the one with a complete lack of it? Why can't we just agree that both suck and try to find solutions? Why do we have to be in Oppression Olympics and designate a "winner"... And then blame the "loser" for everything?

That is true.
However a certain amount of solution does involve telling the other party to "DUDE/TTE, LAY OFF.", doesn't it?

But I agreed;
we all should be equal in a good way; not equal in our suffering. :|
Trefle
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:16 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Artemisia » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:12 am

Kchoze wrote:
Artemisia wrote:Y'know. . .somehow having been on both sides of the divide, I can tell you that living as a man is easier than living as a woman. Men tend to be taken seriously more than women do, and tend to be held to a lower standard than women. I've been in academia for a long time, and when I was living as a man, I had professors who overlooked some of the problems that my academic work had, but when I began living as a woman, they marked me down for things that, as a man, they had never complained about.

It took me years to correct those issues.

So, I'm sorry, men actually do have a slightly easier time than women do in our society- even now.


I think you make an error, you assume that what was true for you is true for everyone. I think that the two genders are treated differently, yes, but which one has it easier depends on your perspective and your personality. You're in academia, and from your experience, women in academia are treated less seriously than men, okay. But most people aren't in academia, so I think generalizing the conclusion from your experience is jumping to conclusion.

For example, if someone loves being around children and wants to work in a daycare, is it easier for that person has a man or as a woman? Let's be honest here, a man like that will be looked at with suspicion, a lot of people will think "must be a pedophile". If this person had a chance to experience the two sides of the social gender divide, do you think they would draw the same conclusion about which gender has it easier?

About the text at the origin of this thread. Basically the author is saying that she's getting a lot of sexual and romantic attention that she doesn't want (plus some of these expressions are just nasty, but let's put that aside for a while). How many men think the exact opposite? That they desperately want romantic and sexual attention and aren't getting any? You spoke of your experience, this is mine. Who is better off, the one with a surplus of attention or the one with a complete lack of it? Why can't we just agree that both suck and try to find solutions? Why do we have to be in Oppression Olympics and designate a "winner"... And then blame the "loser" for everything?


Your point is only semi-valid. Please remember that it is not just the idea of the man being a pedophile that makes a man seem suspicious if he wants to take care of children, but that child care was always seen as women's work, and that attitude still lingers. A man who legitimately loves to take care of children has a harder time being taken care of seriously not only in the child care industry, but just in terms of, say, being a house husband. Women in academia have a harder time being taken seriously than men do. While the whole male privilege has lessened over the years, it hasn't gone away. Look at how much harder it is for women to get into or be taken seriously in politics.

As much as I loathe Sarah Palin, there were questions about her bandied about that would never have been applied to a male candidate, at least until recently, and that's because some of us Radical Feminists out there demanded that the same treatment that Palin got be applied to Rick Santorum and his family. Yet, Palin was put through a very different ringer than, say, Romney. Hilary Clinton had a lot of very patriarchal things thrown at her candidacy.

Kchoze, I'm a QUILTBAG'ger, ok. I'm an activist. I'm the Q,I,L in that listing- Queer, Intersex, Lesbian. . .and my experiences are not isolated. I have read of and heard the stories of trans men who find themselves swimming in a sea of privilege after having experienced sexism their whole lives. I have met trans women who have suddenly had to cope with their pay being cut drastically, and the privileges they enjoyed as men disappear. I have had to deal with lesbians who were more qualified than the men who applied for jobs with them only to see the man hired at better pay and a slightly higher position.

It is getting better, but male privilege and patriarchy are not going away if we just ignore that it exists.
There was a girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, and when she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad she was homicidal.
I am a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife.
User avatar
Artemisia
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:03 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:00 am

I don't see the point of your first paragraph. It seems like your trying to reconcile facts with an ideological point of view and failing. Like you're trying to take a situation is really not taken seriously our even viewed with horrible suspicion because of his gender and to try to make it seem like he's not the "victim", women are.

The way I see it, society treats the genders differently and rewards people who fit the role, punish people who don't. Traditionally masculine men and feminine women are rewarded and have advantages. Nontraditional men and women are punished, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so much. Why are these advantages masculine men get treated as privileges all men supposedly have, and advantages feminine women get aren't considered privileges all women have?

Oh, you might say that themen traditionally get the powerful positions... But I think it's foolish to assume that, just because those in power are men that they use that power for the sake of men, so that one could consider that men as a group are in power. Historically, men in power had no hesitation at throwing away the lives of men not in power. If they had class loyalty, their class included the women close to them, but not the men they ruled over.

Even now, people like to point at governments and corporations and say: "look, most of those in power are men". But look down sometimes. Most of the homeless are men, most of the most dangerous jobs are held by men, most of the people who kill themselves are men. How do you reconcile this with a point of view that says that all men are privileged and that men rule in the interests of men in general?
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Artemisia » Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:33 am

Kchoze,

Dismissing my argument as "It seems like your trying to reconcile facts with an ideological point of view and failing. Like you're trying to take a situation is really not taken seriously our even viewed with horrible suspicion because of his gender and to try to make it seem like he's not the 'victim', women are" is to ignore the point, which I suspect that you are wont to do here. Men entering into any field where women are traditionally welcome are seen with suspicion by society.

Thing is, you are also talking counter to me without actually seeing that your points are identical to mine, which makes this discussion incredibly frustrating.

The problem here is 'tradition'. Any woman who is working is non-traditional- unless she is a secretary/executive assistant, teacher, a nurse or a child care provider. Feminine has a lot less to do with it than gender role. Any woman who breaks the assigned gender role by, say, working as something other than those listed, having sexual relationships with other women, and so forth are viewed as non-traditional.

All men who do any job other than stay home or those traditionally allocated to women are seen as being within their gender role. So long as a man is not actively engaging in sex with other men; however, he will still have a higher position than a 'traditional' woman.

Kchoze- I've spent over a decade researching and learning about this stuff. I'm having trouble ratchetting down my language concerning this very complex issue, but you and I have the same points. The thing is 'traditional' men have a greater amount of status than 'traditional' women, 'non-traditional' men have a higher status than 'non-traditional' women. I suspect the problem here is the word 'privilege'. It's a problematic term, but it is accurate.

Addendum: The problem here is two words- 'tradition' and 'privilege'. Let me add in some other things to think about-

Gender/sex is divided into several categories-

Gender Role
Gender Expression
Gender Identity
Sex
Sexual Identity
Sexual Orientation

Traditionally, all of these were expressed by singular words- if you were male, you were the stereotypical male across the board- you were assumed to be heterosexual, dressed in suits or jeans, were born with a penis and testicles, etc. If you were female, you were stereotypically female.

Non-traditionally, those were mix and match. You might be non-traditional in your gender role, but traditional in your sexual identity and orientation and even gender expression.

This is a very complex discussion, and I feel that while you and I are making the same points, we're not using the same vocabulary. I do have trouble with the term 'privilege' as I prefer 'status', but in academia the term is 'privilege'.

To answer your final point- welcome to the Procrustean Society. Men are put into greater pressure to conform to the traditional social structures than women are because women are not men. Women are less than men. If a man fails, then he is a failure as a MAN while if a woman fails, she's just a weak woman. So, yes, if a man fails, he is likely to end up on the streets because he is taught by tradition and a male privileged society that he is a failure as a man and thus must be cast off. Men are taught to break under adversity while women are taught to adapt. Men who adapt, though, are viewed as not-men and thus lose their privileged status.

Simply put, the price for having a higher status than women is that, if you are a failure, you fall further.
There was a girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, and when she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad she was homicidal.
I am a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife.
User avatar
Artemisia
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:03 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:21 pm

Men entering into any field where women are traditionally welcome are seen with suspicion by society.


I'm sorry, but that to me sounds like an attempt at spinning a reality to turn it on its head. So it's not that men are seen with suspicion when being near children, it's because it's actually because it's a woman's job and it just proves how women are considered inferior because men who get these jobs are considered weird for "lowering" themselves to women's level. Isn't that what you meant? Am I wrong in my understanding of what you said? But this way of spinning things can't explain why some airlines have rules that says that adult men, and only men, cannot sit next to unaccompanied minors. This is just one of many cases like this.

I feel like you want to do good, but you're stuck between recognizing these situations, and an dogmatic academia that claims that men cannot be discriminated against as men because they are "privileged" and have the power, so it would make no sense for men to create a society that discriminates against men. So the only way to reconcile these two positions is to someone twist and bend the facts so that they fit in the ideological point of view of the "academia" you are part of: it's not men, it's actually women who are discriminated against and it's just that these men are like "collateral damage" by opting for traditionally feminine jobs or the like.

All men who do any job other than stay home or those traditionally allocated to women are seen as being within their gender role. So long as a man is not actively engaging in sex with other men; however, he will still have a higher position than a 'traditional' woman.


All women who stay at home or who do jobs not traditionally allocated to men are seen as being within their gender role... Society considers gender a binary system, all jobs will either be traditionally associated to one gender or the other. Saying that one person will be seen as within their gender role if they don't have jobs that are traditionally associated with the other gender is trivial. It's like saying "any real number which isn't negative is positive" (okay, except the 0, which is both).

I highly disagree with the second sentence. Do you really believe that an homeless man is seen as having an higher position than a housewife or a female high school teacher? That is what you are implying, and I'm sorry, but it makes no sense and clashes with reality.

To answer your final point- welcome to the Procrustean Society. Men are put into greater pressure to conform to the traditional social structures than women are because women are not men. Women are less than men. If a man fails, then he is a failure as a MAN while if a woman fails, she's just a weak woman. So, yes, if a man fails, he is likely to end up on the streets because he is taught by tradition and a male privileged society that he is a failure as a man and thus must be cast off. Men are taught to break under adversity while women are taught to adapt. Men who adapt, though, are viewed as not-men and thus lose their privileged status.


I disagree with that interpretation. I think it's another case of ideological academia trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. You can easily see it another way: women have inherent worth in society, men don't. Men have to continually prove themselves in order to be valued. This is usually done through work or demonstrations of abilities. Hence why men in trouble or distress, for example men who cry, are generally not met with compassion but with irritation, even anger. "Be a man", they will be told, or "take it like a man". Under these reactions is the implicit affirmation that they have to deal with their problems by themselves, because they don't DESERVE assistance, they're not worth it.

BTW, last time I described this hypothesis, a transwoman on the site I posted it on actually said that it made a lot of sense from her perspective. That it "...makes a lot of sense in why trans women are more punished than trans men, for being trans." (her words, verbatim).

This is a very complex discussion, and I feel that while you and I are making the same points, we're not using the same vocabulary. I do have trouble with the term 'privilege' as I prefer 'status', but in academia the term is 'privilege'.


The vocabulary isn't innocent or trivial. I think the obsession about using the word "privilege" is clearly part of some kind of Oppression Olympics from the academia you talk about, it's about clearly identifying an "oppressed" and an "oppressor". It is, quite frankly, insulting. As an unhappy male like so many other, the use of the word "privileged" to describe my life is not only denying me the right to define my own life experience, but actually claiming the right to define it for me, and defining it in a way that says that no matter how bad I may feel, I actually deserve less than I have, that I deserve to be brought even lower and that I should apologize for, basically, existing, as my existence as a male is seen as taking opportunities away from women.

There's a reason why the rhetoric of the "academia" you speak of stays confined to it and to certain activist circles.
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Lia S » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:59 pm

Kzoche,

Just because you're male and (presumably) white doesn't mean that someone who is complaining about white male privilege is calling you an oppressor. So take a deep breath and stop and think for a moment, before you make yourself look like a complete jerk, K?

Yes, there is also a thing like female privilege, non-white privelege, rich privilege, poor privilege, etc etc privilege. Every variation of being human comes with privileges and downsides, some big, some small. I'm sure nobody here would claim that all men are 100% privileged - men can also have unlucky attributes that make them less privileged than others.

The thing is, if you take two people who are completely identical and the perfect average in gender matters, except one is physically male and one is physically female, the female does get treated worse in more situations than the male does.

It's difficult to see how many people (note I didn't write "men", women discriminate against themselves too) are discriminating a group and how badly when you're not in that group. The examples in the thing this thread started with are very difficult to notice because most of them wouldn't happen to a woman who was accompanied by a man.

By the way, when we're talking about whether or not women are discriminated, the fact that men are discriminated too is besides the point... Isn't it ironic that some in the group that is being called privileged think the discussion is about them?
Artemisia: if we cannot sympathize or understand then all we claim to be as human beings is just marsh gas
Valerie: Lia knows how to turn that frown upside-down. :D
User avatar
Lia S
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:53 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Artemisia » Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:26 pm

Lia S wrote:By the way, when we're talking about whether or not women are discriminated, the fact that men are discriminated too is besides the point... Isn't it ironic that some in the group that is being called privileged think the discussion is about them?


I would say something Lia, but I'd probably come across as a man hating dyke.

Kchoze wrote:
To answer your final point- welcome to the Procrustean Society. Men are put into greater pressure to conform to the traditional social structures than women are because women are not men. Women are less than men. If a man fails, then he is a failure as a MAN while if a woman fails, she's just a weak woman. So, yes, if a man fails, he is likely to end up on the streets because he is taught by tradition and a male privileged society that he is a failure as a man and thus must be cast off. Men are taught to break under adversity while women are taught to adapt. Men who adapt, though, are viewed as not-men and thus lose their privileged status.


I disagree with that interpretation. I think it's another case of ideological academia trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. You can easily see it another way: women have inherent worth in society, men don't. Men have to continually prove themselves in order to be valued. This is usually done through work or demonstrations of abilities. Hence why men in trouble or distress, for example men who cry, are generally not met with compassion but with irritation, even anger. "Be a man", they will be told, or "take it like a man". Under these reactions is the implicit affirmation that they have to deal with their problems by themselves, because they don't DESERVE assistance, they're not worth it.

BTW, last time I described this hypothesis, a transwoman on the site I posted it on actually said that it made a lot of sense from her perspective. That it "...makes a lot of sense in why trans women are more punished than trans men, for being trans." (her words, verbatim).



This is why this is frustrating for me- you start with "I disagree" and then spend the next several sentences AGREEING WITH ME. The difference is the vocabulary that we are using. IF a man shows any sign of weakness than- HE ISN'T A MAN according to society, and that lands him in all kinds of trouble. If a man falls onto the streets, he is suppose to pick himself up without help.

This entire conversation is frustrating because you keep disagreeing with me by saying you disagree with me and then turn around and agree with me.

What is more, you tend to take an all or nothing approach to things. For instance when you said:

I'm sorry, but that to me sounds like an attempt at spinning a reality to turn it on its head. So it's not that men are seen with suspicion when being near children, it's because it's actually because it's a woman's job and it just proves how women are considered inferior because men who get these jobs are considered weird for "lowering" themselves to women's level. Isn't that what you meant? Am I wrong in my understanding of what you said? But this way of spinning things can't explain why some airlines have rules that says that adult men, and only men, cannot sit next to unaccompanied minors. This is just one of many cases like this.


I am not disagreeing with you about the whole issue of pedophilia, but I am also adding in a layer of other reasoning. Why do you think that any man who becomes a child care worker is suspected of being a child molester? Because the assumption is that he must have an ulterior motive for wanting that job because it's traditionally women's work.

Here in you and I disagree, but this is because of the differences in how we see and interpret things:

All women who stay at home or who do jobs not traditionally allocated to men are seen as being within their gender role... Society considers gender a binary system, all jobs will either be traditionally associated to one gender or the other. Saying that one person will be seen as within their gender role if they don't have jobs that are traditionally associated with the other gender is trivial. It's like saying "any real number which isn't negative is positive" (okay, except the 0, which is both).

I highly disagree with the second sentence. Do you really believe that an homeless man is seen as having an higher position than a housewife or a female high school teacher? That is what you are implying, and I'm sorry, but it makes no sense and clashes with reality.


A homeless man has fallen victim to one of the ways to become a not-man. He is a failure as a man. That is how society perceives him, at least. So, his position is less than a woman's. You're thinking in terms of a binary society. In reality, our society is incredibly nuanced. For a man to be a MAN he must be heterosexual, have a job, be tough or strong, never show his emotions, and rule over his family.

Any man who is not that is a not-man. He is the equivalent of a 'fag' or a 'queer' or a 'sissy' or a woman. This is why so many of our personal attacks try to undermine a man's masculinity. You hit on it when you talked about how "men who cry, are generally not met with compassion but with irritation, even anger. "Be a man", they will be told, or "take it like a man". Under these reactions is the implicit affirmation that they have to deal with their problems by themselves, because they don't DESERVE assistance, they're not worth it."

This is why the term Male Privilege is inaccurate, and I tend to qualify it a lot when talking about it.

Finally, what it comes down to is that you are reacting to what I am saying with your own connotations and I am talking in very strict terminology here without those connotations. You are reacting with anger, and I think that we should stop this discussion because I don't think you're in a position to listen to me at all because you seem very angry with this discussion.
There was a girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, and when she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad she was homicidal.
I am a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife.
User avatar
Artemisia
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:03 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:47 pm

Just because you're male and (presumably) white doesn't mean that someone who is complaining about white male privilege is calling you an oppressor. So take a deep breath and stop and think for a moment, before you make yourself look like a complete jerk, K?

Yes, there is also a thing like female privilege, non-white privelege, rich privilege, poor privilege, etc etc privilege. Every variation of being human comes with privileges and downsides, some big, some small. I'm sure nobody here would claim that all men are 100% privileged - men can also have unlucky attributes that make them less privileged than others.


I personally oppose the idea of using the word "privilege" that way. It is a loaded word, and it is inflammatory. Think about it, what do you want to do with "privileges" by instinct? You want to take them away. Defining things in terms of "privileges" seem to me a grave mistake, it is a negative way of looking at things, it is much better to see things in terms of rights that are denied some people, which imply that you want to give people more opportunities and more possibilities. "Privilege" is also steeped in resentment and is very emotionally charged. If you know history, it's really hard to dissociate claims of one having "privilege" and others being "oppressed" without associating "oppressor" with those who have "privilege", especially since "patriarchy" implies the idea that men as a class have power and impose gender roles.

BTW, your claim that there are things like "female privilege" would likely be very, very controversial in a lot of the activist circles. For example, the website "Finally, a feminism 101 blog" says equivocally "NO" to where there is such a thing as "female privilege".
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com ... privilege/

In my experience, the people who tend to say that men are "privileged" almost monolithically deny the possibility of women having privileges. Those who accept the concept are a minority. In general, the favored concept is "intersectionality", where they assume that any situation in which men seem to be disadvantaged is not resulting from their gender or sex, but from some other thing.

By the way, when we're talking about whether or not women are discriminated, the fact that men are discriminated too is besides the point... Isn't it ironic that some in the group that is being called privileged think the discussion is about them?


Well, that's normal. If one makes the claim that one group is privileged, then one makes the discussion about them. It's automatic. It's like an accusation, you can't make an accusation against someone without automatically making the discussion about them. For example, if you say "My TV was stolen today" then you are discussing about the fact that your TV was stolen. If you say "My ex stole my TV today", then the discussion becomes about your ex and his (alleged) action. Likewise, if you say "I'm tired of being harassed because I'm a woman and attractive", then you are making the discussion about what you are living through and your harassment. If you say "I'm tired of men who harass because it's their privilege in society to harass attractive women" then like it or not, you are making the discussion about men and their (alleged) privilege to harass attractive women.
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Kchoze » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:18 pm

This is why this is frustrating for me- you start with "I disagree" and then spend the next several sentences AGREEING WITH ME.


I said that I disagreed with your interpretation, and I do think we have a strong disagreement here. We seem to make the same analysis, to a certain extent: men are under a lot of pressure to conform to the masculine gender role and they are the lowest of the low when they can't. This far, we agree. Where we disagree is that you seem to differentiate men as individuals and the male gender roles. Men who fail become "not male" according to you, and so the disadvantages they face has nothing to do with the fact that they are males. This is where I disagree strongly. I don't think you can separate it like that.

Men who fail to conform to the ideal of the gender role are still subjected to it. They will still face demands to conform and will be punished further if they keep refusing to conform. Neither will they be able to benefit from the advantages of the other groups and their social roles. A weak emotional man may be called a "girl" pejoratively, but he will still not be entitled to the advantages girls may actually have in society. People will not tend to protect them from harm or care about their feelings more. He may also be called "fag" or "sissy", but the truth is that they are still not entitled to the positive treatment out homosexual men may have. For example, a lot of women actually like effete gay men, (the so-called "fag hags"), but I don't think these women would care at all for these heterosexual men, even if they are called "fags" by others.

I am not disagreeing with you about the whole issue of pedophilia, but I am also adding in a layer of other reasoning. Why do you think that any man who becomes a child care worker is suspected of being a child molester? Because the assumption is that he must have an ulterior motive for wanting that job because it's traditionally women's work.


But I don't agree with that reasoning. I don't think it has to do with it traditionally being a woman's job, I think we disagree on the cause and effect. One of the male gender role's norm is aggressive sexuality. Not meaning rape automatically, but meaning that men are expected to push for sex and to initiate sexual encounters. I think that is why western societies tended to try to keep a distance between men and child-rearing, or children at all. You say the reason why we don't want men around children is because it's considered a woman's job and we assume that if they want to do that job, then they must have ulterior motives. I think that it's because men are considered sexually aggressive because of gender norms that we tend to keep them away from children that child-rearing has become a "woman's job".

It seems that it is the causality link on which we disagree. What is the cause, what is the effect?

A homeless man has fallen victim to one of the ways to become a not-man. He is a failure as a man. That is how society perceives him, at least. So, his position is less than a woman's. You're thinking in terms of a binary society. In reality, our society is incredibly nuanced. For a man to be a MAN he must be heterosexual, have a job, be tough or strong, never show his emotions, and rule over his family.


Again, you seem to believe that men who don't conform to the gender role become something else than a man and should not be considered as men in social analyses. I don't agree with that, I think that they are still men and considered as such, that their treatment is consequent with their status as men. I know that the rhetoric may seem to support your point of view, but I think here "man" has two meanings, one if the actual gender role assigned by society because of the sexual organs of an individual, the other is the ideal of what these individuals should aspire to. I think the fact is that men who "fail" cannot escape the requirements of the gender roles, that they are still judged for it, and that they are not entitled to the positive treatments the other groups may get. Certainly, the difference you make between "not-male" or "failed male" and "male" makes no difference to them, they cannot opt out of the gender role requirement as male-bodied, male-identified heterosexuals. I think this actually supports my point of view, that you cannot dissociate society's treatment of the men who fail at keeping up with the demands that come with the gender role from its treatment of men as a whole.
Kchoze
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:15 am

Re: [Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

Postby Artemisia » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:26 pm

Kchoze,

I really am hitting a point where I'm thinking you're arguing for the sake of arguing because, quite frankly. Just look at how society looks down on any man who fails or who doesn't conform. You keep switching from the general to the specific in order to try and win this 'debate', and quite frankly, your points are all over the place. You don't want to listen, but would rather shove your simplistic assumptions about this issue in everyone's face as if it was a simple cut and dry situation.

I'm not bothering to reply again because I really am about two ticks from letting my rather considerable androphobia do the talking.
There was a girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead, and when she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad she was homicidal.
I am a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife.
User avatar
Artemisia
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests

cron