Last Tuesday’s long post about feminism and the free market got a large number of replies. My basic thesis was that strong public institutions liberate both men and women from the forced reliance on family for survival; an adequately-funded welfare state allows relationships to flourish based on choice and desire rather than on necessity and desperation. I also rejected the notion that men’s sense of self-worth is somehow inextricably linked to women’s dependence upon them. The old “women offer their vulnerability in exchange for men’s responsibility” myth is a favorite of those who think that at our core, we are governed by what they imagine to be the needs of our paleolithic ancestors. I have no desire to continue to debate those who peddle the risible notion that all males are biologically hardwired for violence and promiscuity, and can only be tamed by chaste and faithful and adoring women.
That said, I want to respond to SamSeaborn, who seems deeply concerned that men are somehow becoming superfluous. Men need women in order to reproduce in a way that women don’t need men, he argues, a point which on a purely functional level has some merit. (It’s easier to get sperm than it is to find someone to carry a baby — paying men to ejaculate into a cup is a lot cheaper, rightly so, than paying a surrogate to carry a fetus to term.) If the state offers sufficient aid to women so that they can raise children without a man’s financial assistance, what, Sam wonders, is to stop many men from “opting out’ into what I call the “unholy trifecta” of pot, porn, and Playstation?
Sam asks:
How can (men) feel valued as a human being if there’s basically nothing only they can do that women cannot while there’s a lot of things men cannot do that women can’t? You either get detachment or service in this situation, but service, of couse, is requiring social checks on women – some kind of affirmative action for men, which one may call patriarchy. Which leaves a bit of a problem: reject patriarchy and you’ll get male detachment.
How would you get around this? What would you suggest that would make men actually feel like complete human beings AND complete men that would overcome this potential dichotomy?
Sam’s right. At least he’s right if you accept “masculinity” as an inevitable feature of maleness. Obviously, we cannot continue to raise our sons with outmoded definitions of what “makes a man” and then expect those lads to seamlessly adapt traditional ideas about manhood to a modern egalitarian culture. The “Little House on the Prairie” vision won’t work any longer, and it’s evident that raising our sons with a traditional masculine ethos is just setting them up for cognitive dissonance, alienation, and anger. You can’t teach a boy that “A good man is one who provides for his wife and children and protects them from harm” and then expect him not to be a bit bewildered by a world in which women have both agency and autonomy. Hence the pathetic appeal of mail-order brides; American men, determined to hold on to traditional gender roles at any cost, sending away for wives from the Third World. The need for a green card, the lack of English language skills — these are often powerful markers of vulnerability, and can serve to puff up the fragile masculinity of a male determined to cling to a dated and useless understanding of gender roles.
But this system doesn’t work out well for men. It obviously doesn’t work for women either. The reason why is summed up by feminist theologian Janet Morley, in her now famous prayer:
We confess that we have sinned:
We have used our power to dominate and our weakness to manipulate; we have evaded responsibility and failed to confront evil; we have denied dignity to ourselves and to each other, and fallen into despair.
Bold mine. It’s a splendid encapsulation of what is so fundamentally wrong with traditonal gender roles. When we are in what conservatives call “complementarian” relationships (which really means, hierarchical relationships in which women trade vulnerability and subservience for “protection”), we set men up to dominate and we set women up to manipulate. Most people dislike being manipulated — and yet a system in which women lack equal access to power is one that guarantees that women must deceive in order to survive. This doesn’t mean women are “naturally deceptive”, any more than men are naturally “power-hungry sex-crazed brutes.” What it means is that absent genuinely perfect men (and no human being of either sex is perfect) those who depend on that man for their survival must placate and soothe and lie in order to survive. And a great many men get very accustomed to these blandishments, and are outraged when women — liberated from their economic bondage — stop all that nice flattery. But most men, if they think about it, can recognize the fundamental dishonesty of these transactional relationships. What most people of either sex want, in the end, are relationships grounded in radical honesty. And only someone who isn’t dependent upon you can be trusted to tell you the truth.
The feminist project is, in the end, about men too. Women’s liberation can’t be dependent upon men, of course; women don’t need men’s blessing in order to become autonomous agents, freed at last from the chains of custom and the bonds of biology. (Sorry, I’m tired, and the prose gets purple when I’m underslept.) But the benefits of feminism are undeniable for men: a chance to be full and complete human beings, capable of courage and tenderness in equal measure; a chance to be loved for who they are rather than what they can perform. That’s precious stuff indeed. But men raised on the noxious elixir of traditional manhood will find it difficult to adapt quickly to this new paradigm, even when the old model has proved so unsatisfactory. What’s needed is a continued cultural revolution, aimed at redefining what it means to be male, aimed at liberating boys and young men from the masculine straitjacket.
It took generations of feminists to get us this far, to a world where more women than ever before (though globally, far too few) enjoy autonomy. The organized pro-feminist men’s movement is still in its very early stages. We’re not going to solve the problem of disaffected and alienated young men overnight, any more than we’re going to solve it by returning to outmoded and exploitative family structures. It’s going to be long, slow, often tedious and frustrating work, but I’m confident that in due course — though not, perhaps in my lifetime or that of any of my readers — we will have a critical mass of men whose sense of purpose and responsibilty to the world is utterly unrelated to the willingness of women to depend upon them.
More than almost anything else, this is the project to which I am dedicating my public life, and I cannot think of a worthier cause (with the possible exception of veganism) to which to be devoted.
Such an awesome post.
Hugo,
thanks for the reply – well, kudos if that’s what you’re writing when you’re underslept. That said, sorry, but for the most part, I really don’t know what to do with your reply. I’ll start here -
Well, of course ‘masculinity’ will always be an inevitable feature of maleness. It won’t necessarily look like the the little-house-on-the-prairie-masculinity, but as long as humans come in two main sexes, there will inevitably be cultural practices assigned to this fundamental variable of existence. My point was that if you strip the cultural practices from the analysis (as far as possible, and I have a hunch you may be able to take this further than I would allow me to) you get to ‘functinal’ differences and according relative scarcities that will – inevitably – inform the cultural practices. The question is – in which way?
Which brings me back to the question I asked you initially – and use your words to ask you again:
I think this is spot on – and it’s basically rephrasing my point – can we actually get to this point if there is a fundamental functional male dependence (dependence-asymetry) on women when it comes to procreation? What would you suggest?
I would suggest that we stop connecting human worth to biological reproductivity, Sam, and focus instead on inculcating good relationship skills. As others have pointed out in the other thread, a great many women happen to be heterosexual — and interested in raising children with men. Men’s ability to nurture and to be present in the lives of their children is not in any way contingent upon the degree to which the mothers of the children are dependent upon them.
I think getting there is a matter of overcoming cultural bias rather than overcoming biological fact. The differences between the sexes are real, in the same way that varying melanin content is a real difference between racial groups. But just as we now acknowledge that race doesn’t limit someone’s potential, we are working towards acknowledging that sex doesn’t either.
I understand the question you’re asking, but I think you’re fundamentally wrong in presuming that men require some degree of control over reproduction and child-rearing in order to feel valued.
Why don’t babies fathered by men who provide sperm-only count in Sam’s metric? Isn’t all a man really needs to reproduce a woman willing to sleep with him? If society makes it easier for a woman to raise the child conceived in a short-lived sexual relationship, doesn’t that make it MORE likely that the man’s genes will be passed on? I still don’t understand why a man “needs” a woman to reproduce more than a woman “needs” a man to reproduce.
I see plenty of evidence of men passing on their genes without taking any responsibility for raising or supporting the offspring. How does the fact that women are raising these children more or less alone mean that women don’t need men rather than that men don’t need women. Men can impregnate women, go about their merry way, and pass on their genes. That sure seems to me like they don’t “need” women; or at least, they don’t need a long-term pair bonded relationship with a particular woman in order to perpetuate their genepool – and that is what Sam’s talking about, right?
ou can’t teach a boy that “A good man is one who provides for his wife and children and protects them from harm†and then expect him not to be a bit bewildered by a world in which women have both agency and autonomy.
There’s no contradiction here. You can provide for and protect a spouse and child (note degendering) without the spouse losing agency or autonomy. And I shudder to think of what the world will look like when we DON’T teach children that caring for and protecting other people are appropriate values.
an adequately-funded welfare state allows relationships to flourish based on choice and desire rather than on necessity and desperation
An adequately-funded welfare state also constrains humans from a wide variety of choices, directly and indirectly, by obliging people to work within the system rather than freeing them to pursue their own joy. A free-market society can afford to have people following their joy and writing poetry (and accepting the concomitant risks of economic privation); under the welfare state, that guy or gal needs to be paying taxes, not pursuing his/her idle and unproductive dreams.
In addition, under a welfare state the ability of people to organize politically for their own interests or for their own ideals is fatally compromised, particularly for the poor. When the state has benign (or even malign) disinterest in you, you can do what you please and not worry about their ability to withdraw the (nonexistent) support. When the state is paying your rent and buying your food and arranging your doctor visits, you damn well better make sure you aren’t pissing off any of the state’s representatives.
To avoid the (very real) problem of fathers abusing authority, you would hand far more authority over to a much larger and infinitely more powerful “father”.
Heavens, Robert, you seem unable to distinguish between social democratic Sweden and the Soviet Union under Stalin! But you do indeed indicate, intentionally or not, why the political parties in this country continue to experience a “gender gap.”
How can (men) feel valued as a human being if there’s basically nothing only they can do that women cannot while there’s a lot of things men cannot do that women can’t?
The question seems to presume something like the following: someone can feel valued as a human being only if there’s something they can do that no-one else can do. But that’s clearly false. Almost no-one is so unique and special as to be able to do something that no-one else can do. Indeed, I can’t think of a single person that’s that unique and special. Even Einstein is hailed as a genius, not for doing completely and utterly unique things, but for doing several very important things slightly earlier than anyone else.
To borrow from your follow-up comment, we need to stop connecting human worth to competition. You don’t have to be the best to be good and valuable.
But you do indeed indicate, intentionally or not, why the political parties in this country continue to experience a “gender gap.â€
Well, sure. One party promises women that it will take care of them with magical government money; the other party tells women that like all adult humans, they need to work or find other private means of support. Women are no less susceptible to empty promises than men are.
Re: We confess that we have sinned:
We have used our power to dominate and our weakness to manipulate; we have evaded responsibility and failed to confront evil; we have denied dignity to ourselves and to each other, and fallen into despair.
I’ve been in churches where we used that confession of sin. God, do I hate it. Give me the traditional-language “ASB” confession any day, the one where it talks about the bewailing the manifold wickednesses we have committed against Thy divine majesty, and so forth. I go to church in the frame of mine of a medieval peasant approaching his king, not a participant at a group-therapy session.
As pertains to my opinion of the feminist ideas set forth in this thread, given that this is a feminist blog, I am going to observe the schoolyard rule I was taught: I don’t have anything nice to say, so I won’t say anything.
Re: There’s no contradiction here. You can provide for and protect a spouse and child (note degendering) without the spouse losing agency or autonomy. And I shudder to think of what the world will look like when we DON’T teach children that caring for and protecting other people are appropriate values.
Amen, Robert. Amen. I disagree with you about the welfare state, but agree with you wholeheartedly on this.
Hi Hugo,
> More than almost anything else, this is the project to which I am dedicating my public life, and I cannot think of a worthier cause (with the possible exception of veganism) to which to be devoted.
I’d be interested to hear more about this comparison to veganism. Is it a utilitarian one — that the suffering we inflict upon animals is at a more fundamental level than the suffering that patriachy inflicts upon women, and so it’s perhaps more urgent to quash — or something else?
Chris, I have a large archive (on the right) of posts about veganism, many of which have addressed the question you ask in great detail. Suffice it to say that I see veganism as a kind of radically incarnational justice (pun intended).
Here’s just one post on the topic:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/05/07/some-preliminary-thoughts-on-women-dieting-veganism-guilt-pleasure-and-exploitation/
“Well, sure. One party promises women that it will take care of them with magical government money; the other party tells women that like all adult humans, they need to work or find other private means of support. Women are no less susceptible to empty promises than men are.”–Robert
As a woman, I don’t care if the government takes care of me with magical money–but I care a whole lot that the government supports health insurance, day care, parental leave, and other such things that allow women and men to be better parents when they work. Otherwise, in this society, women get stuck with the child raising work (unpaid!) and then have to depend on others with paid work or work themselves, leaving them with zero time to fulfill themselves.
“One party promises women that it will take care of them with magical government money”
Actually, one party promises to take care of women with governmental money only if we are unable to do so ourselves and until we are capable of providing for ourselves. Most women on welfare do not want to be on welfare. And contrary to popular belief of some, providing them with welfare does not stop them from wanting to provide for themselves. The goal of feminists is not to have women dependent on the government. The goal of feminism is to create a structure where women can provide for themselves and their children without the help of a man or the government.
> Chris, I have a large archive (on the right) of posts about veganism, many of which have addressed the question you ask in great detail. Suffice it to say that I see veganism as a kind of radically incarnational justice (pun intended).
Thanks, Hugo, and I’m sorry I hadn’t noticed these myself. I’m finding many answers, I think the clearest of which to me is that veganism is one way of practising non-violence (with an inclusive interpretation of violence) and equal consideration (sorry for the Singer phrasing) and meaning it, and therefore veganism confers many of the same benefits that you’re trying to pass on through feminism work, but at a more general level, and therefore one that might catch on more strongly?
It’s unfortunate that Gandhi and MLK appear to have treated the women in their lives pretty badly, despite being some of our strongest role models for non-violence (and in Gandhi’s case, vegetarianism too).
Feel free not to respond in detail if your hiatus includes comment threads too.
“You can provide for and protect a spouse and child (note degendering) without the spouse losing agency or autonomy.”
If they have no other choice but to be dependent upon a spouse, they most certainly do lose their agency.
If they have no other choice but to be dependent upon a spouse, they most certainly do lose their agency.
Faith, that’s very true, but we can encourage people to provide for and protect their families while simultaneously encouraging them to see their spouses as equals. Couples can (and indeed should) be mutually loving, supportive, and protective, regardless of their genders.
Or rather — couples can and should be mutually loving, supportive, and protective, and not dependent on one another for survival, regardless of their genders.
An excellent post! I’ve often thought this about manipulation and power and need but never managed to state it as well.
I do think there’s a slightly tangential problem in which I understand Sam’s issue. I think having been raised in our culture a lot of men want a family . However, men haven’t been taught how to create one and most have no idea how to go about doing so. Creating a new unit based on love and trust and cooperation takes a certain amount of nurturing and something close to manipulation. Some people are born with a natural predisposition toward nurturing and the like, and the men who are born like that have fewer problems. However most people need examples around them to follow and women have these when men don’t. That makes men dependent on finding a woman who will do it for them.
Men need women for a family more because they haven’t been taught how to create one themselves then biology. Nine months does not necessarily equal 18 years. There are plenty of women who would kind of like to have children but do not want to be primary caretakers. In today’s society most of them will become primary caretakers or co parents at best any way. Many of them, while wonderful people are not necessarily people who’d make great ‘mother’s’ in the traditional sense. It doesn’t have to be that way.
All of this rests on the belief that women do not suffer from greed. The assumption is that if women and their children are provided with housing, food, medical care end education, that they won’t seek out further advantages for themselves, and become dependent on someone who can provide them. They may want to partner with someone who can help make sure their daughter can attend an Ivy League college rather than state school. Maybe afford that nice summer house on the Jersey Shore. High tea at the Plaza. After a while these things can seem like necessities, and the fear of losing them can foster dependency.
People trade agency for luxuries all time. Being Carmela Soprano is a pretty good deal. You can explore your spiritual side with your pastor, talk romantic literature with your son’s teacher, talk about family concerns with the other mob wives, and live in denial about the strippers being beaten to death in the Bada-Bing parking lot. After all, its not your fault – it’s that damned gender role society forced you into! You have no agency.
So my answer to Sam is that men will, indeed always be needed. There will always, always, be women who will trade agency away for some advantage a man can provide. We can, sadly, depend on their humanity, as they, sadly depend on ours.
Or, you can believe, as I think Hugo does, that women are some higher order of humanity. That if only we could free this half of humanity – the innocent half, the half that lacks Original Sin – from dependency on us broken souls that they will be like a light unto the Gentiles, and show us the way.
Victoria: Yes. I’d make a terrible mother if I were the primary parent. Whereas my young gentleman would make a wonderful one.
I think Noumena up-thread has a good point when she says we need to disconnect worth from competition. Doing an easy but time-consuming thing competently, thus freeing up other people to do their own tasks, is just as important as anything else.
An example: Operating a spotlight for an amateur theatre company is really quite easy. Anyone in the company could learn to do it well enough for the show in a couple of days. I, as a spotlight operater, am completely replaceable. But that doesn’t change the fact that by operating a spotlight, I’m useful.
I dont see how we can ever disconnect worth from competition society-wide. Your example, Faith, is logical to me but doesnt speak to the thoughts I often hear expressed by fellow men.
Many speak of some feeling of unfairness. When it comes to reproduction all the things like parental leave, bc access and others, we can set up a society in which we try to ameliorate the inherent unfairness of being the ones who have to have the babies, why not also change it to lessen the unfairness for the ones who cant?
It seems to come down to some kind of discussion on competition, fairness and asymmetrical control/responsiblity of reproductive choice/realities.
“Heavens, Robert, you seem unable to distinguish between social democratic Sweden and the Soviet Union under Stalin!”
Maybe you haven’t read Hayek (The ROAD to Serfdom). The book was directed to the English and social democracies, socialisms to include welfare states and redistributions of wealth.
Sweden is so over rated. It’s probably best not to listen to the idealists expound the greatness of Sweden et al. It is telling of these European social democracies that they are in worse condition (but I guess they were already worse off) than America in this global economic crisis. It is telling where they invest their money. It is convenient the social democracies are protect by union. And more convenient that they are protect by the USA. Unfortunately we fit that bill. It is funny, Hayek would agree with your ends, but his fear was folks much like yourself carrying, around ideas– devoid of the courage to explore their means.
“Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.” Lord Acton
Sweating through the fog, you have some weird ideas about how Hugo sees women.
I would suggest that we stop connecting human worth to biological reproductivity, Sam,
Yes, exactly: why is this so hard? In fact, I’m pretty sure the answer to every problem Sam brings up in his many paragraphs of comments can be found in this one sentence.
Good post, Hugo.
Paul, read the post to which this one is linked — it’s all about Hayek, whom I read years ago.
Last I checked, Sweden wasn’t in NATO, and was doing just fine — so fine that we’re talking about imitating their plan for rescuing banks. And I don’t know about you, but I carry an EU passport and have spent a substantial amount of time in the EU (Austria, Italy, and the UK in particular).
More tomorrow on a related topic.
“Sweating through the fog, you have some weird ideas about how Hugo sees women.”
Sweating through the fog, seems to have some weird ideas about women, as well.
“Many speak of some feeling of unfairness.”
I think that you might have intended to address Froth, not me, but…
Just because they have a feeling of unfairness, doesn’t mean that they are actually suffering from any genuine unfairness. Although some of the things that some men complain about – like lack of male contraception or paid family leave for men – are things which feminists support as well. Somehow the men who complain about these things – and how unfair the awful feminists are – miss this part.
“Or rather — couples can and should be mutually loving, supportive, and protective, and not dependent on one another for survival, regardless of their genders.”
I agree with this (For the most part anyway. I tend to bristle at the word protective because it has been abused so heavily), but, somehow, I don’t think that this is what Hector or Robert meant or believes.
Maybe it’s just because I’m a lawyer, but every employer my husband has worked for has had gender-neutral leave policies. He will get the exact same leave when our child is born he would get if he were the one giving birth. I’m not sure my employer is the same, because I am covered for the first 6 weeks through short term disability leave, for which there has to be medical documentation, etc., so I don’t know if that would work for a man.
As I guess I’ve already made clear, I think Sam’s argument, when examined closely, is bull. Gay male couples manage to find women to be surrogates for birth, or adopt, or otherwise create families if they so desire with the initial involvement of women as is biologically “necessary” but with their continued involvement purely optional. The men who feel they are being treated “unfairly” are the Nice GuyTMs who feel it’s “unfair” that a beautiful woman will not deign to marry them, be their servant, and be happy about it. I do not feel sorry for them in the least. Yes, if women are not forced to marry men, then it will be harder for (some) men (who’d be happy with someone forced to marry them?) to find a wife. Cry me a river. That doesn’t mean men are “unnecessary” to reproduction. Their genes still live on, whether they are involved in raising the chid or not – and isn’t that all the evo bio folks think they are evolutionarily hard wired to care about?
Emily,
I have a longer reply that’s unfinished, but let me just address your point about the necessity of sperm. Yes sperm is necessary and thus men are necessary for reproduction – but – to which extent? The original question was about the question whether men are becoming detached from society (and family) if they’re not “needed” as protectors anymore (and the subsequent question whether male detachment will inevitably create a situation of instability in which men are – again – needed as protectors – in other words if the functional differences in reproduction are creating an imbalance that has a tendency towards a particular equilibrium).
This is not about the fact that sperm is needed for reproduction but about everything thereafter. And I’m really fascinated how you manage to bring nice guys into this thread about social organisation
…
“which men are – again – needed as protectors”
Women do not need men to be protectors. We will not need men to be protectors in the future. What we need is for men to stop hurting us. There is no excuse or justification for men physically or psychologically harming women or taking away our rights…no matter how detached they feel.
What happens after the sperm part is that men actually start taking responsibility for their negative actions and attitudes instead of whining and complaining.
The “men becoming superfluous” argument is presented humorously in a film called “Roger Dodger” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299117/). It presents a good picture of what happens to men who believe they have become outmoded.
I understand this point: “I would suggest that we stop connecting human worth to biological reproductivity” — but even if we do make this cognitive connection (that human worth is not wrapped up entirely in how babies are made and raised), to what extent does that help? The “cultural changes” required to get men to disassociate themselves as the traditional “head of household” is so absurdly large, I don’t think we can wrap our heads around it. What do we two with the 3000+ years of historical and literary works that present this paradigm? A sort of self-aware gender-studies education, even in K-12, would only partially do away with these notions.
And I think a lot of guys are content with the cognitive dissonance. When they realize that society gets along just fine without them, the end result is either abandonment (the majority go this route, methinks) or frustration that leads to domestic abuse. Indeed, I think the vast majority of domestic abuse in America stems from men who feel they need that level of control to be “doing their job” correctly.
I sympathize with Sam, and at times, I do feel superfluous. My wife and children seem so much more important, and so much more powerful, than me. I’m not sure if the biological argument is the full problem, but again, see “Roger Dodger” … I would never end up like that guy, but if you’re down with promiscuity, that seems to be the right way to go (and hey, what is mainstream hip-hop if not this?).
Finally, re: Veganism, let me know when it’s a viable way to live Hugo. I attempted for 15 months and nearly suffered permanent nerve damage. No amount of supplements or diet changes helped me. I am now vegetarian, but it seems I just can’t get by w/o eggs and dairy. Is it morally acceptable from your vantage point to be “just” vegetarian instead of full-on vegan? and yes, I am looking for approval, since I’m feeling all dejected after thinking about gender roles again.
somehow, I don’t think that this is what Hector or Robert meant or believes.
It sounds all right to me.
Ok, Mr Gann,
here are some dos: when you hear a man talking how women are too irrational to vote, or don’t deserve the same pay as a man, or you hear a man catcall or wolf whistle—call ‘em out! That takes real guts.
When you hear guys whining about how they’re unnecessary to society cuz aw, poor things, they can’t bear babies, look them in the eye and let them know there’s already 8 billion people on this planet and if they really want to make a difference to the next generation, they can mentor a child, or become a basketball coach, or help out with girl scouts or boys clubs or even just take the time to be friendly and welcoming to the kids that live in their neighborhood. Or just live their lives in charity and justice. I have 2 kids. I think they’re great kids, but I’d still define myself first as foremost as an artist if I were a man or childless, and I think my life would still be plenty worthwhile.
Women live in a sea of of sexism most men never see. Learning enough to not thoughtlessly hurt us is hard work, and a lot more active than you think. I’ve spent hours and hours and *hours* reading bloggers of color, and I’ve still barely begun to understand their world. They keep saying, just *listen* to us, dammit. Well, that’s Faith is asking you to do. It’s hard. But it’s not flashy. It’s not that macho knocking down those walls, making a big show. Well, sorry. The best things you can do, sometimes, are kinda girly. Get on board with that, and your journey will truly have begun.
“What we need is for men to stop hurting us.”
Don’t forget about the woman-on-woman domestic violence. According to Suzana Rose, Ph.D. at the National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, University of Missouri at St. Louis: “Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples”
http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
The “bloggers of color” example reminds me of an episode of South Park where Stan continually tries to reconcile with Token over the fact that his dad dropped the n- word. It becomes a journey of discovery for Stan, and he tries all sorts of stupid and radical things to get Token to take him back.
But ultimately, all it took was acknowledging Token’s feelings and saying “okay, I’ll never EVER be able to empathize because of who I am, but I will always try to hear you out and take your words at face value.” Oh how I love South Park.
So if “listen” and “call out douchebag guys” is all it takes, I’ll do my best.
““What we need is for men to stop hurting us.â€
Don’t forget about the woman-on-woman domestic violence.”
Do men protect women from other women? If not, it’s pretty irrelevant to this discussion, which appears to be focusing on whether or not women “need” men to “protect” them and if so, from what, exactly–and if they don’t, then what is the irreplaceable purpose of men?
Yes, please let’s stay on topic, remembering yet again that this is a feminist blog designed for intra-feminist discussion. Thanks.
Re: I think they’re great kids, but I’d still define myself first as foremost as an artist if I were a man or childless, and I think my life would still be plenty worthwhile.
Fine if it works for you, but it certainly wouldn’t for me. I don’t really understand the point of view that procreation is just a minor aspect of one’s life, instead of one of its most important callings and purposes.
And Hugo, feel free to try to pursue your project of undermining traditional conceptions of male and female essential natures. I’ll resist you and your allies every step of the way, and I’ll do so in the conviction that whether I win or lose, I’m right.
Faith,
well, personally, I’m totally in favour of a social system that would give every citizen a basic income to live with. I call it participatory income, and I think it would provide social security far beyond the Swedish model.
And personally, I want to be wanted rather than needed (and I suppose I am, luckily), but my romantic ideals and emotional desires probably aren’t the most appropriate guide when it comes to thinking about the coordination of human conduct in general.
“Women do not need men to be protectors. We will not need men to be protectors in the future. What we need is for men to stop hurting us. There is no excuse or justification for men physically or psychologically harming women or taking away our rights…no matter how detached they feel.”
Well, there may be no excuse or justification but I’m sure you can at least imagine something like a Hobbesian “state of nature”, a situation in which there is no “social contract”, in which the biologically stronger person has the more powerful argument – let’s say the ultimate case of “social detachment”. Males will still be needed for insemination, but beyond that?
Males are biologically peripheral compared to women when it comes to raising their offspring – If there’s no reward for moral behaviour (ie, they are needed to keep the women and their kids alive) then there is, technically, no reason to behave properly.
I think the potential of male violence against women is a biologically implicit factor of the “breeding” imbalance we’re talking about and thus for social organisation – it cannot be taken out of the equation unless human biology changes.
Doesn’t mean that all men would or will be violent, just that the potential for opportunistic behaviour is always there as long as men are stronger on average and paternal investment can be factually reduced to insemination.
So there needs to be an incentive for moral behaviour, and it needs to balance the female centrality and the male peripherality (and thus the implicit threat of violence).
Sam…I hate it when people use the implicit threat of…”make nice, Woman, or risk masculine violence.
I’m not suggesting you justify the mentality…I am suggesting that accepting its inevitability provides the basis for its continuation.
Opining that men will default to primitive brutality absent “reward” for not doing so is so disturbing on so many levels, not the least of which is the explicit contempt and mistrust of men in general.
If the goal is reconciliation and cooperation between men and women…prolly best not to preface the discussion with…”And if men don’t get what they want, boo hoo for all you women.”
Out of curiosity…what do you suggest?
I can see the argument you’re making: men require power in order to feel needed, so when they lose that power they don’t feel needed, so they lose their stake in society, and go on to cause social disorder, restoring a situaion where the ‘protector’ status of men gives them power.
It’s a logical sequence of events, but it isn’t inevitable. Because it isn’t biologically rooted. Men who are so proud, so self-righteous, that they can’t bear to see a society in which they aren’t in charge, are not the only kind of men. They are certainly not the best kind of men.
I’d also like to point out that we are not living in caves and it would make more sense to think about the real world than an imaginary caveman world when discussing gender roles, or indeed anything else.
SamSeaborn,
You’re making a lot of assumptions you’re not explaining or supporting.
1. A state of nature means the vast majority of people are violent and cruel. The empathy that is natural to human beings make this unlikely, imo.
1.a. Assuming I’m wrong about 1. The fact that men on average are stronger means that women will generally be in physical danger. The more logical assumption would be that the weak men, who certainly make up a significant percentage of humanity would be in physical danger from the average women, strong women would do fairly well, strong men would do very well, and if women banded together for one reason or another they could certainly protect each other. (Of course men could band together too but you seem to be assuming men can’t find social meaning outside of that associated with children and so wouldn’t bond with each other (which is ridiculous!)). Not to mention technology makes physical strength not so very important as long as you can avoid close contact. So all of that is immaterial.
2. Men are biologically peripheral in the sense that five minutes is less then nine months. 18 years is a lot more then 9 months! If the cultural norm is that men raise children women become biologically peripheral. Maternal investment can factually be reduced to birth.
3. The incentive for moral behavior is that it makes for a happier internal and social life.
4. Implicit threat of violence – meet technology.
I repeat myself, but so do you. Assuming everyone is just like you is dangerous to logic however assuming no one else is like because you’re so special is just as illogical. Many people prefer to be wanted and there are many ways to be needed. Women are pregnant for a tiny fraction of their lives, they still manage to feel both wanted and needed the rest of the time.
er, or just see ahunt and Froth.
“Males are biologically peripheral compared to women when it comes to raising their offspring – If there’s no reward for moral behaviour (ie, they are needed to keep the women and their kids alive) then there is, technically, no reason to behave properly.”
My fucking Goddess you’ve got one seriously low opinion of your own gender.
“I think the potential of male violence against women is a biologically implicit factor of the “breeding†imbalance we’re talking about and thus for social organisation – it cannot be taken out of the equation unless human biology changes.”
The hell it is.
Stop making excuses for male violence. Just fucking stop.
Men have no excuse whatsoever for behaving poorly. They do not have a biological one and they do not have a cultural one.
NO FUCKING EXCUSE.
ahunt,
the problem with an implicit threat is that it’s not a mentality, it may or may not materialize, but it cannot be taken away as a possibility. And that possibility will have social consequences. My perspective is probably informed by institutional economics, which has often been accused that the human behavioural assumption of “interest seeking with guile” may occasionally not be appropriate. While that is clearly the case, it is often the possibility of opportunism alone that will suffice to create slippery slopes of adverse selection. It’s probably difficult to make the mental leap from Akerlof’s lemon model of used car sales to this problem for most people who haven’t thought in these categories for a while, but it’s pretty much the same thing for me.
What would I suggest? I really don’t know. I’m more about analysis than about policy recommendations. Not least because, as I mentioned in my previous reply, I am personally quite happy with being wanted rather than needed.
There may well be dimensions that I haven’t appropriately inclued in my model – there is clearly more to human motivation than procreation and the centrality of procreation in a human life has decreased considerably. Yet I fear incompatibilities between instincts and socialisation that are creating the kind of coordination problems we talk about.
When Hugo says we need to give men the ability to feel as complete humans without being needed, I say “yeah!” – but how *do* we do that? Again, maybe biological reproduction is less important for modern humans than it was before, but it’s still a pretty important thing for most people. And that’s because there’s hardly anything as central to any living thing. Call it selfish genes or whatever – replication is a fundamental human drive.
Froth,
maybe my reply to ahunt about the possibility of the changing nature of motivation in modern societies is also a reply to you.
“maybe my reply to ahunt about the possibility of the changing nature of motivation in modern societies is also a reply to you.”
Sam,
Your “model” effectively argues that men are biologically designed to hurt me and other women if we don’t give them what they want. You effectively insult your own gender and mine when you make such a hideous argument.
How do you think an African American would feel if I (a white woman) walked up to them and said, “Hey, I need you to be my slave. I believe that you are biologically designed to be my slave. If you don’t become my slave, I’m biologically designed to kill you.” Something tells me that wouldn’t go over very well.
How do you explain the fact that many men never marry or have children yet still manage to behave in a positive manner? What about Buddhist monks? They never marry and they very rarely ever commit any act that resembles violence. Are they an anomaly to your theory, or are they just posers pretending to be men? How about all the men that I know who have never married yet somehow manage to not become rapists or murderers? Are they figments of my imagination?
You are not biologically designed to hurt me and I am not biologically designed to give any man anything unless I choose to do so. If I refuse, that’s his tough luck. There isn’t anything that you or anyone else can say to make me accept that women just have to learn to appease the men if they don’t want to be harmed. That is a complete and total bullshit patriarchal stance that does nothing but oppress women.
If men were half as bad as you seem to believe them to be the only reasonable option to control them would be to castrate all of you and track your every movement with a tracking device.
Well Sam…I suppose it is a possibility, but my money is on “adaptation” and not regression.
Tangentially, I’m currently discussing Phillip Longman’s USA Today’s wail the the west is depopulating…over at Crunchy Con:
ahunt
March 24, 2009 12:10 PM
“My prediction?
When the day comes that men in public life are repeatedly asked how they will balance career and family (and that day is coming)…women will start having more children.”
Rick
March 24, 2009 1:40 PM
“
Hmmm. My guess is that such social pressure would cause many men to forego marriage and children altogether.
I take it as given that women desire children more than men do. I’m sure relieving women of some of the burden for childcare makes motherhood even more attractive — but reallocating the burden on men will make fatherhood less attractive. Many men would opt out.”
ahunt
March 24 2009 2:22pm
“If such is indeed the case, Rick…the meme of selfish woman forgoing motherhood to pursue personal interests pretty much loses any validity…in this day and age.”
Again, there is the implicit threat, not necessarily of violence, but of masculine social withdrawal and all the baggage that comes with socially disengaged people. I get so tired of the way folks can reduce men to selfish, one dimensional creatures incapable of intellectual and behavioral adaptation to new circumstances. Were such the case, none of us would be here.
Indeed, one might argue that the conscious, wilfull refusal to adjust to a changing world is what could render men “superfluous.
(Full disclosure…we have three sons, and Mama Bear believes in the cubs.)
I’m sorry, I thought Sam was making a RELATIVE comparison of whether women “need” men for protection and whether men “need” women for reproduction, suggesting that women no longer “needing” men for protection created an asymmetry between men’s “need” for women and women’s new-found non-need for men.
And this MAKES NO SENSE, because it is never explained why men’s “need” for women to reproduce is being balanced with women’s “need” for men for protection rather than women’s “need” for men to reproduce. There is an implication in Sam’s argument that if men are not “needed” for protection/financial support, then they are not “needed” by women at all. And as far as I can see, he has not explained this logical leap.
Women and men need each other for reproduction. Most people “need” or highly desire a sexual partner with whom they also form a strong attachment for mutual support, encouragement, and intimacy. For those who are heterosexually identified, this means that men and women also “need” each other mutual support, encouragement, and intimacy. The general predominance of heterosexual relationships suggests that this “need” is not going anywhere anytime soon.
My reference to Nice Guys(TM) comes from Sam’s discussion of dis-satisfaction among men at not being “needed” for protection/financial support. Apparently, these men would prefer to be “needed” for protection/financial support than for mutual support, encouragement and intimacy. And that’s their own damn problem, not some problem with feminism or society.
Faith,
again, I think we’re talking on different levels of abstraction. I have said that men have the (statistical) *potential* to hurt women and that this *potential* is a relevant factor regardless of any actual occurrence.
“What about Buddhist monks?”
There are, without doubt, humans that find their centrality in transcendence (and abstractly realize their centrality individually). Socially, one has to wonder if the origin of religion isn’t in the male desire to do stuff – what has been called male jojo in the thread I linked to – that only men can do that keeps the universe from collapsing. Thing is, how do you do this in a non-magic world? (And yes, I repeat myself).
“How do you explain the fact that many men never marry or have children yet still manage to behave in a positive manner?”
I’m not talking about individuals but about assumed aggregates. We’re talking about potential social effects of detachment, not about a current state of affairs.
“If men were half as bad as you seem to believe them to be the only reasonable option to control them would be to castrate all of you and track your every movement with a tracking device.”
Not that there aren’t feminists who have argued along that line
. But more seriously, I’m not saying women aren’t violent, just that, as Hugo has pointed out in the title to this thread, their strategies were/are less physical because of, well, the physical differences between men and women that you don’t seem to believe are at the origin of social organisation.
ahunt,
“I get so tired of the way folks can reduce men to selfish, one dimensional creatures incapable of intellectual and behavioral adaptation to new circumstances. Were such the case, none of us would be here.”
We’re constantly evolving culturally, no question. But I think that withdrawal is one of the possibilities to deal with changed circumstances – the imbalance. The other one is service – or being needed. If the latter alternative is no longer an option, what is left but disaffection?
“Indeed, one might argue that the conscious, wilfull refusal to adjust to a changing world is what could render men “superfluous.”
Yeah, but at the same time thi disaffection may recreate a situation where they’re – again – needed in the original function. Which is what made me wonder about the inherent (long run) stability of this deal/equilibirum at the core of the “social”.
“Males are biologically peripheral compared to women when it comes to raising their offspring – If there’s no reward for moral behaviour (ie, they are needed to keep the women and their kids alive) then there is, technically, no reason to behave properly.”
How so? For nine months of pregnancy, yes, but after that either parent can raise a child, and many single or divorced fathers do. You just take these assumptions and run with your logic, but there’s no there there because WE DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, and you argue from your assumptions but do not justify them.
I’ve mostly been staying off this thread, because I’m clearly missing a major point–just not able to make heads nor tails of it.
The male contribution to reproduction is just as necessary to success as the female contribution. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it, and that’s not going to change anytime soon, if ever. So men and women are equally “necessary” from a reproductive standpoint.
Given that irrefutable fact, why does anyone think that men are ever going to lose being necessary or relevant? I just don’t get it, at all.
Sam – Is there a reason you won’t address technology as a factor in man’s statistical potential threat to women?
Further, sure, choose service. Real service which does not go along with power to dominate. I can theoretically imagine a world in which men are service oriented within family units with the female making most of the decisions due to her centrality in child rearing and picking of the male. The male is expected to provide services and support in return for which he is rewarded with membership in the family – seems theoretically stable. It wouldn’t be a particularly fair world anymore then the current or recent past world where mothers are expected to serve their families in self sacrificial ways so I probably wouldn’t support it but it sounds a lot better then the kind of warfare between the sexes you propose. But it’s all freaking scifi and not particularly relevant to any reality based discussion.
You and Buddhist monks are not so incredibly exceptional! Most men are capable of making real connections with other human beings, yes, even in the aggregate. Further, men want an emotional and sexual relationship with women whether or not they are needed (just like women want such a relationship even in a patriarchal society). Men in the aggregate are not going to become predators unless they’re culturally encouraged to do so.
We’re constantly evolving culturally, no question. But I think that withdrawal is one of the possibilities to deal with changed circumstances – the imbalance. The other one is service – or being needed. If the latter alternative is no longer an option, what is left but disaffection?
Adaptation…possibly by making oneself needed by other actions.
Yeah, but at the same time this disaffection may recreate a situation where they’re – again – needed in the original function. Which is what made me wonder about the inherent (long run) stability of this deal/equilibirum at the core of the “socialâ€.
I suppose it could…but absent nuclear holocaust…I do not see it happening in the West. For such to occur, a monumental social revolution having absolutely no moral basis in western ideals would have to occur…and I just do not see it.
“I’ve mostly been staying off this thread, because I’m clearly missing a major point–just not able to make heads nor tails of it.”
I really don’t think it’s you that’s missing the point here, Lisa.
An ‘adequately funded welfare state’? Who’s going to pay for that? Oh yeah – the taxpayer.
I can’t understand you communists. Why do you see it as the duty of other citizens to solve YOUR problems with THEIR money?
I don’t give a crap whether you get to forge your relationships based on ‘choice and desire’ or whatever pansy nonsense you’re working with, so why am I subsidizing it with the money I slave to earn?
“I have said that men have the (statistical) *potential* to hurt women and that this *potential* is a relevant factor regardless of any actual occurrence.”
-Everyone- possesses the potential to inflict harm. Men, women, children, all of us. We are each and every one of us potentially rapists, murderers, child abusers, etc. We are all also potentially extraordinary parents, saints, monks, nuns, etc. It isn’t the potential that matters; it’s what we do with the potential that matters.
However, you are not just talking about potential. You made the direct declaration that men are -biologically- designed to behave poorly if they don’t get to have children, marry, raise their children, etc. Biology is inherent. Biology can not be changed. By arguing that men are biologically designed to be violent if women do not allow them access to our bodies – and allow them to hang around after the fact to raise the children and provide protection (which we wouldn’t need if men didn’t hurt us) – you are arguing that there is no way for men and women to ever live in harmony unless women give men whatever they think they need in order to be happy…regardless of the costs to us and regardless of whether we want to provide whatever it is that men want.
“Socially, one has to wonder if the origin of religion isn’t in the male desire to do stuff – what has been called male jojo in the thread I linked to – that only men can do that keeps the universe from collapsing.”
Do you know nothing of women being denied access to religious institutions? Not because they were incapable of performing the duties of religion, but because men simply didn’t (don’t) want to give us access? And what of female-centered religions like Paganism? Paganism/Wicca is a mostly Goddess worshiping religion with mostly female followers. Paganism was also driven nearly into extinction with the rise of male-centered religions simply because female-centered religions were viewed as a threat to men’s perceived right to be dominate.
“I’m not talking about individuals but about assumed aggregates.”
I know I’ve already said this before, but you do realize that without individuals there is no collective?
“their strategies were/are less physical because of, well, the physical differences between men and women that you don’t seem to believe are at the origin of social organisation.”
As a woman, I really don’t believe that women are less likely to resort to physical measures because of our biology. I am really quite sure that it has to do with our conditioning and the fact that many of us are subjected to abuse that essentially destroys our souls making us unable to defend ourselves in any capacity until we can figure out some way to heal. Since we are constantly subjected to overwhelming levels of misogyny, healing the damage to the point which we can fight back is extraordinarily difficult for most women.
Victoria,
I don’t really see how technology changes the potential of violence or the imbalance in reproductive centrality, unless, of course, it’s reproductive technology. The pill certainly had an effect on this balance.
“Real service which does not go along with power to dominate.”
Why? It would be offsetting the priavte imbalance you describe and perceive as unfair – in an way that wouldn’t give freedom like we have come to expect it, but still, it would balance it.
“Further, men want an emotional and sexual relationship with women whether or not they are needed (just like women want such a relationship even in a patriarchal society). Men in the aggregate are not going to become predators unless they’re culturally encouraged to do so.”
May be the so. But you should accept the possibility that this may not be the case.
ahunt,
“Adaptation…possibly by making oneself needed by other actions.”
Like? Again, maybe I’m not creative enough, or maybe I’m not sufficiently willing to accept that even a majority of men could find fulfillment outside of “being needed” by their family.
“and I just do not see it.”
Probably not. But that doesn’t mean that the disaffection problem isn’t a relevant social variable for the cubs.
Actually Sam…been at this for thirty years…and I think I can confidently say that husbands and fathers make themselves incredibly useful in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with reproduction, protection from physical threat…or the size of his wallet.
Technology changes the comparative advantage men have when it comes to violence. Any and all groups in society have the potential for violence which is just one of the many reasons you don’t want to oppress any group too badly and want them to buy into oppression. Lack of pandering to male ego does not count as terrible oppression.
What exactly do you envisage these disaffected men doing? Roving the countryside killing random people? Beating up random women and children? Raping at will? All individually or in groups?
I’m just confused as to what the hell you’re talking about.
I don’t see any of the above happening because like the other posters here I think men are capable of morality and aren’t going to abandon it because they don’t have power over birth. But, if men were suddenly to become much more physically dangerous, technology means that they wouldn’t be significantly more dangerous then women. Sheer self interest means men aren’t going to attack those they think they can not attack successfully. Disaffection is disaffection but fear for one’s life is fear for one’s life. Tech takes away comparative strength advantage, which also means why would women turn to men for protection (in keeping with the cycle you propose) instead of for example women who specialize in protection?
Also, in a scenario where women give up power and agency in order to appease men why aren’t you afraid of this leading to women becoming violent and exercising their potential threat? As women become less and less used to oppression but men don’t change their behavior this is more and more likely no? (Personally I think not so because women are too emotionally invested in men that they know plus our society is pretty damn non radically violent but in keeping with your theories it makes sense.)
“Why? It would be offsetting the private imbalance you describe and perceive as unfair – in an way that wouldn’t give freedom like we have come to expect it, but still, it would balance it.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Are you voting for having a cultural expectation of service in males?
“May be the so. But you should accept the possibility that this may not be the case.”
Why in the world? All the evidence points to this being true. It’s a human need.
“I’m not sufficiently willing to accept that even a majority of men could find fulfillment outside of “being needed†by their family.”
This! Not to mention that bringing in income, doing housework, cooking, caring for the children, providing sex, providing emotional support and networking are all ways of being needed within families.
Okay, I’m done. Sorry for the gazillion comments but *shakes head* the complete lack of sense confuses me.
Victoria,
the reduced comparative advantage due to weapons technology is a fair and relevant point that I did not consider to this point -
“What exactly do you envisage these disaffected men doing? Roving the countryside killing random people? Beating up random women and children? Raping at will? All individually or in groups?
I’m just confused as to what the hell you’re talking about.”
Well, to be honest, I think all that may be a possibility if that disaffection breaks down social order. As I said in my reply to ahunt I don’t envision that to happen anytime soon, but that doesn’t solve the problem of disaffection and the potential violence that may result completely. Two weeks ago a disaffected youth in Germany went amok and killed a couple of teenage girls that he claimed had disrespected him. Statistical anomaly, sure. But I think we’ll see more of this kind of phenomenon. And even those who say that male disaffection is a social problem don’t really think about the boys and men who are suffering through this – note your language – “Lack of pandering to male ego does not count as terrible oppression.” Just saying.
“This! Not to mention that bringing in income, doing housework, cooking, caring for the children, providing sex, providing emotional support and networking are all ways of being needed within families.”
But how is this not about creating dependency?
But how is this not about creating dependency?
HEY;-*
You were the one concerned that men were becoming unnecessary. NOW you are worried about “neediness” in women?
Methinks you’re a trifle disingenuous here. The fact that couples depend on one another is solid evidence that your fears of masculine irrelevance are overblown.
ahunt,
“NOW you are worried about “neediness†in women?”
I’m not. I was just using the term to illustrate the relevance of “needed” as opposed to “wanted”.
“The fact that couples depend on one another is solid evidence that your fears of masculine irrelevance are overblown.”
Well, I hope so. Still, the biological imbalance is there, as always, and we humans have to live with it, as always. We’ll see how our social structures adjust to balance it out in changed technological and changed economical circumstances.
“Statistical anomaly, sure.”
Uh, no, that is -not- a statistical anomaly. Shit like that is an everyday occurrence. Shit like that has been happening since the advent of patriarchal society..the very type of society which you are arguing must be maintained in order to -hinder- male violence against females.
Sam,
You still haven’t addressed how the five minutes versus nine months comparison compares to the 18 years imbalance.
No one on here is against the kind of dependence suggested above. That is often a healthy interdependence that does not easily lend itself to abuse. That is how most people get to feel needed , both male and female. Everyone’s happy!
Pfffft. Whatever crusade floats your tiny little boat, buddy.
Hello people. As a blog comment I made years ago elsewhere has caused the hijacking of one thread and a completely new one based on it, you may now genuflect towards my raw internet power. No superfluousness for me!
Not to mention a Pandagon thread. This is causing my trolly self a great deal of egotistical glee.
Sam, the male desire to do stuff *that only men can do* isn’t a flipping biologically based need. It’s a purely societal notion, dare I say based in pure ego. It’s as nutty a notion as “blondes have more fun”. You’re confusing proscription and description.
Plus, women have believed in magic, too, for as long as there have been people. Honestly. I don’t know where some of you guys come up with the idea that women are walking uteri and nothing more. Oh, wait…
Well, I raised two kids through their adolescence, teen years, and into their degrees, and with zero help from their mothers, and active attempts to undercut me from the state – so I hardly feel unneccessary or superfluous. More so, since my daughter chooses to send me “Mother’s Day” cards, and her mother has managed to alienate her so much Terri refers to her as “my incubator” (Kind of a turnaround on the perjorative “Sperm Donor”)my bona fides as a parental unit aren’t really in question.
In fact, my daughter’s accomplishments are ones that would fit very well with the professed feminist ideal of being a woman, except that to accuse her of being a feminist would probably be one of the few things that would provoke her to slap the taste out of your mouth. Well, that and being a conservative, and voting such.
Point is, the point is missed about reproduction. Sowing oats and spreading seed isn’t what men want. What we want – like women – is to have children of our own and to be an equal party (And by this, not a “You get a vote, but I get two” junior parent and assistant mother role) in the raising of them.
If this is regarded as “not important for men” line forms on the right to bear children in a state hospital and then draw or be assigned a non-biological child to raise. Um. Didn’t think so.
And such scumbags and the straw-absent-dads aren’t getting or keeping their genes in the pool by Jedi Mind Tricks, either.
Hugo misses something…frequently.
We “no longer” live in a world requiring traditional masculinity.
From the coddled, extended adolescence of academe, it may seem like that.
But our history was mostly one where the laws of physics ignored your syllogisms, nature red in tooth and claw was the only thing on the tube, and nasty, brutish and short was as good as it got.
We have achieved our circumstances–geographically and temporarily rare–by virtue of an infinity of men and women going just the incremental bit beyond what was necessary for their own survival.
And we–some of us, anyway–pretend that the fragile line of hard men and women who keep the hard world away do not exist. Or they exist, but are considered like the shabbat goy. So the sheep may safely graze, boasting to each other of their clean hands.
Read three from Kipling (aka “The Master”)
A Counting-Out Song.
Sons of Martha.
Tommy.
Also Peggy Noonan’s post 9-11 essay, “Welcome Back, Duke” Hint. If you leave out the comma you get too many hits.
Now, if the Patriarchy would ever get off its dead ass and begin effectively enforcing laws prohibiting sexual dimorphism, things would be a lot better. And men wouldn’t be confused as to what, exactly, they’re supposed to be prepared to do.
Just for grins: Saw a documentary about a Dark Ages cemetery discovered in Britain. The archaeologists presumed the guys were monks.
Why?
They were bigger than the average guy from that era, which meant they were of a more affluent class and did not suffer–as much–from poor pre-and-post natal nutrition. They might have been secular upper class, too, as the latter were also larger than average. But the bones lacked evidence of frequent wounds, so they weren’t fighting all the time. By default, then, they were probably monks.
We are one–to pick something more or less at random–EMP attack from those great days.
And we might find Tommy went on strike.
Pingback: What I’ve been trying to say for the past twenty years « stellatex
Pingback: i’d like four tacos, please » Blog Archive » hey, everyone, i have a bad metaphor!