Skip to main content

View Diary: Threatening Traditions - Part II: Traditional Masculinity (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe, come up to speed on (14+ / 0-)

    core feminist arguments, before trying to participate in a discussion like this? If you understand feminism fully, you understand the context in which the discussion in this "open forum" is taking place.

    Then, it doesn't look like you're thread-jacking, and people don't get belligerent.

    It isn't our job to spoon-feed you; you must do your own digging.

    Supple and turbulent, a ring of men/ Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn...

    by karmsy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 06:25:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Suggest substitute "at all" for "fully" (4+ / 0-)

      Understanding feminism "fully" is probably a 4 year university course, and at least a half dozen years living and working in the wider world.

      But even little children "get" gender stereotypes ... more's the pity.

      •  But a lot of us feel that gender ineqaulity (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silencio, sfbob

        underlies everything. It's the whole paradigm for discrimination, generally: rich against poor, light-skinned against dark-skinned, straight against lbgt, and so on.

        Understanding the pervasiveness and reach of gender inequality, whether or not gender discrimination harms you "personally," is the crux of understanding what the progressive movement is all about countering.

        Supple and turbulent, a ring of men/ Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn...

        by karmsy on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 05:01:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I agree ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfbob, serendipityisabitch, Silencio

          I'm not sure what kind of society Queen Hyppolyta presided over ... but once out of the Time of Myth, (and no written records)  we see patriarchies diligently striving to become Empires ... the  "war of each against all" -- and the inescapable fact that in these patriarchies "women of all classes   enjoy fewer of the benefits and protections of the societies in which they live than their male equivalents"

          Any noblewoman might be able to ride her Hunt over any peasant's crops at will -- but that peasant was still entitled to beat his wife whenever the mood took him.

          (And don't get me started on the place/role/standing  of women in the New Left and Black Power movements circa 1971 -- )

          So, do I think gender studies should be added to high school civics curricula ?   Of course.  And I know that universities have had whole departments teaching the  in the subject for the past forty years.

          But I don't expect Women's Studies to find their way into Common Core, anytime soon .

          So ... feminism becomes very much a "at home" or "self-study" endeavor.

          For me ... Grandma was a "Union Maid" and Mother was a "Hunter Girl" ...  so I was at least prepped to take Millet, Steinem et al seriously -- and for that matter to see a change of consciousness as a "way out" for any number of culturally determined problems I found personally or generally offensive.

          And, I am told, since then young men have become far more "helpful" with home and child care ... and Wonder Woman is no longer the ONLY positive role model in popular entertainment.

          There's 8,000 years of history to undo.

          •  That narrative is flawed. (0+ / 0-)
            Any noblewoman might be able to ride her Hunt over any peasant's crops at will -- but that peasant was still entitled to beat his wife whenever the mood took him.
            You assume to know the culture of every society and that prohibitions against beating one's wife hadn't existed in history. That's simply not true. Also the men in question as peasant farmers were often subject to military conscription where they had to by hand stab, hack or beat other men to death or murdered by the same brutal means.  In smaller tribal societies all the men were often trained to be warriors from childhood.  Then we have the children who were beaten by both men and women to keep them in line.  Entire societies were  soaked in violence but you only choose one party who view as a victim in it all while excluding the ones obligated to inflict and be subjected to violence in order to protect the rest. Your perspective is problematic to say the least.

            To me it's obvious that people prefer peace inflicting or being subject to violence. That should be the starting point for the discourse on the subject.

            A lot more was going on over those 8000 years but I'll grant you men were dominant but most often while being dominated by others more powerful men who used violence to impose that dominance and most often by the hand of the very men they were dominating.

             Where is the recognition of all this?  Rather than blaming a gender shouldn't we be examining the entire social structure and circumstances that necessitated all this and no the 'patriarchy' won't due.  There are too many other forces at work to settle on men did it.  More realistically men had to do it. If any violent group existed within striking range then preparing to inflict violence as a means of defense wasn't really a choice.  To assume that another sex would avoid these conflicts simply by their good nature is absurd since women often enough inflict violence as a means of asserting dominance. The fact they could not physically dominate men does not preclude them from using that capacity if the threat of male retaliation were not a threat.

             

            and the inescapable fact that in these patriarchies "women of all classes   enjoy fewer of the benefits and protections of the societies in which they live than their male equivalents"
            I disagree because it's men who were expected to defend these societies from violent aggression while the women were to be kept safe from the conflict. They weren't the a protected class women were. In the absents of external aggression you might have a legitimate argument assuming there wasn't internal strife where men had to fight to protect what they had including their wife and children. We should also assume they loved their wives and children since that's not a uncommon trait in human males even if they society regarded them as property he was obligated to provide for and protect.  

            Amid all that injustice and violence we also had slavery of both sexes and those people had fewer rights and almost no protections. There is almost none who can't be counted as victims of oppressive forces in societies like this but I think much of the cruelty was born of even crueler necessities along with some less flattering aspects of human nature.  

            Looking from the peace and comfort established after thousands of years of human conflict emerging into massive prosperous societies with technology sufficient to turn the planet into a radioactive waste land we should be a bit more humble in our assessment of the past we emerged from.  If not for the futility of war between the great powers who knows where we'd be.

            For certain there is and was a need for women's liberation but the gender blame game is of limited value as a permanent institution.  Abandoning roles is a choice we made and those who'd continue to advocate for the rejection of those roles should not be imposing new ones by assuming things good or bad things about people's nature or tendencies based on their sex.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site