Happy National Novel Writing Month! (and Halloween)
2021-10-31
2021-10-26
More Pseudo-Feminist Whiney Virtue-Signaling
Medium Article I Posted a lot of stuff on
This is probably the most (or even only) relevant point you've raised. Pity you did not elaborate on it. As recently as the early 70s women's pregnancy was not an acceptable image. Women walking around with a pregnant tummy was "upsetting." We still, in my view, have an inadequate memetic inventory around pregnancy (and nursing/breastfeeding). This needs to change, and doing so would probably go a long way to address what you seem to be trying to get at in this piece.
It's all about how people are allowed to react. I think it's safe to say that there are not enough images in the media of women nursing their babies. The end of the Japanese movie Tampopo shows a woman feeding her baby right at the very end, the movie is about food, and the non-verbal message is "this is where it begins." Another is Bitter Harvest (1981), starring Ron Howard where a farming area is contaminated and a visiting scientist stops a wife who's about to feed her baby, saying "oh, no, didn't you understand what I said--YOUR milk is contaminated, too," whereupon she begins weeping and rushes out of the house to smash open a huge tank of milk to run all over the ground. It's very powerful and it puts breastfeeding and the mommy-baby relationship at the center of the narrative (I'm tearing up a bit as I write this), as something that MOVES the narrative, and not as something "dirty" or "upsetting" or "gratuitous."
That's what I feel most of what you're talking about, and what you're saying about is doing--arguing that it okay to do something that shocks others, and not being "allowed" to do that is what the problem is.
Women get pregnant, have breasts, have babies, menstruate, feed their babies with their breasts, are on average shorter and store their body fat differently, grow hair in different (and some same) places, all of which is fascinating to men (and other women and girls, to be honest), and men are uncontrollably drawn to women, like a kind of magical force (women may feel the same toward men, I can't say for sure). Being compelled by something without understanding it causes fear, which in turn causes anger and resentment.
You're not helping these "men/Patriarchy" you're continually blaming understand anything, you're not identifying what women really need to deal with their real problems (being able to wear yoga pants and halter tops on the street so that only the men they like react to them and the others don't--really? REALLY?) which is something like having real childcare options, baby seats BUILT INTO all cars, menstruation products available for free anywhere you might find toilet/tissue paper (and also in the pockets, backpacks, car glove compartments, etc., of all the men around them), being able to chat about their pregnancy with anybody, and being able to whip the twins out (both if so desired) in a crowded restaurant and chat about that, too, or be ignored.
Wild guess--if you actually focus on that REAL stuff, all this "wear crazy outfits" thing may fall into place and stop being an "issue."
You have not made your case on this cause and effect. "Women can't wear bikinis (whatever THAT means) is because of marriage," does not follow. They are probably two distinct things. Marriage is men "owning" women, and YES we should probably take a hard look at why we have that and what it looks like now. If you're asserting that everything bad that happens to women is the result of deliberate considered decisions on the part of individual men who are following the directives of some massive male conspiracy, then yes, I guess you can relate everything bad that happens to women, anything they fail at, feel bad about, feel frustrated about, to all other bad things through that single central unifying thread.I would say that, obviously, that's overkill, but also intellectual laziness and it doesn't cast any light on the problem, or any problem."Bad stuff is bad" is a tautology, and like most tautologies, while they may seem profound, they do not illuminate, and they cannot be built on.Keep digging.I'm not trying to be mean -- my impatience stems from the fact that I love women and am moved by their predicament (and even more moved, often to tears, by stories depicting women's liberation and self-determination, as opposed to complaining about the perceived status quo), but I also take as axiomatic (perhaps wrongly) that men's liberation may only be attempted AFTER women's liberation has been (mostly?) accomplished. I worry that much of what you're saying goes in circles, fails to make progress, or just muddies the waters even further.men once again concluded
Who were these men? "Victorian" comes from Queen Victoria, who was, as most queens are, a woman. This seems like a really sloppy statement--it's unclear who's concluding what about what. Give this whole "The Patriarchy made me do it" thing a rest, please!men and women in sexualized poses, wearing a swimsuit or underwear, they tend to objectify women — not men
I feel like you're forgetting that showing a member of one's gender who is super-sexy, in sexy clothing objectifies the same-gender person looking at it by making them feel inadequate. If I see a depiction of an attractive man dressed in sexy clothes, which reveal him to be better-looking than me, in better shape than me, looking "richer" than me, "happier" than me, I feel bad about myself, independent of whether some hypothetical woman looks at him and "objectifies" him (whatever THAT means). As a same-gender viewer of such media, I can't KNOW that women are now comparing me to this fictional poster-boy man who is better than me in all respects, or whether she talks about him (or all men) in objectifying dehumanizing with other women. They probably do. I probably get to hear objectifying comments and attitudes from women as a result of this kind of media, but that's hard/impossible to measure and it's not the point. The real, subjective experience is that I feel worse about myself, thanks to the action of the advertising and entertainment industries, they use their ability to make me feel bad about myself to sell stuff, and, as you say, nobody seems to be trying to stop them.to the extent that women are
This kind of statement makes me think of apples and oranges. What is the basis for this comparison? It might be safe to say that men are compared much more cruelly based on their "usefulness", that is, how much money they have, their possessions, how impressive their job is, how well they can put down other men, etc., etc. Just to take one of many examples. Men are also rated on how well they "perform" sexually, perhaps much more than women--one might say that women just "show up and they win" which may be true in many, many other areas, i.e., women are "human beings" while men are very much "human doings." Statements like this trouble me because they tacitly discount men's suffering, which makes them wrong and therefore not helpful. Behind it all, men's suffering and lives and just less important, less "compelling" than that of women (just count how often it comes up in media, etc.). Men ARE judged on their looks, their weight, baldness (not as much of a problem for women), the size and attractiveness of their genitalia, their height, their faces, their physical strength, their fear of spiders (women seem to get a pass on this one). It shouldn't be a contest.But in spite of all of this, my problem with this kind of statement is not so much that it's vague and probably mostly wrong, but that it misses the point. Are all women's (and men's) problems and need for liberation going to be solved if men (or "society" or "the Patriarchy") start "letting women be sexy" without "objectifying" them?sexualization is a matter of perspective. It takes place in the eye and mind of the observer
More importantly, it's a physiological reaction. Intimidation and fear are another example. We don't take the position that people have the "right" to do that to others. Disgust, laughter, sadness, and joy are other reactions that one person may cause in another through their actions (people like comedians do it deliberately and are often paid for it). Trying to take someone seriously when they are deliberately trying to provoke a physiological response (sometimes ridiculously and ineptly so) is a hardship. It cuts both ways, all ways. The media are full of images of women mocking men who are trying to impress in a pathetic way...and also "falling for" men who succeed.last choice makes some people — ahem, mostly men
Yes, because men can't do it, can't "cheat" (as Simone de Beauvoir termed it, use the "escape hatch") and marry into power and money, or (excuse the term) screw their way to the top. Men have to go to war as well--women don't. Men have to work their whole lives away--they have a lot fewer options, certainly not ones which are sanctioned by society. Women should not be mocked for the pain of childbirth or their menstruations--that's cruel and mean. Making fun of people who are drowning if you're able to breathe underwater is also cruel. Women flaunting the fact that they can screw their way (sorry to be so blunt) out of responsibilities and obligations which men simply cannot is ugly, cruel, and mean. Men have to fight their way up the patriarchy, and deal with all the 360-degree bullying 24/7. Women are oppressed by the patriarchy, too, but they don't have to live in it for their whole lives. The Patriarchy is something that primarily oppresses men, it is the hierarchy we have to squeeze into and cannot escape, unlike women (c.f. de Beauvoir), who can use their God-given sexual powers to effortlessly glide in and out of it as they please (and if you don't know the truth of this, you need to do more research). Flaunting this and mocking men for how trapped they are is just cruel and mean. Hilary Clinton talked about applying for law school and the boys who were also applying were begging her to drop out since if she took one of their spots, they would be sent to Vietnam and die. Think about it. There is so much messed up about that anecdote that it's hard to know where to start. Unless you're so wrapped up in your own one-sided political agenda as to be blinded by it, it's obvious that there's a lot of oppression of both genders going on there. "You don't get to go to school, not because you're not smart enough (you are), but that if you get in and not me, then I get taken off to be killed." Where do you start at not being selfish and making the system better? Where do you start?But even when women wear revealing clothing, or nothing at all, and pose in sexually explicit ways, that does not give anyone the right to treat them as sex objects and assault them.
This is absolutely true. One subtlety, rather like free speech, is that you have the right to say what you want, but if your only purpose is to hurt others, rather than communicate, it loses its value and may become hate speech. Likewise, if one dresses, presents oneself publicly, in a way such that the primary objective is to upset others or make them uncomfortable (for example, one's clothes aren't even comfortable for oneself, as often happens, i.e., wearing things one would not wear in a million years--high heels? yikes!--if the objective were anything other than "making a splash" of some kind) then that, I would say, undermines the otherwise valid notion that we should be able to wear whatever we want (including nothing). Yes, it's a big grey area, but we all must acknowledge the legal ramifications of yelling "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse or if I walk down a crowded street yelling obscenities at the top of my voice that I can't hold that I'm NOT deliberately trying to offend and upset people.society persuades women to self-objectify
This starts to allude to a major problem, which seems to be internalized (self-)oppression of women of themselves and of other women. Even women are "allowed" (by whom?) to be there own agents, they seem to get into trouble. It seems to me that liberation needs to go further, or got off the track along the way somewhere.society persuades women to self-objectify
So at this point it's not "The Patriarchy" that's forcing women to, or deciding that women will do whatever (who are these Patriarchs? I don't think I'm on the mailing list....). Now "society" is "persuading" woman to do something. This is rather hard to keep track of, certainly to place blame or formulate a remedy...and what exactly IS the problem here?Creepy AF..Sorry you went through this. I'm sympathetic but sadly can't be fully empathetic. As a cis male, I and others like me can never fully know what that was like.Thus, It's the responsibility of all cis males to develop our emotional intelligence and do our best to listen to, learn from, respect, and understand not only women, but also all people of non-binary and fluid genders.When I have "rap sessions" with my gay and trans friends, it seems to be the best when it's two-way. I love to hear their perspective and insights, but they also seem to get a lot out of mine. A lot of time they have some grasp of the "straight white male" head-trip, but other times they're surprised, can learn things, and maybe wind up less afraid that every SWM is the Bad Guy. Maybe everybody, in their heart of hearts, gay, trans, straight, everybody, believes that gay, trans, etc. people are really just whacky, defective spin-offs of the prevailing straight paradigm (*). And if I believe that your experience is really just a "little more than, little less than" my own experience, than I'm not going to see you as an equal, and I'm not going to see the value and depth you have to offer me.(*) This is touched on wonderfully at the end of the film Another Country, with Rupert Everett, by the way.‘women who sexualize themselves and use their sexuality for profit and gain should also be held personally responsible for the consequences of their choices.’
It is not a woman who is doing the sexualising...it is society and the male gaze. A woman might choose to wear something because it makes her feel good, because she finds it empowering. She is not asking for anything by her choice other than respect. To even think otherwise is to fall into the sexist trap.Women have sexual powers which they can use to gain advantage. When they use them to get things which don't belong to them, to avoid punishment, or to hurt others, it starts to become a slippery slope. We feel the same way about the wealthy when they buy their way into something, or out of something, are ostentatious with their wealth. It's just mean and nobody likes it and at some point it begins to border on the illegal.It is not impossible to cut objectifying media out of our visual diets
I sincerely hope you're right about this. I am so sad to hear women my age use social media images as a standard for how they should look. I want to be able to age without manufactured insecurities, thank you very much. No age is immune I guess. Great piece!12
In the late 80s the Danish government ran a kind of "all naked" campaign with the objective of desensitizing the public to over-sexy images in media. I'm not sure if it worked.This is the name for "stapler" in Japanese (a propos of nothing)Thanks for an excellent article with many sanguine points (and no shade-throwing, as some overly defensive respondents claim), including the pervasive theme that those viewed are of no less import or value than those doing the viewing, regardless of context.==========================But one thing that remains constant across various periods and patriarchal societies is the assumption that the female body exists, first and foremost, for male sexual and viewing pleas...
Perhaps we should just build a gigantic wall and place ALL men on one side, and ALL women on thee other. Is that what you want?Or perhaps we BLIND... LITERALLY BLIND women and men from birth so that THIS ISSUE, that is DRIVING A WALL BETWEEN and PITTING MALE AGAINST FEMALE NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. "???"WHICH OF THESE DO YOU PREFER?57
I think we can't get far without interrogating marriage. An institution for oppressing women? Why? Obviously a matrilineal society is primordial--women owning land/property where they and their children live, men (the other 50% of the population) drifting in and out basically as studs and bringing whatever goods/work as to curry sexual favors of the women. Marriage has the effect of dragging 50% of the population (men) into engagement with the government/religion by being responsible for one or more women and their children. Now men have fixed address, are legally expected to work, pay taxes, serve in the army, etc., all of which was impossible to administer when they were drifting around like ronin-stud-samurai with no consistent motivation to work. Oppressing women seems like an afterthought. Maybe we can think of a different system.Actually Simone de Beauvoir proposed such things (e.g., women have uterus cut out at birth) as an example of the kinds of ridiculous solutions are probably needed to "fix" some of these perceived "problems".Hey Nick!So, highlights a problem with all patriarchal societies here.She says that all patriarchal societies operate on the assumption that the "female body exists, first and foremost, for male sexual and viewing pleasure".You don't disagree with her. And you offer a solution to this problem: build a gigantic wall and place all men and women on opposing sides?How about we go with something less drastic than that? Something more productive and in line with what we are capable of as humans?How about we unlearn this way of thinking. How about we grow up from this backward and harmful way of thinking about women. We cannot help how people thought in the past but we can help how we think now. We can graduate past this way of viewing women. Many of us already have. Why don't you join us instead of allowing your emotions keep you tied to a way of thinking that serves very little?We have the power to unlearn things we have learned from our society. We can do better when we do this. We can move forward with our evolution, understanding that women's bodies do not exist firstly, and foremost for male sexual and viewing pleasure.Wouldn't this be easier than building a wall and separating men and women for an eternity?Just a thought. I'm going to unfollow you now because we are not on the same wave length. And no, I don't hate men or you. I just am careful about what I consume.Wishing you growth.75
Our previous USA President had as major platform the building of just such a wall. Perhaps silly idea, but a lot of people liked it and (partial) funds were allocated.All stupid solutions to an imaginary non-problem are perhaps on equal standing. Maybe take first the log out of your own eye and use it to nail up and help build the wall that will safe us all from ourselves! (^>^)you're not "unlearning" shit, I get the cat calling, name calling etc But trying to stop men looking at a woman's body is basically trying to change biology, unless you're asking for some injection to reduce male testosterone so they start acting like women and basically kill their sex drive and hormones...Hey right back Liyah,Thanks for your thoughts, opinions and sentiments on my response to Katie J. I appreciate your time in doing so, as well your personal views on this tense subject matter.What I do not appreciate is your blatant misread of who I am, and what I believe in. The fact that you stopped following me on a count of your misread of me says much to me. Though I do understand your sentiments... unfounded as they were-are.Nonetheless, I'd like to return a direct reply to all you've stated. Please find my responses or replies below yours in bold italic like this...So,Katie Jglnhighlights a problem with all patriarchal societies here.Is this "your" rendition of what Katie did, or are you speakinbg "For her?" I personally try 'not to' assume what others mean in their prose, but to ask instead.She says that all patriarchal societies operate on the assumption that the "female body exists, first and foremost, for male sexual and viewing pleasure".I'm sorry, are you quoting her exact words? Because I do not recall her stating these words as you've just stated them. "?" As for what males or women are meant for, or were created for, I think this goes BOTH WAYS, that Males were Created with the need of females sexually to pro-create. As it's stated in the bible. Do you beleive in God Liyah? And without Males and Females being sexual, how do you suppose that "You and I, or anyone else would exist in this world at all?" Viewing is a Natrual Human Character Trait. And it doesn't just enlist viewing each other. We are EXTREMELY VISUALLY NATURED. As it was once stated by an extremely wise person, and noted, "We learn from what we SEE", as-well it's been stated, "First attraction is visual." Would you argue these?You don't disagree with her. And you offer a solution to this problem: build a gigantic wall and place all men and women on opposing sides?No, actually I don't in many ways. I find Katie to be a very insightful, wise, and expressive human being, who happems to be a writer as well and a damn good one at that! My statement as you posted above, (IF understood correctly) was to share my utter frustration with women and men warring, as I stated in my lengthy comments to Katie. As it happens, "IT IS NOT HOW I THINK or BELIEVE", not in the least. But YOU ASSUME the WORST of me, rather than ASK to learn of what I meant by that statement. For this reason, as my family and friends have known all along, "To ASSUME ME, rather than to take the more thoughtful, NOT JUDGMENTAL PATH, and ASK ME what I meant IF it struck someone wrong, is to truly OFFEND me. And for this reason, I ask YOU now... "Why did YOU CHOOSE to take what I stated in a NEGATIVE LIGHT or VIEW and ASSUME the WORST of me? So much so, that you ended this response to me with "You have decided to unfollow me, because we do not see things in the same light or view? Capped off with wishing me "Growth" "?"Even though YOU have JUDGED ME harshly as YOU clearly have. Assumed me wrongly. "I WON'T be JUDGING YOU, nor will I be unfollowing YOU", because in my world, It's OKAY TO DISAGREE with others views, thoughts or sentiments. But IF I DO DISAGREE... I typicall SPEAK UP hoping to hear their reasoning IF they'll be so kind to share. And thus, lending me TRUE INSIGHT into their words, thoughts, beliefs etc... (If that makes sense?)Please know from me here directly:"While I appreciate those who wish to clap, follow, subscribe to me as a writer, I honestly don't care whether or not they do. It honetsly makes NO DIFFERENCE IN MY LIFE... my reality. So... unfollow me, "AS YOU WISH!" To each.... their own! *Smiles softly!*How about we go with something less drastic than that? Something more productive and in line with what we are capable of as humans?Here, above, it became crystal clear to me, that YOU had completely MISSED the point of my comments noted. NEVER DID "I" SAY, "I WANTED" this gigantic wall to DIVIDE US... men and females. I suggested it, as a possible way of STOPPING THE FIGHTING or WARRIN. G between the GENDERS... MALES and FEMALES! Was this a realistic suggestion? One that WE COULD DO actually? YES ACTUALLY... IT IS SOMETHING WE COULD DO, but OMG! I sincerely HOPE NOT!Do YOU TRULY THINK or BELIEVE, that WE AS HUMANS are BEYOND THAT as YOU stated above Liyah? Because WE CLEARLY AREN'T PASS IT or BEYOND IT. In fact, WE are STILL IN IT. MEN and WOMEN... BATTLING AGAINST EACH OTHER, when IN FACT... way back WHEN... We were ACTUALLY LESS BATTLING with each other. OPENLY AS WE ARE NOWADAYS!"I" UNDERSTAND the grief the women are EXPRESSING. I grew up WITH THREE SISTERS and many brothers. And IN OUR HOUSEHOLD we were TAUGHT... NOT TO CONDONE such harsh treatmennt of others. Male and Female alike. Instead we WERE TAUGHT... TO RESPECT EACH OTHER.... FOR WHO WE EACH ARE. Men-Women, Children-Teens-Adults-Elders etc...And this is the place that "I" come from here or anywhere else, when chatting, talking, reading, speaking with my fellow humam beings of all genders.How about we unlearn this way of thinking. How about we grow up from this backward and harmful way of thinking about women. We cannot help how people thought in the past but we can help how we think now. We can graduate past this way of viewing women. Many of us already have. Why don't you join us instead of allowing your emotions keep you tied to a way of thinking that serves very little?I LOVE IT! How about WE DO! God, what a fantastic THOUGHT! I am WITH YOU 100% on this you suggest in the first line. But I ask you,"Are you suggesting this place BACK IN TIME is where "I" reside?" because that is exactly how it's coming across. I hope not. "?"WE CAN HELP each other, to think, see, view each other in far better ways. That is for sure. But, HOW DO WE DO THIS Liyah? Have you an idea?I ask, because, in looking back over time, I don't see much change really. Especially considering how much OTHERS have TRIED or ATTEMPTED to DO, JUST as you JUST MENTIONED.I am WITH YOU on the majority of this, up and until you decided to take a direct STAB/ASSAULT of me, when you stated,"Why don't you join us instead of allowing your emotions keep you tied to a way of thinking that serves very little?"THAT was/is not kind at all. Did you INTEND to take a STAB at me as this seems Liyah?My "Emotions" are for more IN CHECK than you can possibly fathom or KNOW for that matter.... which YOU DON'T and should NOT ASSUME TO KNOW of ANYONE beside YOUR OWN SELF. Does my use of CAPS cause you to ASSUME I'm emotionally unstable? My choice of words? My directness in what I state to others? What is it, that caused YOU to assume me in such a way?Am "I to assume" that YOU want to murder me, because you appear to be taking a POKE or a STAB at me with YOUR wording?I don't. But SHOULD I?We have the power to unlearn things we have learned from our society. We can do better when we do this. We can move forward with our evolution, understanding that women's bodies do not exist firstly, and foremost for male sexual and viewing pleasure.YES! I applaud YOU SINCERELY here as well! I AGREE! WE DO, and WE CAN. Though in the realms of the human world, FORGETTING SOMETHING WE HAVE GONE THROUGH... isn't EASY AT ALL. Depends on the cituation or circumstance as they were/are. But YES!. . .WE "CAN" DO BETTER! *smiles!*But here again, you stated females bodies are not for male sexual and viewing pleasure. I CAN agree with you, WITH the choice word "PLEASURE" added to it. In re; NOT JUST FOR PLEASURE. I agree. But for SEX and PROCREATION... WE BETTER HAVE THAT... or WE'RE DONE "NATURALLY"... (Not including TEST TUBE CREATION)Wouldn't this be easier than building a wall and separating men and women for an eternity?IS "ANYTHING" truly easy in life, especially in THESE TIMES Liyah? IS it EASY to END THIS PLAGUE, DISEASE, PANDEMIC, COVID-19 with ALL of it's variants etc...?In lieu of the REALITY of what WOULD BE IF we were to Build such a wall, or place everyone of a different gender ONTO A REMOTE ISLAND in the middle of thee OCEAN where there was NO WAY of escaping or meeting each other ever again, I'd say,"I'd MUCH RATHER NOT see THEE END of US in such a way. Because IF were were to do so, WE WOULD NO LONGER BE... in SHORT TIME I assume.My wish, is that WE STOP THE GENDER WARRING, and START HELPING EACH OTHER TO SUCCEED IN LIFE.... AS HUMAN BEINGS.... NOT GENDER SPECIFIC!I sincerely HOPE this makes SENSE to YOU, and ANYONE ELSE who happens to read this. Since it's being posted.Just a thought. I'm going to unfollow you now because we are not on the same wave length. And no, I don't hate men or you. I just am careful about what I consume."Just a thought?" That's an interesting way of putting it. Why not just SAY?Regardless, *Nods softly!* There are only three words that come to mind, as I read this last paragraph from YOU Liyah. Especially considering that YOU have JUDGED ME like this, and ASSUMED ME WRONGLY as YOU have done...And those three words are simply these,"AS YOU WISH!" *Smiles softly!*Wishing you growth.Thanks kindly, as I do YOU as-well!Thanks for sharing as you have. Stay well out there!Kindly always,Nick10.21.2021 Happy Solstice day! :--)) Good Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)