You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: May I “Mansplain” Something for a Minute, Please?
Also, “this is just the way things have been” is an argument laid out on a platform that is directly in opposition to things just being the way they have. Most advances in humanity are direct challenges to the status quo, with history dotted with individuals fought against as they swim against the flow.
I think these situations will continue to crop up in the future as new hurdles are presented to jump over, but this is where humanity has always been at its best - thriving against adversity.
I think a huge difference in your view and mine is that you perceive that we have far more control over ourselves than I do. Our deepest evolutionary programming, such as male hierarchy and competition, just IS. It can’t be consciously changed (except by evolution over thousands of years). Attempts to shame or suppress masculine traits have very negative consequences (just as attempts to suppress female traits have). We are far better off dealing with that reality than letting politics and our personal moral preferences delude us into thinking that we as a society can be (or God forbid already are) very different from our more primitive ancestors. Every culture at every location at every time has basically looked the same (when it comes to male/female traits and preferences), and to suggest that (with just enough will power) we can change that as a result of some great moral imperative seems naively utopianistic. Utopian fantasies are almost invariably harmful. Every great evil the world has seen was preceded by some utopian fantasy.
That's a great excuse for men to act like asses, except it has zero basis in reality. Evolution did not make you sexists. Society did. Through generations of gender oppression.
Wrong again. Shaming and suppressing violent and aggressive behaviors in our society is exactly what we should be doing. Not making up excuses for it.
I wonder if you hunted down a mammoth today, or died before age 30 like your primitive ancestors. If we're going back to nature, might as well go all the way. Live in caves and hunt for food.
Nope. Many great evils were preceded by people claiming the world is fine as it is, and can never be changed for the better.
Wow, why all the vitriol? There’s no need to resort to labels and ad hominem. Can we just have a discussion and talk facts without the name calling?
I know its hard for you to see it, but I’m actually on your side. I actually want to free women from submission to men. I want to do that by helping them fully embrace, own and market their sexuality however they see fit. For thousands of year’s they’ve been prevented by men (and recently by traditional feminists (as opposed to sex positive feminists)) from doing so.
I think you and I mostly agree on that objective. Where you and I may disagree is in the method of achieving that objective. Where traditional feminism (and even sex positive feminism to a lessor degree) has gone wrong (IMHO) is that it has focused all of its resources on resisting and supressing the old patriarchy (quite unsuccessfully, I might add). However, as Buckminster Fuller (I know, he’s male, but consider the possibility that he might be right about something nonetheless) famously said:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Rather than continuing to resist maleness and its institutions, I’m advocating (in the spirit of Buckminster Fuller) for a new feminist paradigm that turns the natural male interest in females into an advantage for women rather than a disadvantage, and that thereby makes the old male patriarchy obsolete.
This begins with the recognition that the so-called “objectification of women” is completely natural and can and should be exploited to women’s benefit. Men’s interest in women as sex objects is the result of deep evolutionary programming. If you don’t understand how or why that’s the case, then please consider reading some books on evolutionary psychology (“Why Beautiful People Have More Daughers” and “Sex at Dawn” are two great ones). There are also a great many published academic studies on the subject. The fact that evolution has programmed men to pursue women as sex objects really is not debated among serious scientists (and I don’t consider “social science” to be actual science). What is sometimes debated, however, is whether we can do anything to change it.
I suggest that we can’t fundamentally change what evolution has created. All the evidence suggests that the odds of ever socially conditioning men not to view women as sex objects is about as great as the odds of successfully conditioning women not to have a maternal instinct. Even if for some reason it could be shown that the maternal instinct is socially suboptimal for some reason, attempting to end it through bans and shaming would (a) never work and (b) be extremely harmful.
So, what I suggest instead of resisting this male tendancy is to exploit it. That can be done by returning female sexuality to its rightful owners—women—and by teaching women how to exploit it to their advantage (just like we teach atheletes or intellectuals how to exploit their natural physical talents). If women could systematically exploit men’s sexual interest and convert it to their advantage in the same way that the athlete, intellectual, or artist is free to exploit and market her talents to those who are interested, women would be empowered like never before (which is exactly why the patriarchy has never allowed this to happen and has supressed female sexuality so relentlessly over the centuries).
Males are unquestionably more competitive, aggressive (even violent), and ambitious than females. These traits are mostly genetic (a function of higher testosterone levels) and not socially conditioned. This fact has been shown in study after study, and its true in virtually all species (not just humans). Again, the odds of changing this evolutionarily programmned behavior by shaming and suppression are, like the odds of ridding females of the maternal instinct and resulting behaviors, essentially nil. No socieity in the history of the world has ever succeeded, and there’s no reason to believe we can.
But, what we can do as a society is harness and channel these male instincts in ways that benefit women rather than harm them. Again, returning ownership and control of female sexuality to women (and taking it away from the male dominated churches and political institutions) so that they can openly and shamelessley market it to men in ways that benefit themselves, and so that men are forced to compete for it (like that compete for any other scarce resource), is one way of doing this.
While this solution is obvious, traditional feminists (but not so much sex positive ones) resist the idea visciously. They do so simply because they have such (understandable) resentment toward men and toward the patriarchy that they are more invested in revenge than success. Consequently, they see any attempt by women to exploit their sexuality as “selling out” to males by giving men what they want most rather than depriving them of it. They fail to distuish between being forced to give it up and being able to freely market and charge for it. For this reason, traditional feminists have actually joined the male patriarchy in shaming women who attempt to exploit men’s interest in their sexuality to their personal benefit. I find that incredibly offensive.
I would suggest that the world works best (and least violently) when free markets permit people to sell their goods or talents or assets on whatever terms the buyer and seller agree. This is freedom. This is what women have been denied for thousands of years. And this is what needs to be restored to end the patriarchy.
When women are conditioned to be traumatized or terrified or angered by men’s sexual interest, they overlook obvious opportunities to exploit it to their advantage. Anything we can do to help women change this conditioning and drop the shame (and especially to change the laws) so that they can own and freely market their sex appeal is a good thing that will ultimately end the patriarchy. This is why the patriarchy has resisted such attempts for so long. And, regrettably, traditional feminists have inadvertently aided and abetted them.
Women are the primary shamers of other women. Enforcing chastity and monogamy increases our sexual value overall and protects our children. It is a disadvantage to ourselves and our children to procreate with uninvested men. Men do not all share the same "spray and pray" reproductive strategy either. Harsh climates and scarce resources make cooperation a requirement so that families will survive. The fact that manna does not fall from heaven into the mouths of mothers and babies and that we need to be supported while mothering is not evidence of the patriarchy, and a fictitious problem requires no solution. Prostitution or promiscuity are both poor strategies which will leave offspring without the advantage of a dedicated male provider and place children at risk of harm from unrelated males. I see feminism pushing for freedom from biology by advocating that the burden of childbearing be supported by force through taxation, laws that force employers to pay women who are not at work, and gender biased, govt enforced child support. Replacing fathers, chastity, and monogamy with these things is not a good strategy. Fertilizing as many eggs as possible is not a man's only driving force. Men also need/desire committed and loving partnerships for their own health and well-being, until death. It is a lonely and unhealthy old man who has not bonded with his children. Also, overall productivity will go down if the care children is socialized and if women breed indiscriminately. Women compete with each other for suitable men and vice versa, and then we cooperate by not interfering in each other's monogamous bonds. Somehow from there, the cities are built and the electricity and food keeps flowing.
So men will continue to rape women and I am supposed to accept that because testosterone and rape culture?
Maybe if you stopped raping us so much, we wouldn't be so scared by your sexual interest.
Market my sex appeal?! Am I a sex toy or am I human being trying to move up in the world with having to fuck anyone I am not attracted to? My sexuality is not for sale, or rent. And neither should it be. My success as a human being should not depend on my sexual interaction with men or their sexual attention.
Imagine you work in a company of gay men. You try and be professional, but all they want is to fuck you. They don't care about how good the work you do is, but only about how tight your pants are. And when you come to pick up your check, your boss "accidentally" drops it so he can smack your ass when you bend over. And while there,you notice the payroll papers and discover you're the lowest paying person in your department. Because you're just a straight guy.
This is not a world you'd want to live in. Trust me.