"The origin of male dominance" (ie. religious beliefs)

[bloom]

First let’s deal with the issue of men’s peripheral role in the natural scheme of things. The male biological role in reproduction is minimal, and in all known societies the male role in child-rearing is insignificant compared to the female role. Women are primarily responsible for child-rearing the world over. This seems to evoke a compensatory response in men, because in all known societies there are artificially constructed roles and rituals for men that seek to claim a male space that is at least equal in importance to the female role in life. In tribal societies the recurring motifs are primitive and silly to our eyes: men undergo cutting rites at puberty so that they bleed like women; men have special flutes or trumpets or something that only they can use and that magically ensure well-being; men have the special job of singing to the forest/seducing the animals/chanting some joo-joo crap that will bring the powers of the universe into balance. What is striking is just how artificial and frankly unnecessary all these things are for the actual survival of the species. Women are in charge of growing offspring; men are in charge of playing magic flutes. Yet each tribe’s mythos works very hard to inflate the importance of the male role so that it counterbalances the female contribution to life.

One wonders if that’s the origin of religion. After all, we can laugh at the New Guinea highlander with his magic flute that women must never see, but it’s basically the same thing as the Christian preacher in Tennessee who believes it’s God will for men alone to have authority to teach and preach. And just as the Christian preacher believes that if women ever get the power to preach it will destroy the family/cause terrorists to attack us/melt the universe, so the New Guinea highlander firmly believes that if women ever get their hands on those flutes, everything will be just be totally fucked forever.

<snip>

Anyway, this sort of male magic joo-joo is everywhere, even in those societies with relative gender equality. That’s an important point, since it suggests that this need to carve out a male role of mythic importance is not a product of male dominance. It seems more basic than that. In gender-equal societies the male joo-joo isn’t oppressive to women and isn’t considered more important than the female role; it’s just a counterbalance. It gives the males a satisfying sense of their critical importance in the scheme of things, an importance which females derive from their obviously central role in the perpetuation of the species.

On the other hand, in male-dominated societies the male joo-joo (I’m liking this as a technical term) is inflated to vast mythic proportions and includes key provisos about how men are more important than women and must control women. A common mythical refrain is how women used to be in charge but they screwed it up and so men took over.... <more>

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=251

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. This is fascinating

and I wonder, how does male superior strength and size fit into the equation?

[bloom]

3. Violets Socks

kind of goes into other tangents relating to group stress and such...

"Well, the key factor leading to male dominance seems to be stress, by which I mean stress on a group (tribe) to survive. Ecological stress, food stress, competition stress from neighbors. In anthropological surveys the correlation between male dominance and a stressful environment is very, very strong. Gender equality seems to go along with fertile environments with adequate food and peaceful neighbors. Male dominance arises when the group is in a hostile environment with heavy resource competition."



Which is sort of interesting when you think about what BushCo is doing. Trying to create the illusion of stress and trying to create the illusion that it takes macho men to save us- how they put down "girly men" along with intelligence, culture, creativity, etc. We were getting more equality minded when it was clear that we really didn't have any threats.

I think nowadays where anyone (men and women) can have guns, have AK47s even - that "male superior strength" is more of a symbol than a reality - more of bullying tactic than anything that is "useful" to the sustainability of the group. As far as our country goes - our weapons are what define us - as having "superior strength" (and our economy and educational and research institutions, etc). It has little or nothing to do with actual people and their muscles or lack thereof. (Regardless of how hyped football, etc. is).

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. You make way too much sense

we might have to kill you.


LOL

[bloom]

10. That is what they do, isn't it?

:yoiks:


:hi:

[omega minimo]

38. Dots

"In anthropological surveys the correlation between male dominance and a stressful environment is very, very strong. Gender equality seems to go along with fertile environments with adequate food and peaceful neighbors. Male dominance arises when the group is in a hostile environment with heavy resource competition."

Like desert environments say 5,000 years ago?

"There is little doubt religion arose from two basic streams of human thought, namely magical practices and the need to explain what was not understood, and could not be practically investigated, but seriously impacted, human lives. It is beyond debate that it arose at a time when humans possessed very little detailed understanding of the natural world, and even less capability to decisively influence it in their favor."

It is not true that "humans possessed very little detailed understanding of the natural world, and even less capability to decisively influence it in their favor." Some humans did.

The Old Testament tells the story of the eradication of the old wise ways by the stressed desert fathers.

:hi:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I don't think women "screwed it up"

when the Goddess was worshipped, apparently things went ok-after all, humans didn't die out! What I have read was that when people started living in villages, there was a need for some to protect the others while they worked getting food. Since men have more upper body strength than women and weapons at the time were hand held, it made sense that men rather than women tended to take the protector role. It was at that time, I think, when men started to take over.

[hunter]

5. It's the man's job to protect the village from...

... other men.

Seems like it would be much easier simply not to fight.



But then men would be pretty useless, wouldn't they?

[bloom]

6. ..."when men started to take over"

For our culture - that's probably right.

For cultures which were protected from outside forces - it's not necessarily true.

From:

Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures

Published in VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN,Vol. 2 No. 2, June, l996, pp. 191- 208.

PEGGY REEVES SANDAY


"Missing from the Minangkabau conception of sexuality is any show of interest in sex for the sake of sex alone. Sex is neither a commodity nor a notch in the male belt in this society. A man's sense of himself is not predicated by his sexual functioning. Although aggression is present, it is not linked to sex nor is it deemed a manly trait. The Minangkabau have yet to discover sex as a commodity or turn it into a fetish.

There is a cultural category for rape, which is defined as "forced sex" and is punishable by law. Rape is conceived as something that happens in the wild which places men who rape beyond the pale of society. In answer to my questions regarding the relative absence of rape among them compared to the United States, Minangkabau informants replied that rape was impossible in their society because custom, law, and religion forbade it and punished it severely. In the years that I worked in West Sumatra, I heard of only two cases of rape in the village where I lived. One case involved a group of males who ganged up on a young, retarded woman. In this case the leader of the group hanged himself the next day out of fear of avenging villagers. The rest of the assailants went to jail. The second case involved a local woman and a Japanese soldier during the Japanese occupation of the second world war and after. To this day people remember the case and talk about the horror of the Japanese occupation.

In the past few years, Indonesia's entrance into the global economy has been accompanied by an amazing shift in the eroticization of popular culture seen on TV. In l995 the signs that this culture was filtering into Minangkabau villages were very evident. To the extent that commodification and eroticization breaks down the cultural supports for its matrilineal social system, the Minangkabau sexual culture will also change. Indeed, today in the provincial capital some argue that the Minangkabau are not rape free.

During my last field trip in l995, I heard of many more reports of rape in the provincial capital. In the early l990's, for example, there was a widely publicized acquaintance gang rape of a young woman by a group of boys. Interviewing court officers in the capital, I was told that this was the only case of its kind. Compared with similar cases in the U.S., such as the St. Johns case, the outcome was still very different. While the St. Johns defendants were either acquitted or got probation after pleading guilty, all the defendants in the Sumatran case were convicted and sent to jail. But, one may well ask whether the criminal justice system will continue to convict defendants as tolerance for sexual coercion begins to permeate popular beliefs."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/rapea.html

[I Have A Dream]

11. Very interesting article. n/t

[mongo]

4. POPCORN! Get yer popcorn here

:popcorn:

the male role in child-rearing is insignificant

are artificially constructed roles and rituals for men that seek to claim a male space that is at least equal in importance to the female role in life

Women are in charge of growing offspring; men are in charge of playing magic flutes.

And all that misandrist flamebait in just the first paragraph....

If someone posted an article so inflamitory towards women, I'm sure the poster would be properly labeled as a distrupter.

[bloom]

7. So are you in denial

that there is such as thing as male dominance - that men are responsible for about 93% murders and most of the serious violence, that men control politics, business, history, education, the media, etc. etc. etc. ?

And do you expect women and any other people to never talk about it.


That expectation would just be a reflection of more male dominance, wouldn't it ?




On edit - to add "the media" - probably the most important influence today.

[mongo]

21. And of course lashing out with an inflamitory article

is the best way to combat "male dominance".

Perhaps we need a thread on the origins of the word "hysterical".

[The Magistrate]

27. The Word Originated, Sir, By My Understanding

In a pre-modern conception of anatomy and medicine, in which it was maintained the womb could wander about in the body, and in doing so produced certain symptoms of agitated temperament.

What you find imflammatory about a routine presentation of well established anthropological observations escapes me.

[The Magistrate]

9. The Male Role In Child-Rearing, Sir

Is a culturally determined thing, and hence has a good degree of artificiality. While there are non-human species in which the male plays a signifigant role in rearing the young, it is far from the general case. The general case of mammaian life is certainly that of a mother raising young without male assistance. Certainly in the earliest stages of life, the male is not necessary, as even the food supply is provided by the mother, and the business can be managed well enough, and often is, without male involvement.

[mongo]

12. So since men don't lactate

their role in child-rearing is insignifigant? Wow. I guess I should have just abandoned my college honor-student daughter. I'm sure she would be doing just as well if I had never been around.

Nevermind that her mother abandoned her and pushed her off on me at age 14 on 24 hours notice, once she begun feeling her own oats and finding her way in the world, and consequently stopped parroting every behavior that her mother wanted her to display.

But really, my problem with the OP is more related to the tone rather than substance.

What would happen if someone posted an article that explained how women were not suited for the boardroom because of their overies and over-emotionality?

[The Magistrate]

14. Just As Anecdotes, Sir, Do Not Constitute A Scientific Survey

Individual instances do not overthrow a general trend. Abandonment of children by mothers certainly occurs; abandonment of children by fathers occurs more frequently.

Further, it is pretty hard to deny that as a general case, mothers put more of their energy directly into rearing children than do fathers, and this is true even in households where the father takes an active role in rearing the children.

Your last point weighs less than you might think. There is nothing that could be properly cited as a body of respectable science and anthropology in support of either proposition you mention. There is such a body behind the assertions in this article, none of which are particularly new, though they are well marshalled and well expressed, and in a lively and entertaining manner that makes them seem fresh indeed.

[BoneDaddy]

24. Anecdotes?

Are you living in the 21st century? There is a TON of evidence that a father's role in child rearing is of UTMOST importance and necessary. Wake up bro

[Fridays Child]

13. But don't omnivores and carnivores depend on the male to supply protein...

...to the female during the time she is nursing young, and most other times, as well? (I understand that there are exceptions, where the females of certain species are responsible for the hunting.)

[The Magistrate]

15. There Is A Difference, Ma'am

Between what is optimum, and what is essential. The only male function that is essential is fertilization. All else can be dispensed with, though the outcome of doing so may well not be nearly nearly so good as it would be in cases where much more is provided.

[greyl]

16. Reducing it like that, we'd end up with

the only female functions that are essential is incubation and breast feeding.
I don't care to reduce things in such a biologically exclusive manner.

[The Magistrate]

17. There Would Be Three, Sir

Provision of the egg would have to be included as well.

Reduction is a useful tool, though obviously not the only one, in analysis of complex phenomena. Finding the simplest possible expression of the system can help clarify things, and assist in avoiding distraction by intricacies at the surface.

[greyl]

19. Then you'd need to acknowledge a few more to the male.

1. Producing viable sperm.
2. Desiring the female while she is receptive.
3. Being potent.

"Finding the simplest possible expression of the system can help clarify things, and assist in avoiding distraction by intricacies at the surface."

Then stop calling me sir! It's a bloody distraction.

My point to you is that the simplest possible expression of human culture isn't nearly as simple as you are claiming.

[The Magistrate]

25. Not A Description Of Human Culture, Sir

A decription of mammalian reproduction, a basis on which human cultures are reared, as indeed, all other mammalian behavior is.

[greyl]

31. That doesn't make sense, it's not a proper sentence.

"A description of mammalian reproduction, a basis on which human cultures are reared, as indeed, all other mammalian behavior is."

The most sense I can make of that, is still wrong. Additionally, it's quite irrelevant to this thread and your original claim that the only essential male function in furthering the species was fertilization because the mother can raise children without a male's help.
Now, your reducing your argument to simple reproduction, with no regard for sustainability?

It's sounding like doubletalk to me. The style doesn't match the substance.

[The Magistrate]

33. If You Say So, Sir

[greyl]

34. Again, can you stop referring to me as sir, please? edit:

In addition to my unsaid reasons for not appreciating that, why make a point of what gender someone is when addressing them?

/end

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

26. Again, Sir

There is a difference between the optimum and the necessary.

[crikkett]

37. I'll buy that

"If someone posted an article so inflamitory towards women, I'm sure the poster would be properly labeled as a distrupter."

[greyl]

18. You may be making too much of Violet's "origin of religion" musing.

In any case, I don't understand your juxtaposition of the two in your subject.

Do you mean that the origin of religion is a male feeling of uselessness?

If so, that's incorrect. The first "religion" on the planet isn't remotely comparable to the paternalistic few that dominate the world today.

Here's companion piece to the interesting conversation that Violet and Mandos are having at Reclusive Leftist:

...
I have been a close observer of the myth of matriarchal prehistory for fifteen years now and have watched as it has moved from its somewhat parochial home in the feminist spirituality movement out into the feminist and cultural mainstream. But I haven't been able to cheer at the myth's increasing acceptance. My irritation with the historical claims made by the myth's partisans masks a deeper discontent with the myth's assumptions. There is a theory of sex and gender embedded in the myth of matriarchal prehistory, and it is neither original nor revolutionary. Women are defined quite narrowly as those who give birth and nurture, who identify themselves in terms of their relationships, and who are closely allied with the body, nature, and sex—usually for unavoidable reasons of their biological makeup. This image of women is drastically revalued in feminist matriarchal myth, such that it is not a mark of shame or subordination, but of pride and power. But this image is nevertheless quite conventional and, at least up until now, it has done an excellent job of serving patriarchal interests.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html?_r=1&oref=slogina

[bloom]

36. I think it's a possibility

that men feel less connected to the life making process and religion is partly compensatory - and partly about making connections within the group.

It's interesting to consider the article - (also linked at Violet Sock's blog)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x66099

that was about "The Feminization of the Church - Why Its Music, Messages and Ministries Are Driving Men Away"


From a Bible school wanting to encourage hostility toward outsiders - to make their religion relevant to men - and also it seemed that the intent was to bolster men's egos - give them more of a role (though it mentioned that men were in something like 93% of the senior pastor roles already). There was concern that having a church based on women's sensibilities - nurturing and love of neighbors (and others) and such was leaving men out of it (!?!).

I personally think that is preposterous - AFAIC - men and women should be able to share equally in whatever roles the church has and nurturing and love of neighbors (without the accompanying hostility to outsiders) seems like a perfectly reasonable basis for a religion.

But it seems to me - that women are more likely to get that anyway - without religion (connections). When you think of a lot of civilizations - religion is more of a man's thing. It also occurs to me that when a lot of people around here are putting down religion (as if it's an evil force in society) they are thinking of religion as "hostility toward outsiders" not as "love your neighbor" (and others).

[charlie]

20. The origin of religion?

To assuage male feelings of superfluousness? Well, that's novel. She might be able to peg that to certain beliefs and practices in certain religions, but the impetus for religion in general? Whoo... I'll let the religious amongst us deal with that remarkable news.

[BoneDaddy]

22. Oh yeah

and some women don't find it necessary to "carve out their mythic importance" in every fucking DU thread.

[Silent3]

28. Compensatory response?

As far as I can tell, there's no research substance behind any of this talk of "compensatory responses" -- that part of the original quoted article sounds like unsubstantiated speculation to me. Has anyone actually done an actual study which reveals that the motivation behind circumcision is to emulate menstruation? Did someone conduct a psychological survey of magic flute-playing tribesmen which revealed their deep-seated feelings of insignificance compared to women as their motivation for taking up the flute?

I'm not against speculation per se -- it's a good way to thrash ideas around and come up with things that are worth further study. But the author quoted presents needless speculation as if it were obvious fact. Why do I call it needless? Because there's so much more obvious material to work with without pretending to know the inner workings of people's minds and their hidden motivations.

Men have got a great deal, evolutionarily speaking. Men get to pass their genes on to the next generation -- the only thing which really matters in evolution -- by expending far less effort than women have to expend to accomplish the same goal. While women are tied down by pregnancy and child rearing, men are free to find more women to impregnate and free to fight for territorial advantages which will provide the men themselves and their offspring with more resources, and perhaps even provide the men with more women.

How does the male of the human species have a "peripheral role in the natural scheme of things" in anyway which matters to the workings of biological and cultural evolution? There's nothing external to the human psyche which is going to reward women for their efforts and involvement in child rearing beyond whatever effect these efforts have at passing on genes and memes.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

29. Maureen Dowd talks about this in ARE MEN REALLY NECESSARY?.

Think about it. Scientists have found ways to clone WITHOUT sperm and the y-chromosome, at least in other animals. That means that, in the future, there could be no need for men. What good would they do reproduction if women could just keep making more women?

At least in reproductive terms, men are ultimately, ultimately superfluous. Why do you think men felt this great hulking need to prove themselves superior to women, and why women stood it for so damned long?? Because women and men are just different enough that a diconnect--starting with the most simple, physical/hormonal things, i.e. reproductive systems--spread between the genders, and only in the past century has it been vastly improved. And there's still a long, long way to go.

Dos that mean we should all go out and start eradicating men? No, because that's senseless--if women happened to be the ones superfluous in reproduction, and this talk spread, women would be up in arms about it, and rightfully so. Men have the right to be just as pissed off at the idea that they could someday be extinct.

And anyway, doesn't the idea of no men seem just....weird? Creepy? Unnatural? Something out of Azimov, or even something twistedly Orwellian? Uh, yeah. Just a bit.

:scared:

[Silent3]

35. Technology might render BOTH men and women unnecessary...

Some day we likely will be able to code genomes from scratch and pump babies out of artificial wombs. Then we'll all be "superfluous". So what? The only distinction is that it takes less technology to remove men from the reproductive equation than would be required to dispense with women.

Why do you think men felt this great hulking need to prove themselves superior to women, and why women stood it for so damned long??

I disagree with the premise that men have any such "great hulking need". When conditions are such that physical strength and aggressive behavior are advantages -- and obviously quite often conditions are such -- men dominate because they can dominate. Women have "stood for it" because they've had little choice in the matter. Many social animals, because too much actual physical confrontation is expensive and detrimental to overall species survival, have adapted so that they often yield to symbolic shows of strength. Men have an obvious advantage there too, and women a disadvantage, regardless of how much intellectual speculation you'd like to indulge in using contrived standards of "reproductive value", and by imagining ways women could and should stand up to male domination.

Do people sometimes "act out" feelings of inferiority by acting aggressively to compensate? Sure. But first and foremost, people like getting what they want. If one has the ability to get what one wants, and one exercises that ability, there's nothing in and of itself surprising about such behavior which should send us hunting for inferiority complexes in a first attempt at explaining pretty straightforward behavior.

[Dogmudgeon]

30. Does this mean that most mammals have religion?

Most mammals, especially the territorial ones, show a marked degree of male dominance in social organization. The Human animal is fairly well-established to show a moderate degree of territoriality, and it is widely thought that our species' tendancy toward male dominance is an artifact of atavistic, animalistic behavior.

You know ... "Alpha Male" and all that.

Folks, I know that many of you like to go to great lengths to vilify religion, but I would have thought that with all the defenders of science around here, you'd at least try to keep your scientific speculation consistent with actual scientific observations. This isn't exactly in the same league as the Face on Mars; there is a large body of work in primatology, most of it less than 20 years old.

--p!

[The Magistrate]

32. How Could You Tell, Sir?

A cat could be engaged in worship of the Great Grey Giver Of Mice with every waking breath without any observing human necessarily being the wiser. By some doctrines, selfless immersion in the awe of the eternal now, what is suspected to be the general state of animals, is the highest form of religious practice.

The origin of religion is, certainly, a vexed subject, but most of the difficulties beseting comment upon it are owing to the preference of believers in religions that the thing be discussed on their terms, and with assent to their conviction the phenomenon is a good one, and arose outside of human minds and motives.

There is little doubt religion arose from two basic streams of human thought, namely magical practices and the need to explain what was not understood, and could not be practically investigated, but seriously impacted, human lives. It is beyond debate that it arose at a time when humans possessed very little detailed understanding of the natural world, and even less capability to decisively influence it in their favor. Neither these roots, nor the milieu in which they operated, are particularly promising.

[Dogmudgeon]

43. The origin of religion, male dominance, and damn near everything else

The "answer" to the question of cats' religion is close to being the same as the answer to male dominance. Cats may not be able to pray, but they do have the same brain structures that are involved in religious and "mystical" experience in humans. Animals given hallucinogenic drugs or certain forms of brain stimulation have similar physiological reactions to humans under the same circumstances. A large cortex -- perhaps a large and disorderly cortex -- may be required for religion, but the mystical response may be as old as the perception of hunger, rage, terror, or sexual arousal.

The mystic and the comic can say "God only knows what it's good for -- and S/He isn't telling!"

I've written at some length about my own "mystical experiences", most of which have come from sleep paralysis, and a few of which were induced by fever or drugs. It's clear to me that the capability for mystical experience is real and is supported by neuroscience, although religion itself and the religiously devout are often insane. These mystical experiences are not mysterious, and come from the workings of the brain; I also appreciate how lucky I have been to be born into an enlightened age. I have been able to experience the raptures of the infinite without thinking that the experience was anything other than a natural phenomenon subject to scientific investigation. But, at the same time, I did learn not to scorn those who do not know the difference.

I disagree somewhat with your statement about there being two streams of thought behind religion. It is clear to me that the ability to have these experiences has been vital to the creation of religion. But it is still very much a case of "the need to explain what was not understood, and could not be practically investigated", in your words. Magical practices may have largely come from rituals associated with using drugs, poisons, hunger, pain, or exhaustion to reach these states, but the state itself preceded the ritual. Otherwise, there would have been no enduring incentive to enact rituals and propagate religious ideas. Merely going through the motions to affect the elements would have eventually lost its appeal. But periodic "revelations" through fevers, neurological disorders, mushroom and/or mold ingestion, or poisoning, would have created an ongoing stream of "booster shots" for belief. In most cultures where shamanism is valued, the route to the shaman's position comes from having a "shamanic journey" caused by nearly dying. In the west, shamanism can be purchased on the cheap, usually under $1000 for a weekend seminar.

Unfortunately in a way, we are now at a crossroads in history where we can begin to understand the natural world -- and have promptly used our newly-acquired knowledge as a form of quasi-mystical revelation itself. That's the "unfortunately" part. Our atavistic impulses are quite formidable, whether they compel us to act out dominance and submission behaviors or to "religionize". Overcoming these compulsions will be difficult, and I don't have much confidence that rationalistic/ naturalistic/ scientific/ skeptical/ humanistic/ secular atheism will prove any better at furthering understanding than has religion.

William James once said (and here I'm paraphrasing) that a dose of peyote was the cure to both religiomania and atheism, simultaneously. I do not lightly recommend the use of drugs, especially illegal ones; but the second-hand experience of neuroscientists and books written by sensation-seekers can at least give the querent a grounding in the subject.

And, if there is ever a way to safely induce the sleep paralysis phenomenon, I would choose that as a useful method. It would immediately stop all ridicule of visions and alien contact alike, and could possibly be used in therapy with percipients as a way to help them understand their experiences without imposing a condescending explanation on them.

I have no fantasy that learning from the deep roots of our phylogeny will be easy. The idea that a man should dominate "his" woman is repugnant in the extreme, but the whole "universal love" idea has great practical usefulness. In the future, I hope we will be able to choose our deep, pre-human psychological experiences wisely and enjoyably.

--p!

[bloom]

45. I haven't noticed any animals playing any "magic flutes"

or any other sort of thing.


Let me know if YOU do, though.

[Quantess]

39. Hi, no offense but

I groan when I see anti-male rants. I think they make women seem spiteful to men. Should we care, you might ask. And I'd say yes. Men and women need to get along without a lot of resentment toward each other just because of gender, and I don't think a whole lot of peace is resolved by men complaining about women or vice-versa. Trust me, I get super pissed when I see anything that resembles an anti-female rant.

However, point well taken that religion is used by society to enforce the status quo. Males have the physical advantage, combined with a tendency toward aggression / dominance......surprise, surprise, the Deity is MALE! It means, obey. Obey the nearest male, while you're at it, as if you weren't going to already....How about those Aztec-inspired paintings, with some hunky warrior pounding his chest, and a mamacita is hugging his ankles? Oh, and isn't there a national "penis day" in Japan, where males and females alike wear penis costumes? Penis worship is deeply embedded in probably most cultures. And yes, anti-women messages abound in established religions---I don't know where to begin, and I don't have enough time to expound on all the women-bashing by major world religions. (Let's not even begin with oppression of women).

And yes, many men are intensely jealous of the women-can-give-birth fact of life, warping their silly minds to want to control womens' bodies and everything they do. Not all men, by any means. I know a lot of really excellent human males who do a good job of being respectful to human females. How did I get so lucky? For one, I had really excellent, supportive male figures in my family---my non-religious family. And, I appreciate the men who have good character. I expect respect, otherwise, I'm leaving.

A man can be complete *******, just because he assumes all women to be hateful bitches--in his own mind, of course--and does violent acts to a woman just for being a woman. This happens far, far, more than the nice guys want to know about. The incidence of a man murdering a woman is statistically much higher than a woman murdering a man (or a woman murdering anyone, for that matter). How about creeps who commit random acts of violence to women, such as serial rapists or murderers? WHAT HAVE THOSE WOMEN EVER DONE TO HIM, I wonder.

But, what do we women want to do about the smart, nice guys? They need love and attention. Encouragement, and confidence. Give them the love they deserve. Some guys love women, and we want them to keep on loving us. So, love those nice guys back!

The gross woman-haters can go **** themselves.

[Silent3]

40. I'll take truth (when available) over political correctness

I groan when I see anti-male rants. I think they make women seem spiteful to men. Should we care, you might ask. And I'd say yes.

If there are unpleasant but true things to say about men, we should go ahead and say them. But we should have good data to back those things up -- something the original post lacked.

I don't like to see science hamstrung by having to worry about the political correctness of the results we might get looking into some issues. Certainly there has been badly done science in regard to touchy subjects like race and gender, but what do we do if a well-designed, properly conducted study yields results about race or gender which offends liberal sensibilities? Treat it like Republicans treat global warming? Get angry at the researchers for daring to look into the touchy subject in the first place? Ignore the facts and try to impugn the motivations of the scientists involved?

At any rate, if I seem to have gone off on a tangent, what I'm trying to say is that what's more important about things like the original post is if there's evidence to back up the claims, rather than if it's "anti-male" or not. Where "anti-male" comes in is the motivation for straying from the facts and into baseless speculation.

And yes, many men are intensely jealous of the women-can-give-birth fact of life, warping their silly minds to want to control womens' bodies and everything they do.

I have yet to meet one man in my entire life who expressed jealousy about not being able to get pregnant and produce children. I did know a transsexual who wished that transgender surgery worked well enough to grant full female fertility (which of course it doesn't at this point). She had this desires while still male, so I guess you might say that "he" (the "he" that she had been) was jealous of the ability to give birth, but he wasn't misogynistic about it by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you really, really know that there are all that many men who are truly jealous that women can give birth, or are you simply seeing misogyny and controlling behavior (quite real and too common) and reading your own speculation into the motivation for these behaviors?

[bloom]

41. I think there are a lot of people

who recognize that the "Strict Father" (as described by Lakoff) - Macho-asshole Male as glorified by the Republicans is not the ultimate man that we wish to be associated with.

I suppose there is the problem that when the social patterns that have led to the current worldview of a lot of people are held up - that some people see themselves as being part and parcel of a lot of nonsense - and may not like what they see.

Violet Sock's pontification makes more sense when you see it as part of the ongoing discussion that she was having. It probably seems less like a rant. (But we can only quote so much).


Riane Eisler on the subject:

In short, the problem in dominator societies is not men. It is rather the way male identity must be defined in male-dominant societies where, by definition, "masculinity" is equated with domination and conquest-- be it of women, other men, or nature....

It is therefore essential that those working for a more equitable and peaceful world also become conscious of these dynamics. Indeed, the struggle for our future is not between capitalism and communism or between religion and secularism. It is a struggle about what kinds of relations we have, be it in our intimate or our international relations.

If those who still believe that domination, exploitation, and violence are "just the way things are" prevail, we face a very grim future, and ultimately no future at all. But if we recognize that a future orienting to partnership rather than domination is a viable alternative, and become conscious of the centrality of partnership gender roles and relations to the construction of such a future, there is realistic hope.

http://www.ru.org/71eisler.htm

[Odin2005]

42. A patriarchal society often results from lots of conflict.

Neolithic farming societies of Western Eurasia had quite low population densities, and so there there was not much conflict. Starting around 2000 BC, however, increasing population densities and the encroachment of Indo-European-speaking nomads from Ukraine and Semetic-speaking nomads from Arabia let to a increase in the millitarization of Bronze Age society, leading from a transition from where men and women were equal though had different roles in society, to a patriarchal society based on the need for young, male warriors. I rember reading that before the millitaristic Assyrians rampaged through the Middle East, Mesopotamian society was not very patriarchal, after the Assyrians the Middle East was very patriarchal and that has lasted to today.

[bloom]

44. I suppose as much

as we might wish it were otherwise - our leaders are going to lead us into more conflicts and less equality than ever. And they'll say it's for religion or for patriotism (patriarchalism).


I wish people would stop cooperating with them. I wish everyone in the NSA and CIA would quit. Same with everyone in the military. And any other support system. It's the only way us people will have any power in the matter. (Some people have and GOOD FOR THEM!)

As long as people think that others are going along - so it doesn't "matter" if they do - it will go on. The patriarchal road to oblivion.