Two college students are at a party. Both are drinking alcohol. They start flirting. Then they start kissing. And they end up having sex in which both willingly participate.
In this situation, both had diminished capacity and both consented. So how do we decide whether a sex infraction was committed. It's simple. They just blame the male. The fact that he is in the same situation as the female doesn't matter. He will be accused of a sexual infraction. She will not.
This is clearly sexist. And it's also very traditional sexism. With traditional sexism, the man was supposed to take control of important decisions that affect both. And along with this he got the credit or the blame, depending on how things worked out. But if he didn't take charge, then he was held accountable for not acting as guardian for the decisions of both. That's what is happening here.
What's interesting today is this kind of double-standard is being promoted as equality, even though it actually promotes sexism. It promotes the idea that women are inferior to men at making decisions under the same challenging circumstances. It makes men responsible for women's choices. This is not equality.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Nurturing
Beginning several decades ago, there was a lot of talk about sexism and sex roles. And a lot of talk about how men need to be more nurturing. People said men were so busy solving problems they overlooked the feeling component of human interaction.
This was all being said by people who insisted that it's wrong to promote sexist stereotypes. But that's exactly what they were doing. They were repeating traditional sexist rhetoric instead of examining whether the male role actually nurtures. And because of this, they overlooked the fact that the traditional male role utilizes problem solving to nurture others.
Consider the following:
Many years ago I got a panicked call from a friend. She had just found a new job, but her car had broken down. And without the car, she had no job. So I drove over to see if I could get her car running. I knew nothing about auto repair, but hoped to spot something obvious.
When I popped the hood open I saw no obvious problem. So I telephoned some friends for advice. One of them walked me through basic troubleshooting over the phone. It was not easy, and it took several calls and a trip to the auto parts store. But I found the problem and fixed it.
Nobody would call my action one of nurturing feelings. They would say that all I did was fix her car. But you should have heard the panic in her voice when she called me. And then seen the look on her face when the car was fixed. Her state of mind had gone from fear to elation. In other words, I had affected her feelings. And that was why I went there: to support a friend. I didn't go there to hang out with her car.
Now, while I was there she made me a sandwich. This is generally considered a nurturing act. But it is really no more supportive than my driving over and helping her. Fixing her car transformed her emotions. The effect of the sandwich was less than that. But stereotyping overlooks this.
The above is only one example, and an isolated one at that. But for centuries, men have used problem solving to provide food and shelter for their families. These actions increase the feeling of safety, security, and well-being in others. They are very foundational acts of caring and nurturing, despite what people say.
This was all being said by people who insisted that it's wrong to promote sexist stereotypes. But that's exactly what they were doing. They were repeating traditional sexist rhetoric instead of examining whether the male role actually nurtures. And because of this, they overlooked the fact that the traditional male role utilizes problem solving to nurture others.
Consider the following:
Many years ago I got a panicked call from a friend. She had just found a new job, but her car had broken down. And without the car, she had no job. So I drove over to see if I could get her car running. I knew nothing about auto repair, but hoped to spot something obvious.
When I popped the hood open I saw no obvious problem. So I telephoned some friends for advice. One of them walked me through basic troubleshooting over the phone. It was not easy, and it took several calls and a trip to the auto parts store. But I found the problem and fixed it.
Nobody would call my action one of nurturing feelings. They would say that all I did was fix her car. But you should have heard the panic in her voice when she called me. And then seen the look on her face when the car was fixed. Her state of mind had gone from fear to elation. In other words, I had affected her feelings. And that was why I went there: to support a friend. I didn't go there to hang out with her car.
Now, while I was there she made me a sandwich. This is generally considered a nurturing act. But it is really no more supportive than my driving over and helping her. Fixing her car transformed her emotions. The effect of the sandwich was less than that. But stereotyping overlooks this.
The above is only one example, and an isolated one at that. But for centuries, men have used problem solving to provide food and shelter for their families. These actions increase the feeling of safety, security, and well-being in others. They are very foundational acts of caring and nurturing, despite what people say.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Subservience and men's issues
It is often said that the traditional role for women was subservience to men. Having grown up before the 1970s, I could see this as part of the dynamic. But what never gets discussed is the part where males were taught subservience to women. It just wasn't called "subservience." It was called "chivalry," "being a gentleman," or "male responsibility." But the process of subservience was still there. Men were socialized to defer to women, treat women as if they were in a higher station in life, and sacrifice on behalf of women.
Here are some examples of how I was supposed to defer to women. Whenever a woman entered a room, I was supposed to stand in her honor, and remain standing until she was seated. This is how royalty is treated. Also, when passing through a doorway, I was supposed to always let the woman pass first, and hold the door for her, just as a servant would for a master. If I saw a woman drop something, I was to rush over and help her pick it up. If a woman arrived at a service counter right after I did, I was to step aside and let her go first. In fact, when out and about in public, I owed subservience to every woman, whether I knew her or not. The general guideline for this was sometimes called "ladies first." This guideline included many areas where men were required to defer their own needs on behalf of the safety, comfort, and convenience of women.
Some people claim that the only reason men did things like open doors is because they thought women were not capable of opening doors. This is a complete fabrication. When a man saw a woman open a door by herself, he didn't assume there was an invisible man there opening the door for her. He realized she was opening the door. And to claim he didn't realize this is absurd.
Men were also expected to show specific areas of subservient behavior in the work place. Any time there was dangerous work, women could ask men to do this for them. And men were expected to respond willingly and cheerfully. And even do it without being asked. This included risky things like climbing tall ladders, working around caustic materials, or working with dangerous machinery. In general, anything that risked death or severe physical injury automatically became a service area that men were supposed to perform for female coworkers. And this was actually an extension of all areas of life. In other words, in all areas of life, I was supposed to risk death or injury on behalf of women, whether I knew them or not.
The above only scratches the surface. And I have not even touched on mandated sex roles in dating and marriage. But I think there is enough here to illustrate my point. Subservience did not flow only one way. It was something required of both sexes.
When I was growing up, inter-gender subservience was not said to be a bad thing. It was taught as a way for both sexes to support and serve each other. It was taught as a form of consideration. And there are still people who feel this way. The problem I see is that gender-specific role mandates are inflexible and do not allow consideration to flow either way in any given situation. So this is not really mutual consideration.
It is also a problem when gender-specific subservience is taught to flow only one way, as we so often see today. For example, women being praised when they refuse to defer in traditional ways, while men who refuse are called selfish, disrespectful, or whiners. These attacks are consistent with traditional shaming tactics used to reinforced sex role socialization in men. So even in "equality," men are still pressured to continue in traditional subservient ways.
Here are some examples of how I was supposed to defer to women. Whenever a woman entered a room, I was supposed to stand in her honor, and remain standing until she was seated. This is how royalty is treated. Also, when passing through a doorway, I was supposed to always let the woman pass first, and hold the door for her, just as a servant would for a master. If I saw a woman drop something, I was to rush over and help her pick it up. If a woman arrived at a service counter right after I did, I was to step aside and let her go first. In fact, when out and about in public, I owed subservience to every woman, whether I knew her or not. The general guideline for this was sometimes called "ladies first." This guideline included many areas where men were required to defer their own needs on behalf of the safety, comfort, and convenience of women.
Some people claim that the only reason men did things like open doors is because they thought women were not capable of opening doors. This is a complete fabrication. When a man saw a woman open a door by herself, he didn't assume there was an invisible man there opening the door for her. He realized she was opening the door. And to claim he didn't realize this is absurd.
Men were also expected to show specific areas of subservient behavior in the work place. Any time there was dangerous work, women could ask men to do this for them. And men were expected to respond willingly and cheerfully. And even do it without being asked. This included risky things like climbing tall ladders, working around caustic materials, or working with dangerous machinery. In general, anything that risked death or severe physical injury automatically became a service area that men were supposed to perform for female coworkers. And this was actually an extension of all areas of life. In other words, in all areas of life, I was supposed to risk death or injury on behalf of women, whether I knew them or not.
The above only scratches the surface. And I have not even touched on mandated sex roles in dating and marriage. But I think there is enough here to illustrate my point. Subservience did not flow only one way. It was something required of both sexes.
When I was growing up, inter-gender subservience was not said to be a bad thing. It was taught as a way for both sexes to support and serve each other. It was taught as a form of consideration. And there are still people who feel this way. The problem I see is that gender-specific role mandates are inflexible and do not allow consideration to flow either way in any given situation. So this is not really mutual consideration.
It is also a problem when gender-specific subservience is taught to flow only one way, as we so often see today. For example, women being praised when they refuse to defer in traditional ways, while men who refuse are called selfish, disrespectful, or whiners. These attacks are consistent with traditional shaming tactics used to reinforced sex role socialization in men. So even in "equality," men are still pressured to continue in traditional subservient ways.
Friday, May 24, 2013
The smaller population
Consider the following scenario: a female war veteran pays a visit to a Veterans Administration health clinic. She has been suffering with bad cold symptoms and they won't go away. The doctor recognizes her illness as something that can be treated with a specific antibiotic. The doctor has already used this same antibiotic with great success on many other patients. What should the doctor do?
1. Offer the antibiotic to the woman?
2. Refuse to help the woman, stating that there are more male veterans, and so all the clinic's attention should go there?
3. Take out a bottle of the antibiotics, remove one pill, and cut a sliver from it. Offer the sliver to the woman and tell her it represents the percentage of women in the military?
The choice seems pretty simple to me. Choice number 1 is the correct choice. Numbers 2 and 3 are sexist and cruel. And the justifications in 2 and 3 make zero sense because she is actually a member of the same population as the male veterans. It's the population called "veterans."
For what it's worth, I've yet to meet someone who disagrees with me. But here's the interesting thing. If men are perceived as the smaller group in a service population, most people tell me it's okay to deny services. Or they say it's acceptable to give men substandard care.
Take for example male victims of spouse violence. There is difference of opinion on whether male victims are a smaller population, but most people assume they are. And this is a common excuse used to deny all services, or approve only a sliver of care.
This is only one example. Only one analogy. But there are more. Just notice what goes on around you. See if anybody around you thinks it's acceptable for services to exclude women, or treat women with substandard care. Compare this to the number of people who make excuses when men are treated this way.
1. Offer the antibiotic to the woman?
2. Refuse to help the woman, stating that there are more male veterans, and so all the clinic's attention should go there?
3. Take out a bottle of the antibiotics, remove one pill, and cut a sliver from it. Offer the sliver to the woman and tell her it represents the percentage of women in the military?
The choice seems pretty simple to me. Choice number 1 is the correct choice. Numbers 2 and 3 are sexist and cruel. And the justifications in 2 and 3 make zero sense because she is actually a member of the same population as the male veterans. It's the population called "veterans."
For what it's worth, I've yet to meet someone who disagrees with me. But here's the interesting thing. If men are perceived as the smaller group in a service population, most people tell me it's okay to deny services. Or they say it's acceptable to give men substandard care.
Take for example male victims of spouse violence. There is difference of opinion on whether male victims are a smaller population, but most people assume they are. And this is a common excuse used to deny all services, or approve only a sliver of care.
This is only one example. Only one analogy. But there are more. Just notice what goes on around you. See if anybody around you thinks it's acceptable for services to exclude women, or treat women with substandard care. Compare this to the number of people who make excuses when men are treated this way.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Dominance and men's issues
Can there be such a thing as men's issues?
Some people attempt to dismiss men's issues by saying men dominate all aspects of the culture, they control everything to their own advantage, and so they have no grounds for complaining. This argument fails in several ways, but the most fundamental failure is it's simply not true. For example, women dominate the electorate. Women outnumber men in the population, and they outnumber men as registered voters. Women can vote anyone into office they want. Every woman who loses a public election to a man, did so because a female-dominated electorate voted against her. Every judge who holds office was either elected by a female-dominated electorate, or was appointed by someone who was.
Now, some people will argue that women are socialized, and this makes it impossible for them to vote differently. But the fact is, men are socialized too. And women dominate the socialization of children. A person's self-image is pretty much set by age twelve, and women dominate this period of a person's life (as mothers, elementary school teachers, and day-care workers). And the influence does not stop there.
Having dominance in the electorate and dominance in the socialization of children are not small powers. Suppose you could enter another culture, control their electorate majority, and dominate the socialization of their children. You would have phenomenal power. It would not be 100% control, but you would have the kind of power that shapes civilizations. So the claim that men dominate and shape all aspects of the culture is simply not true. Both sexes have influence, but because of sex roles, both sexes ended up with inequities. And I think the above clearly demonstrates that the PC model of dominance is wrong.
Some people attempt to dismiss men's issues by saying men dominate all aspects of the culture, they control everything to their own advantage, and so they have no grounds for complaining. This argument fails in several ways, but the most fundamental failure is it's simply not true. For example, women dominate the electorate. Women outnumber men in the population, and they outnumber men as registered voters. Women can vote anyone into office they want. Every woman who loses a public election to a man, did so because a female-dominated electorate voted against her. Every judge who holds office was either elected by a female-dominated electorate, or was appointed by someone who was.
Now, some people will argue that women are socialized, and this makes it impossible for them to vote differently. But the fact is, men are socialized too. And women dominate the socialization of children. A person's self-image is pretty much set by age twelve, and women dominate this period of a person's life (as mothers, elementary school teachers, and day-care workers). And the influence does not stop there.
Having dominance in the electorate and dominance in the socialization of children are not small powers. Suppose you could enter another culture, control their electorate majority, and dominate the socialization of their children. You would have phenomenal power. It would not be 100% control, but you would have the kind of power that shapes civilizations. So the claim that men dominate and shape all aspects of the culture is simply not true. Both sexes have influence, but because of sex roles, both sexes ended up with inequities. And I think the above clearly demonstrates that the PC model of dominance is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)