Sexual Dimorphism is especially pronounced in seals, the genitalia of the sea. Photo by Peter Vermont
I’m about as productive as the government so I took a seven hour lunch and drove Electra around. She’s chasing some kite for the Bacon Lettuce and Tomato and we ended up at this lesbian’s house. I can’t remember names cause I initially didn’t care, but it turned out to be innaresting. There weren’t dildos under the cushions or anything, but they are organizing a Pride week sometime and there’ll be rainbow kite flying thing. More interesting was what she said about women in SL (and Greater Pakiland) having to deal with harassment daily. Like catcalls, car horning, getting flashed, jerked off on, and at the worst, molested and raped. And married to people they don’t like, getting beaten, etc. I normally wouldn’t think about it, but it’s getting so that I can’t get drunk without raising money for battered women, or have a glass of wine on Tuesday without ending up at random houses. Anyways, I’ve been watching a lot of zombie movies and I have a theory.
Biological Violence
One of my favorite classes in Uni was Human Evolution. The first thing about Human Evolution is that it’s a bunch of fucking monkeys and about two weeks of humans, but whatever. They had a room full of bones and we learned to tell them apart by sex, among other things. Some species aren’t very Sexually Dimorphic, meaning that the male and female of the species are pretty much the same size. Humans, however, are. Males are, on average, 36 pounds heavier than females, and that is 36 pounds of ass-beating bulk. Or, as the book puts it,
A high degree of sexual dimorphism (difference in size between the sexes) has been strongly correlated with male-male combat over access to females… In male-male competition, selection generally favors individuals with larger body size, physical weaponry (such as the large canine teeth of baboons), and other characteristics that expedite the male’s control over access to females (How Humans Evolved
Basically, men have evolved to be bigger than women mainly to beat the shit out of each other and rape the women that are left over. An example from antiquity is Achilles simply taking that captured girl as a love/sex slave (the one him and Agammemnon fought over). A more modern example is the Janjaweed in Sudan, simply raping and pillaging at will. I’d say that the natural state of gender relations is more violence and rape than anything else. I mean, periods of peace and farming and family are only possible with the protection of some warlord or government or somebody.
It’s hard to conceptualize this today, which is where the zombie movies come in. I was watching ‘28 Days Later‘ and there’s this weird point where the protagonists (one boy and two girls) find refuge in a military base. The base is manned, predictably, by men. They make the cook wear a dress. They’re all fairly normal guys, I mean, they’re British. However, it quickly becomes apparent that the men need sex and they intend to take the women as communal whores. Then the men begin fighting over the women and they all die.
Jim, Selena, and Hannah eat an uncomfortable meal with the brash, crude soldiers (with the exception of the sergeant, Farrell, a solemn and conscientious man), who are called to defend the house against an attack by the Infected. After the attack (when the corporal, highly charged with adrenaline after the battle, attempts to force himself on Selena), Major West takes Jim aside, and explains that he cannot let him, Selena, and Hannah leave; he has promised his lonely, suicidal and rebellious soldiers sexual access to women as a means of giving them hope, and of ‘rebuilding’ the world. The ‘answer’ to Infection is nothing more than rape
That is to say, when society breaks down, that’s the model you’re left with. Violence, rape and possession of women. I’d go so far as to say that women, being physically weaker in a violent species, have almost no natural, biological ‘rights’. Regardless of whatever human rights they certainly do have in a moral sense, they’re not going to get them without superior or at least equal access to violence. Any rights women have are necessarily given by society – other men, armies, police, etc.
Institutionalized Violence
For some reason I was reading the Wikipedia article on Babylonian Law and the Code of Hammurabi. First codified law or whatever. That treated marriage (and women) as a property transaction (between men). That is, in fact, the traditional and semi-modern legal structure of marriage. I’d say that it flows naturally out of a violence/rape culture except that intitutionalized violence is substituted for sheer anarchy. If someone broke the marriage contract and cuckolded the groom, then Hammurabi’s men would drown both cheating parties. So, rather than having to kill to protect your woman, the state does it for you.
That makes for a more stable society, but it is not fundamentally different from the biological model. Men still controlled women, in many cases to the point of legalized rape, and violence is still the mechanism for maintaining control. For an example of a legal code and institutions that haven’t really advanced past this stage, just look at Saudi Arabia.
Institutionalized Violence Part Deux
As societies progress or whatever, then you get things like free speech and free time, and this odd idea of women’s rights. You get more sophisticated laws which recognize woman as full citizens, with equal rights to safety and freedom. Human rights, if you will. This also means that women can choose who they marry, buy rather than be property, etc.
This system, however, still relies on the same mechanism of violence to make things work. If you rape a woman the police come and forcibly seize you, and physically hold you in jail. In this case they’re protecting ‘human’ rights rather than ‘male’ rights, but the mechanism is still the same. It is still an idealistic veneer pasted on top of an anarchic, naturally misogynstic reality. The reality is rape and violence, and all the small violations on the street and bus are just that reality peeking through. If half the population went zombie you could see it plain and clear.
Women are physically weaker and without institutionalized violence to protect them they will be abused. People approach the issue of women’s rights as ‘how could men behave this way?’ or ‘this is so unnatural’, but I think that’s fundamentally flawed from an evolutionary psych perspective. Men acting like dicks is pretty much the standard for a sexually dymorphic species. As crap as it is, the natural state of things is not very good from women. Institutionalized violence began by entrenching that reality, but it is slowly enabling a new (more artificial) reality where women have equal rights of their own. Of course, where the institutions are weak, those rights will disappear. More importantly, until women have some control of the institutions of violence they will never truly be secure.
After reading this I have a strong feeling that as a butch dyke in Sri Lanka, I will go and beat up some of sri lankas males……. misogonistic bas*&rds that they are. They will feel the wrath of my dildo were the sun don’t shine…..
great, great post indi.
and you are right, ‘until women have some control of the institutions of violence they will never truly be secure.’ this is a really complex issue, and the state of affairs right now is miserable and depressing. i wonder how, and when, it will change.
you are a really good driver, also. thank you. ( i don’t mean you actually drive well, you drive terribly, but you’re a good ‘driver’, you are patient and funny. looking.)
I’m not a bad driver, what the shit. I started out good and now I drive like a Sri Lankan. Much like my drinking habits and productivity
Gay Ray you’re other name is Padashow. Glad to see you’ve stopped talking to yourself on Padashow – for chrissake don’t start any silly racist stuff here. One omnipotent closet racist is quite enough on the blog, dude!
Good post Indi. You haven’t over theorised. Which is very good. This brings me back to the larger point of society just being a facilitatory structure. If no laws or social strictures existed there would certainly be a lot more rape and molestation. At the same time when will women stop asking for equality…realise they have it and assert it.
If a bloke starts jerking off on you, take your pepper spray out of your bag and spray it on his cock. I’ve had Wintogeno on mine and I can tell you it’s not funny. (BTW I wasn’t jerking off on a girl who rubbedn Wintogeno…it was peripheral damage from a groin muscle strain)
I know women who are NEVER messed with, on the bus, on the street, wherever. It’s just a matter of empowerment. Of yourself. Not a constant hue and cry about how inferior you think you are, because that is what the quest for equality stems from in the first place…a feeling of inequality.
Ashanthi quit replying posts on different threads… what are you some sort of human/baboon hybrid? Actually my other name Phil Mcavity. I though you boasted that you would make one post and then not check pada show ever again… you sly little cup cake you…
BTW I believe it was you and Durga who started the whole ‘indi is a closet racist” theme you raving lunatic… I love baseless insults don’t you.
Ashanthi what are you just stupid or are you some sort of human/baboon hybrid? Kindly reply to a comment on the thread its on and not on some other post… and if I do recall I believe it was you and Durga who started the whole “indi is a closet racist” nonsense…. You called Indi a closet racist based on what exactly? Face it you got called out… ownup to your own prejudices before calling on anyone else to do the same. Indi maybe alot of things smart, nerdishly sexy, occasionally misinformed, opinionated but racist he ain’t…
Oh and my other name is Hugh Jorgan not pada show… hey wait a sec… wasn’t it you who haughtily claimed that you would make one post on padashow and then not bother with it… clearly you loved the site you big liar you…
Hugs and kisses baby….
Indi…you know who Gay Ray is. Please try and filter impostors. I know you must have some ctrl+F5 method….
ugly women are never messed with on the bus, is that what you mean? That’s the best defense
yeah, I dunno if Gay Ray would call me ‘nerdishly sexy’. Maybe the water boys would, but I suspect this is not the original. Gay Ray also does not use spaces when he types
interesting ..
are you very sure violence (in ‘primitive’ as well as ‘modern’ human society ) have any significant influence on how ppl interact? are you sure it was all rape beneath a ‘idealistic veneer’? are you sure that the ‘alpha males’ who got all the women achieved that status just because he was more ‘brutal ‘ than others? why was achilles subordinate to the agamemnon and let him have his girl/price (reluctantly but that’s the point) even though he was the more violent one?
are you very sure women mere objects used by men bc they were ‘physically weaker in a violent species’? are you sure they had no say on who they mated with then as now? are you sure that they didn’t know how to manage men? why is it that scientific studies show that women have ‘evolved’ to prefer certain physical characteristics in men that ensure healthy offspring, if they did not have any say in the matter? why did clytemnestra had the better of agamemnon the victor of trojan war with all his concubines?
and consider this
yesterday a male was driving around a female during his lunch hour even though he initially had no interest in where she was going.
Sadly yet a over simplified analysis which exonerates the males of this country by putting it all down to genitalia. The males of this country should not be exonorated if the females as “Sophists” suggests used a zero tolerance approach, then they would stop doing it maybe a law passed to say that females can physically attack these male perpetrators with the full protection of the law. I wonder how many balls would need restitching at the local hospital… And Anon and Gay ray appear to have hijacked your post shame that…… Maybe Anon is Padashow, after all Anon do’s admit to being a butch dyke or maybe he is male and “Gay”Ray gettit….!!
nut: I’m pointing to one bit of biological evidence – sexual dimorphism. Size difference between species generally indicates violent competition for mates. Antlers for example. It’s also not too much of a stretch to say that for the majority of human civilization most women have not had a choice as to who they marry/mate with, instead being given by other men. Asking me ‘are you sure’ is an interesting start, but not an actual argument.
nin: again, understand that you disagree, but there aren’t any particular points to the contrary there.
oh i did not make a clear argument bc i agree with most of what you say but somebody (if they want) can find a root of a counter argument (good one too imo) in my ‘are you sure’ questions.
indi : -ugly women are never messed with- that would sound logical, but sadly this isn’t the case. to most, relative physical attractiveness doesnt really matter. as long as you’re walking, breathing and you have a vagina, it seems good enough. if ugly women weren’t messed with, then a lot of us (including moi) would have to be reasonably safe, no? ha ha!
Electra….DON’T fish for compliments. It’s unbecoming.
Even some very attractive women are never messed with because they look like they’ll beat you to death if you do. This doesn’t mean that they are severe or mean looking. Just that they’re confident and wouldn’t hesitate to embarrass the embarrasser.
It’s just a question of self-belief, not even a belief in your own gender.
Simone de Beauvoir wrote on the consideration of women as the deviant species, it’s an interesting work and refreshing, considering the voluminous amount of drivel written on feminism. Beauvoir took it to a scale of feminist existentialism, that one is not born a woman, but essentially transforms into one, and the natural tendency of things is an affinity towards the male. I’m terrible at re-constructing her argument, partially because she’s possibly the cleverest person I’ve read (Sartre said she was the only person intelligent enough to completely understand his writing). ‘Tota mulier in utero’ – ‘woman is awomb’, is one possible line of thought, and stemming from reproductive function, our vulnerability begins. It isn’t physical weakness per se, it’s more complex, it’s our anatomy. Sex is penetrative, invasive. Ejaculation is infiltrative and women are the only ones who can be left completely physically transformed after the act, our genitals act as a repository of sorts, our biology defeats us and we experience unnatural pain during childbirth, we experience pain during menstruation, we experience pain during menopause, and in essence (this partially supports the theory) woman is left transformed into ‘less than a woman’, almost a man. I am by nature opposed to women’s rights, I think the cosmetic, protective shroud is superfluous, and would like to believe that the same law that protects a man, protects me. I’d like to think I’m not a special subset of man in need of their protection. But my biological make up, and my sub-transformation requires that an act of invasive violence against me be treated with equal repression. But civilised society has instituted the concept of restuitive law, which to me is a marvel, but goes against the grain of my anatomy, I want to believe that rapists and molesters are sick, and need to be rehabilitated, but my ‘womanhood’ recoils from the idea and wants them to be seized.
right on, ru. props.
indi, your attempt to theorize violence against women is laudable but also, i think, frustratingly facile. knowing you, the mistakes are ignorance rather than knowing chauvinism, but still! let’s debunk a little.
point one. sexual dimorphism.
wikipedia says that it’s “the systematic difference in form between individuals of different sex in the same species” and not, as you put it, males being bigger. sure, in humans that’s an obvious aspect of it–but having a penis vs a vagina is for most people the most blatantly important difference between men and women. i mean, there are LOTS of women that are bigger than men. case in point: me, in Sri Lanka.
this seems like nitpicking, but it’s not–your argument diminishes the veritable panoply of dimorphic traits and highlights only the one that supports your argument.
point two. biological violence.
you can’t argue that something is “natural” based on its appearing in a greek legend and a zombie flick. those are, as we say, cultural products. if you want to make an argument about the necessity of male violence to secure females, well sure, but know that for all your chimpanzees and elephant seals there are bonobos and giraffes and elephants waiting in the rhetorical wings to topple your zoological logic.
digression: this is intellectually shabby as well as patently offensive: “I’d go so far as to say that women, being physically weaker in a violent species, have almost no natural, biological ‘rights’”
1. violent species is a pointless oversimplification. are we more violent or more altruistic? i’d say the latter. look at our comparative years of childhood/childcare time, look at our bloody massive civilization! society can be seen as something we built to protect ourseves from our violent tendencies (as you think) or it can be seen as a refinement of altruistic tendencies, but either way, we [collectively] did it! mostly, people don’t rape and kill each other. i don’t think that most of us are seething over with the barely-suppressed desire to do so.
2. wtf is a natural biological right? nothing! we live, we die. there’s nothing rights-related about it; rights are human inventions. males have no ‘natural biological right’ to kill or fuck or eat or sleep or jerk off on the #77 bus. no one has natural biological rights.
point three. institutionalized violence.
i admire you for taking on the seriousness of women’s plight. sexual and emotional violence, rape, harassment, and discrimination* are embarrassingly and horrifyingly real problems for many people in the world today. however you have jumped to the conclusion that society, as engineered by men, is a mechanism for the controlling of innate male tendencies. the problem with this is that you’re still seeing women in a subject position–which is of course hard not to do, being (as we all are) products of a patriarchal culture.
so what is culture besides “an idealistic veneer pasted on top of an anarchic, naturally misogynstic reality”? well, do you honestly believe that the day-to-day desires of men are for rape, violence, and public ogling? men want sex, sure, and maybe they want it with lots of women as frequently as possible and would gladly kill for it. or maybe they want to feel safe from the violence of other men. a marxist would describe society as a system for wealth/power concentration, with sexual politics and mores as a mere subcategory. in this interpretation (integrating feminist and postcolonialist aspects), people (both male and female) are made to feel weak and sexually unempowered through economic power relationships with richer, whiter men. the oppressors are similarly traumatized by society’s demand for them to oppress. male sexual violence is an outgrowth of the trauma cycle of the whole system.
okay, so now i’m going to be accused of ‘over-theorizing.’ sorry, but when you under-theorize you come up with sloppy, misogynistic nonsense like existense of ‘natural biological rights’ and the ‘artificial reality of women’s rights.’ it’s easy to come up with a simple argument which rationalizes the status quo–hell, you don’t have to rationalize! social status is inherently rational to those who grow up in it. your pseudo-humanistic approach suggests tritely that we can strengthen the veneer and suppress the ‘natural’ enough to maybe let the poor oppressed women squeeze out a tiny patch of safety in this cruel life.
reality? that there are multiple systems of control and multiple realities of desire and biological drive, all of which operate on modern humans in such a way that one can plausibly defend almost any argument about the innate logic of human societies. i am prepared to offer evolutionary-biological, zoological, psychological, and pop-music examples of, for example, female violence against males, female power consolidation, male desire for emotional safety, female reification of patriarchy, male reification of matriarchy, blah blah blah. what it comes down to, though, is: what do the people and structures of your immediate life indicate? that men are violent rapists, and women need protecting? lucky for me, this is but a minor note in my daily experience.
sure, most of us are lucky enough to be insulated from the worst of sexual violence. but the ways this violence operates in our lives is thus far more insidious. we are in danger of painting the issues in a naturalized black and white: men are violent, and women need protecting. (or access to violence, which is merely a more proactive way of saying the same thing.) the woman harassed anonymously on the street, the woman raped by a close friend; these people aren’t going to be helped by state violence of any kind.
*Sophist, your assertion that “women have [equality]” is ridiculous given that you just said that the only thing preventing mass rape is a flimsy set of laws and social strictures. plus, i don’t know where you work, but in general women are paid less, promoted less, and heard less in the workplace; they take on far more than half of physical and emotional housework and childrearing; they are less represented in the professions and in political life, etc etc etc. we cna have another conversation about why all of this is true–no doubt you think it’s women’s ‘natural biological rights’–but don’t say foolish things like “women have equality.” no, they don’t. it’s that simple.
I don’t know about the nerdish part but you are certainly witty! Is it wrong that I laughed for most of this post? You had me at zombie.
You brought up a lot of good points Indi, but don’t go telling these things to a hardcore feminist. It’s true though that women ARE biologically weaker than men because men are generally physically stronger than woman. The cards are naturally stacked against women, because they face more problems than men do, no matter what kind of protection government laws give. It’s even worse for women who live in countries like Saudi Arabia, because they don’t get any protection from laws, they’re basically at the mercy of their fathers, or husbands. As a woman living in the U.S. I’m fortunate that I have laws in place to protect me, but sometimes the laws aren’t enough, that’s why I always carry pepper spray in my purse, and I strongly suggest all women carry it on them. I’ve never had to use mine, but it’s there just in case.
ru makes a very very, intelligent point. i am actually blown away by that comment.
reb drives home a very valid point, too.
i still think indi made a good post. this was his attempt to draw some logic from a situation that seems, at its core, illogical.
it is always really hard to define ‘equality’. frankly, i think its a myth and doesn’t, and will never, exist. there will never be actual equality between the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, and between men and women. there is and always will be, naturally, this rift that separates some from us from the rest of us, be it because of where we live, how much we earn, how much we know or what kind of reproductive organs we were born with.
those of us who are weaker are victims of harassment on a daily basis. we are harassed by the law, by other people, by culture, by the pressure of expectations. of course, like sophist says, if you are not weak, especially by the standards of those who think you are, you are less likely to get harassed.
it would be nice to believe that women’s rights are unnecessary, because technically, women are human and human rights should rightfully apply to everyone. i don’t know what we are fighting for when we fight for equality, but the truth is, ‘equality’ is never going to happen. but the reality is that we have come to need special laws and a special set of rights as women so that we may be protected by these things, as this is about the only protection we can get that we can depend on, no matter what. we cannot depend on ourselves unconditionally, we cannot depend on those that seem to care, either. the law is about the only thing that is impartial and unchanged by feelings and nature, and therefore about the only thing that we can count on to stand up for us, simply because we are people.
women shouldn’t have to carry pepper spray around. essentially, unless men need to carry pepper spray around too, this is almost as bad as saying women should watch what they wear on the bus unless they want to get felt up. where’s the equality? and you see, this is what harassment is. every man is born perverted (naturally) by a woman’s standards. but some men actually practise self control, and behave respectfully and maturely. and some men just don’t. so none of it is justifiable. where’s the equality?
harassment doesn’t have to constitute physical abuse, or sexual molestation. harassment is something women deal with every day. because as a woman, the law, the state, the world as a whole, barely takes you seriously. you (technically) have no privacy and no one respects the decisions you make. because of this so called biological weakness. because as a woman, people think you need to be told how to live, and what to do, and what to wear : men need to protect you from other men and society needs to protect you from all the things that could happen. because of this so called biological weakness. because as a woman, you’re inherently guilty of everything you are, and inherently thankful to those who are stronger. because as a woman, you are born a certain way that is interpreted as ‘weaker’ and therefore more vulnerable, so you spend your entire life trying to curb this vulnerability and trying to be strong(er).
– ‘biologically weaker than man’- women can’t even just be. they have to be something in comparison to something man is.
electra, i love (and agree with, wholeheartedly) your analysis of the pervasive and emotional nature of harassment in society. but do you really think that “every man is born perverted”? i think that the brutality of patriarchy operates psychologically on men as well.
so, yeah, there are these biological drives, but why is it that some men (and disproportionately of different classes and social backgrounds) abuse women? is it that society teaches boys that the way to feel good about yourself is to be stronger and better than girls? that if you’re not the biggest most aggressive boy, you’re inadequate?
the best-case scenario, as you and indi seem to believe, is that men can be all properly taught to control their greater strength. with that thinking you’re always going to get a substantial number of angry, small-hearted men, with no outlets for their emotions, who have ‘learned’ that women are weak and can be preyed on.
i just don’t think a world entirely free from gender based harassment and discrimination is a possible reality.
-do you really think that “every man is born perverted”- by a woman’s standards, yes, i do believe so. women and men have very different approaches to sex and sexuality, like ru said, this is almost innate. a woman doesn’t think in the same way a man does about sex, and if a woman were to peep into the thoughts of even the most civilized, well behaved man she knows, she would be surprised by what she finds there, simply because it is different to her mind set.
Electra your final paragraph is the elixir that all women have been searching for. The understanding that you will never understand the sexual deviancy of the male mind. It also doesn’t work vice versa. Not of course that women are sexually deviant.
For once…I agree completely with Ru and consequently Simone. The more of her and the less Greers the better.
As long as there are feminists in the calibre of Reb the plight of women will be perpetuated. The entire ethos that women are vulnerable and need to be protected by special rights and the strength of solidarity only serves to weaken your case.
Funnily enough you should mention it Reb, I work on a floor with 14 women. 4 of whom are partners and make a fuckload more than I do. I am one of two (since last week) males on the floor. The lunch room discussion generally varies between babies, husbands and where you bought that saree. None of which interest me. But it is my lot. I put up and I shut up. Because the women are the majority. But never have I felt discriminated against or harrassed or manipulated. The fact that men get paid more is a generalisation. People get paid more or less for purely professional economic considerations. If you don’t understand this you probably wouldn’t have understood much.
Don’t take yourself too seriously. As you yourself acknowledge violence against women is not so rampant that it is of epidemic proportions. It is a problem but the remedies are in place. The law has always tormented the weaker and as Electra points out very insightfully, it doesn’t matter if you’re the employee, or the rapee, fraudee or the victim of whatever gamut of offences, the law is and always will be an ass. So don’t flatter yourselves by thinking that it was designed to subjugate women and further the patriarchal dons that run society with an iron fist.
I very rarely get irritated with the people that post on indi’s fine fine blog. Amused yes, offended yes, abused yes, but this….
How can you tell Ru she is spot on and contradict her without a shred of remorse throughout your entire post.
‘I’m cool and I’m hot!’ I remember Ru once saying to me. Why can’t more women think like that? Because the goddam feminists keep telling them not to.
sophist, i want to first of all apologize honestly (i mean this–it’s hard to indicate ‘no sarcasm’ in the blogworld, but believe me please) to you. if you think i believe in an “entire ethos that women are vulnerable and need to be protected by special rights and the strength of solidarity” then i’ve gone seriously wrong somewhere in my argument. i have no desire to offend, abuse, or irritate. and i don’t take myself any more seriously than anyone else on here, i’m just long-winded and thorough. (not to say that anyone else should be more thorough; i do have the tendency to go on…)
i support and cheer Ru’s hot/cool assertion 100%. wish i had the confidence to say the same for myself. a majority of feminists that i know *do* think this way, in terms of affirming the right to be awesome and proud and attractive as part of that. i think the point of feminism here is that there might be more to women than their looks, and that unattractive (by birth or inattentiveness to appearance culture) women should not be fodder for public ridicule. and come on, the voices of feminism in the public media are extremely minor (and can’t ‘tell women what to do’) as compared with the many voices of patriarchy.
in danger of taking myself too seriously–i just want to make a complex counterargument to indi’s theory! is that allowed?
but now, can i dissect just a little? you misunderstand me:
1.The entire ethos that women are vulnerable and need to be protected by special rights and the strength of solidarity only serves to weaken your case.
My case was that women (and men) are made vulnerable to systematic (gender and economic) violence through culture and that the biological “inherency” argument is merely a post-facto rationalization. I said NOTHING of the sort you mention. Though, come to think of it, I like solidarity. I don’t exclude males from that, though–I want us all in solidarity against violence inherent in culture!
2.I work on a floor with 14 women. … But it is my lot. I put up and I shut up. …. But never have I felt discriminated against or harrassed or manipulated.
Okay, this is not a valid argument against the issue of workplace discrimination. I’m sorry, but one professional man’s non-discrimination (though clearly you suffer or you wouldn’t cite ‘putting up and shutting up’) does not erase or disprove the experiences of thousands of people. You say, “I am a disadvantaged minority too.” So what? it’s great that you’re not feeling too oppressed, but your position should make you compassionate rather than grumpy.
3.The fact that men get paid more is a generalisation.
and it’s true. check it out (for the USA): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA which, incidentally, has lots of complex analyses of the why and how of income disparity.
4. People get paid more or less for purely professional economic considerations.
that’s NOT true. companies have time and again been proved to pay people different wages for the same jobs, whether because of pure seniority, age, gender, or simple personality considerations. it may be true that many companies have extremely standardized payscales, but even within that model managers have control over promotions, wage increases, hiring/firing, etc.
5. If you don’t understand this you probably wouldn’t have understood much.
i’m sorry to be so darned stupid!
6.the law is and always will be an ass. So don’t flatter yourselves by thinking that it was designed to subjugate women and further the patriarchal dons that run society with an iron fist.
“the law” isn’t anything more or less than what people make it. it doesn’t exist outside of what we enact and how we enforce it. it can’t be an ass unless some ass made it. (or someone acting like an ass, having grown up in an ass-producing society, as i’ve argued; these systems get in place and they perpetuate themselves). i’m not crying blame here, not claiming it’s all out to subjugate women and elevate men. i said that “people are made to feel weak and sexually unempowered through economic power relationships. the oppressors are similarly traumatized by society’s demand for them to oppress. male sexual violence is an outgrowth of the trauma cycle of the whole system.” that is, we are all trapped in a prison of past devising and current perpetuation. no puppetmaster dons, just a big cycle of fear.
7. How can you tell Ru she is spot on and contradict her without a shred of remorse throughout your entire post.
wtf? i obviously agree with her–
Ru says:
“It isn’t physical weakness per se, it’s more complex, it’s our anatomy.”
and i say:
not size but “having a penis vs a vagina is for most people the most blatantly important difference between men and women”
Ru says:
“I am by nature opposed to women’s rights… I’d like to think I’m not a special subset of man in need of their protection…I want to believe that rapists and molesters are sick, and need to be rehabilitated, but my ‘womanhood’ recoils from the idea and wants them to be seized.”
and i say:
“we are in danger of painting the issues in a naturalized black and white: men are violent, and women need protecting. (or access to violence, which is merely a more proactive way of saying the same thing.)”
…which is me saying that there’s this trap, which Ru outlines, clearly, between our humanistic impulses (‘they’re sick’) and our protective impulses (‘they’re violent/we’re weak’).
…there are more examples of this, but largely, she’s talking about the natural body and how we read it (culturally) and live in it (emotionally). i’m talking about the macro-cultural narratives that we use to rationalize gender relations.
okay? again, i’m sorry to have irritated you… but i think you’re reading something else into my argument than what’s actually there. and could you lay off the generalizing about ‘feminists’? if you haven’t done your reading of serious feminist writers–or blogs, hell, they’re there! try http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/ for hilarious clever material–just don’t write reactionary claptrap without knowing the terrain.
i seriously hope you don’t tar me for being a victim-monger here. i’m trying to spread the fun around, not claim it all for us gals! have some, it’s tasty a la mode.
I have read more than my fair share of reactionary feminist claptrap. It is the one reason I dropped out of one of my universities. Get out and live a little…
oh come on, are we already making personal attacks??
i seriously can’t provide the details of my fascinating personal and professional life in order to prove myself worthy of discussing major social issues.
i believe your assertion that you’ve read some reactionary feminist claptrap. i’m not trying to paint you as an oppressive male chauvinist pig here. but your writing shows a level of disrespect (for me, as well as for the kinds of things i was trying to be serious) that suggests either unfamiliarity, misapprehension, psychological self-defense, or major nasty cynicism.
i suppose i’ve run this topic into the ground, seeing as no one will talk with me except to malign my social life. it’s a shame; with Ru and Electra and Sophist’s comments, i thought we had the makings of a good juicy dialogue.
We do have space for juicy dialogue Reb, and I hate qualifying the comments of other people, so correct me if I’m wrong Sophist:
You, Sophist assert that these cosmetic gender battles get in the way of honest-to-god harassment and abuse and real battles, and it’s the sisterhood that propogates this state of affairs, empirically I agree with you. There are women who tell me that I should be offended when a male colleague calls me sweetie, love, sugar, baby or any manner of endearments. I say piss off. I’m not offended and stop trying to take the fun out of work. I think it’s an inadvertent show of respect that I am a part of the team, they don’t value my contribution any less, and so what if it gets sexual? We all like sex. I don’t have time for platitudes but I’m damned if I let it get in the way of the quality of work I produce. I cringe when the boss steps in and hands out a round of sensitivity training and reprimands the men in the office for calling us ‘girls’. This is just a layer on the multitude of laws and niceties that is a part of this protective construct and I will only say this once: I don’t need anyone telling me I’m equal, and I don’t need a law or a rule or a verbal directive declaring that I am equal to a man – I’m humiliated to discover that I wasn’t before, and I went to law school just to understand that.
If you meet Sophist personally it’s entirely different. He’s actually quite likable, and he actually does have a line, it’s just a foot or so further than everyone else. So, I wouldn’t take it as disrespect. I mean, I did, but I wouldn’t now
Thank you Ru. It’s women/females/girls (don’t know what the PC word is) that make life worth living sometimes. Why does everyone have to take themselves so goddam seriously?’ Feminists are to women what NGO’s are to conflict. Self indulgent perpetuators with not only a chip but a whole can of Pringles on their shoulders.
“I don’t need anyone telling me I’m equal, and I don’t need a law or a rule or a verbal directive declaring that I am equal to a man” –
atta girl, Ru.
I think the unfortunate point is that you can feel as independent as you want. If you don’t have the muscle (institutional or otherwise) to back it up it really doesn’t matter. Women do need a law or directive saying that they’re equal because they need more than their share of protection from the state. It’s precisely because women can’t defend themselves as well that they need protection from the mostly male police and army. Not that they get it, really, especially in domestic abuse cases, but they do need special treatment from the law.
You are coming from a point of view of the violent society, I am not, and I opine that laws are not in position to protect the female of the species from dominant male. Sodomy is considered a crime regardless of gender (which has unfortunately been distilled into a gamut of pre-victorian laws criminalising homosexuality in a variety of nations, which is a different story altogether) but that came from the premise that sodomy is a violent sexual crime that can be forcibly perpetrated on another man, is that not considered rape? And is that not a ‘special treatment’ from the law as you call it? Your argument is moot for the reason that it is based on the idea that laws are structured to protect the weaker from the stronger, and not victim from perpetrator. There is no reason to believe that I am unequal and I will still be mortified to have my rights disbursed to me as if they didn’t already exist.
All I say is that law is there to impose artificial order and replace the natural one. That law can reinforce patriarchy or promote equality, as discussed above. The natural biological order is violent and male-dominated (as sexual dimorphism, however weak, would suggest). Hence, any rights given to women are artificial and no, you’re rights didn’t ‘already exist’. They only existed as far as your immediate family would give them to you, and today they exist as far as the state gives them to you.
You know all the stuff about ‘fighting for freedom’? Women don’t fight (as much), so any freedom they have is necessarily borrowed.
If my rights exist insofar as granted to me through sovereignty, so are yours. If I am protected from rape, so are you. And if I am protected from all violence, so are you. And again I disagree with you about the ‘natural biological order’ of violence and male-domination, you consistently misinterpret legal structure as being in place to protect the weaker, (I’ll have to apologise for calling that a misinterpretation, it might be your interpretation) I have to repeat, it protects the victim, and if I want to go a step further, it protects the criminal as well from harm and inhumanity in the course of delivering justice.
I may be of a generation of women that never had to fight for freedom or borrow it, but you are from a generation of men that never lent it out. It was apportioned equally. And the hardcore sisterhood will tell you that we never saw the fight.
ru is inherently wise.
i don’t know how relevant this is, but here’s something i used awhile ago (i read it somewhere) –
To some scientists and theorists, the biological differences between men and women make their gender roles inevitable. These “essentialists†contend that gender behavior is coded in the brain and in the chemistry of the body. Brain structure is cited as a key reason for gender differences. For example, neuroscientists have discovered that women’s brains have a larger corpus callosum, which serves as the bridge that carries messages between the right and left hemispheres. Some theorists believe this difference in structure explains why women are more intuitive and better at expressing their emotions—the two hemispheres communicate more in women’s brains, so information flows more readily from the emotional right hemisphere to the verbal left hemisphere. In addition to differences in the brain, other biological factors may play a part in shaping gender behavior- (end)
gender roles define a lot of who we are and who we are expected to be, especially in more conservative and conventional socities like our own. although i do think biology must have initially had SOMETHING to do with the creation of these conventions and gender roles, i don’t think biology had everything to do with it. this may be digressive, but what i’m trying to point out here is that women should be treated and judged as what they are : human beings. we are people, and we should be loved/hated for the same reasons you love/hate any other person. just the same, we should be respected/disrespected like you respect/disrespect any other person. i suppose this would appear as though i’m asking for equal rights, but it is not equal rights i am interested in so much as it is equality. equality so far as can be created, because complete equality is totally impossible, for obvious reasons.
the law should protect the victim, as ru points out, and not always is the victim victimized due to his or her comparative weakness. the law shouldn’t protect the weak, but should focus on protecting the victim, no matter how weak or strong he/she is.
certain laws have been put in place to specifically protect women, however, because this has become necessary. not only because women are weaker and helpless to defend themselves most often, but simply because women are victimized on the ground of their sex and it’s so-called weakness more often than men are. even if a woman isn’t physically weaker than her perpetrator, more often than not, she will NOT do much to defend herself, purely because she believes she is the weaker party. this is what her gender role is, and what she has been taught. please note that most of this applies largely to sri lankan (or similar) society, and then again more the rural ones than the urban ones. most women will never physically lash out at their husbands when they are being raped or beaten, nor will they take a complaint to the police, NOT always because they are actually weaker, but because traditional gender roles have them believing they are.
You-are-all-invited-to-my-orgy.
Ind –
I like the way you think, even though I am a woman. It’s nice to read an idea that though through. Would you mind thinking through what I should do?
Love sha
IMO we as a species are not sexually dimorphic… There’s none of the classic evidence (e.g. antlers or harems).. and the size difference isn’t that great.
Especially here, where some women are.. um. big boned.
As for women not having a choice of mate, same usually applies in the animal kingdom, except when the females are larger or rarer than the males… or something…
I disagree with the whole humans = strongly dimorphic concept.. For what it counts I’ve written my own alternate view and I could have sworn I sent you a nice pingback unless my pingbaker got broken, or something..
Bonus points for using “veritable panoply” in a conversational context. And I used to think I was unnaturally verbose/pedantic ;)
Say, how come I never see you at my site. No, wait, on second thoughts, don’t answer that.
Um.. above comment was a reply to Ru’s comment
Humans are on the weak end of sexual dimorphism, but no scientist would say that we are not sexually dimorphic. An average of 36 pounds weight difference is not small, and the huge differences in athletic performance (as per the Olympics) make it pretty clear that men are stronger than women. If you look at the average height and weight scales the doctor has, men are obviously bigger than women, and testosterone alone gives us more muscle mass. In fact, lack of testosterone means ‘females have less muscle mass, higher body fat, smaller hearts, and less hemoglobin, even after correction for their smaller size. In top female athletes, these differences result in lower maximal oxygen consumption, less muscular strength, and less anaerobic capacity in comparison with the top males’ (SportSci). There is simply no evidence to support the argument that humans are not sexually dimorphic.
The dimorphism isn’t as pronounced as in, say, seals, but it still gives men a distinct advantage in terms of violence. That is why armies and police forces are 90-99% male (worldwide) and even in the US Army, women rarely serve in direct combat. Men have an advantage in violence, and men stronger than women. It’s not an extreme argument, and aside from being obvious, it’s pretty well supported.
Is society making me unnatural? I’m just trying to figure out why I like dick, that’s all. I think some people would rather I rape women — woops, I always mess up their point: I should have the natural urge, but be at least as cultured as to buy a home, wife and an easy chair before having my no barriers! sex, in the bedroom only, please.
In other news: I moved to San Francisco. Went to the beach with Shannon yesterday. You should fly out here and tap some of the westcoast weaker sex with me. Like twinks. I mean chicks.