GftNC, perhaps the problem is precisely that most men are like the Good Men you describe. We don't really see an obvious reason to label ourselves. The anomalies, the various flavors of bad guys, they need labels. If only so the rest of the world knows which kind of bad behaviors to watch out for from a particular individual.
But why do we need a label? Aren't we the default, the general expectation? (Yeah, I rather think we are.) Still, if somebody thinks we do need a label, "Gentlemen" works for me.**
** I realize that some may object to this, on the grounds that this has class overtones. Bosh!
Partly I say that because, in my misspent youth, I came across a story, with characters definitely not upper class: Gentlemen, Be Seated! It leapt to mind just now.
2 weeks ago
Girls don’t get restless in class?
Less so than boys at the same age.
Say, rather, they have been taught not to behave like they are.
2 weeks ago
Chiming in briefly to note that the underlying assumption in Charles’ comment is that sitting still and paying attention are somehow feminine behaviors.
Girls don’t get restless in class?
I don't know about current practice. But when I was growing up, girls were socialized early on to not run around, yell, be generally disorderly, etc. Generally before they even got to kindergarten, certainlly before they finished elementary school.
The parental, teacher, and social pressures may have been barely visible to the little boys, but in retrospect they were definitely strong. Perhaps, although I don't want to put words in his mouth, that kind of experience influenced Charles' comment.
3 weeks ago
nous -- I’m trying to understand where you draw the line between patriarchy and “men seeking status and dominance.”
My (attempted) point is that rape isn't just about men showing how they are more powerful / higher status than women. (Which is my understanding of how patriarchy is being used.) It's about an individual showing that relative to another individual. Gender isn't really a necessary component.
3 weeks ago
also, yep, it’s not about sex, but rather about status and power and hierarchy within the patriarchal structure.
This I think, speaks (unconsciously?) to the root of the problem of rape. It's not patriarchy per se; that's just a particularly prevalent environment for it. It occurs when someone (the rapist) feels the need to demonstrate his power and status. Often to others, both the victim and the audience. But also sometimes just to himself.**
For a test case, consider prisons. Rape among inmates is pretty much never about sex. It about establishing and demonstrating who is more powerful.
Getting rid of patriarchy, while desirable in itself, won't address the problem of rape. At most, it will shift the mix of who gets raped.
To actually deal with the problem of rape, we need to consider how to reduce the enormous pressure to achieve status and dominance. Or change the way status and dominance are demonstrated. Get us to the point where the reaction of people who know a rapist is "What a pathetic loser! Can't even [however status is demonstrated in that culture]."
** "himself" because most rapists are male. How much of that is because men are more often in higher status/more powerful positions in our culture, and how much is simply mechanical, is a different discussion.
3 weeks ago
f, as it seems, all of the regular male participants on ObWi find this a foreign concept, it makes them a rather unusual group. Who knows about the lurkers, however.
Nice as it is to be seen as special, I'm not entirely convinced that we are that anomalous. Not the pretend that there are not an appallingly large number of scum out there. But I think that, exactly because they are so horrid, they appear more numerous, more usual, than they actually are.
I recall a couple of social circles/groups I was in back in the 60s and 70s and 80s. Both included some high profile males (I decline to style them men) for whom "sexist" or "predatory" are mild adjectives. But, looking over the whole group, there were a host of men, from teenagers to elderly, whose behavior and language wouldn't distress anyone here. But we didn't stand out like the lowlifes did.
3 weeks ago
I’m constantly surprised and repulsed by the number of classic rock and pop songs I hear still being played today that are about jailbait (even on the satellite feed in Trader Joe’s).
It is perhaps less surprising (but no less repulsive) for those of us who were teens in the 60s and remember.
Or, although not jail bait, considered something like Surf City: "Two girls for every boy!" Even as a teenager when this came out, my first thought was "Doesn't really sound all that great for the girls". Even if you don't classify that as misogyny, it seems remarkably tone deaf.
3 weeks ago
GftNC, certainly it depends on context. But my assumption was based on a lack of context. That is, a standalone remark. My thought being that, to advoid that assumption from listeners, it behoves the speaker to provide some context to counter the assumption.
3 weeks ago
GftNC, if the totality of what Chomsky said was the quote ("I’ve met [all] sorts of people, including major war criminals. I don’t regret having met any of them.”), I would take the unambiguous meaning to be that he is perfectly comfortable spending time with the scum of the earth.
3 weeks ago
On the Chomsky remark you quote, I think it is ambiguous.
I'd say that whether it's ambiguous depends a lot on what's in the (unquoted) rest of what he said. There might well be context that shows what he thinks of those people and their views. Good or ill.
But if the quote is the totality of his statement, it doesn't seem all that ambiguous. At least to me.
3 weeks ago
It’s almost as if we are ruled by an at best amoral, unaccountable elite not governed by any law.
I really must take serious exception. Given the behavior on display, amoral seems like sane-washing. Immoral is what we've got here; there really isn't any reason to attempt to whitewash it.
GftNC, perhaps the problem is precisely that most men are like the Good Men you describe. We don't really see an obvious reason to label ourselves. The anomalies, the various flavors of bad guys, they need labels. If only so the rest of the world knows which kind of bad behaviors to watch out for from a particular individual.
But why do we need a label? Aren't we the default, the general expectation? (Yeah, I rather think we are.) Still, if somebody thinks we do need a label, "Gentlemen" works for me.**
** I realize that some may object to this, on the grounds that this has class overtones. Bosh!
Partly I say that because, in my misspent youth, I came across a story, with characters definitely not upper class: Gentlemen, Be Seated! It leapt to mind just now.
Say, rather, they have been taught not to behave like they are.
I don't know about current practice. But when I was growing up, girls were socialized early on to not run around, yell, be generally disorderly, etc. Generally before they even got to kindergarten, certainlly before they finished elementary school.
The parental, teacher, and social pressures may have been barely visible to the little boys, but in retrospect they were definitely strong. Perhaps, although I don't want to put words in his mouth, that kind of experience influenced Charles' comment.
My (attempted) point is that rape isn't just about men showing how they are more powerful / higher status than women. (Which is my understanding of how patriarchy is being used.) It's about an individual showing that relative to another individual. Gender isn't really a necessary component.
This I think, speaks (unconsciously?) to the root of the problem of rape. It's not patriarchy per se; that's just a particularly prevalent environment for it. It occurs when someone (the rapist) feels the need to demonstrate his power and status. Often to others, both the victim and the audience. But also sometimes just to himself.**
For a test case, consider prisons. Rape among inmates is pretty much never about sex. It about establishing and demonstrating who is more powerful.
Getting rid of patriarchy, while desirable in itself, won't address the problem of rape. At most, it will shift the mix of who gets raped.
To actually deal with the problem of rape, we need to consider how to reduce the enormous pressure to achieve status and dominance. Or change the way status and dominance are demonstrated. Get us to the point where the reaction of people who know a rapist is "What a pathetic loser! Can't even [however status is demonstrated in that culture]."
** "himself" because most rapists are male. How much of that is because men are more often in higher status/more powerful positions in our culture, and how much is simply mechanical, is a different discussion.
Nice as it is to be seen as special, I'm not entirely convinced that we are that anomalous. Not the pretend that there are not an appallingly large number of scum out there. But I think that, exactly because they are so horrid, they appear more numerous, more usual, than they actually are.
I recall a couple of social circles/groups I was in back in the 60s and 70s and 80s. Both included some high profile males (I decline to style them men) for whom "sexist" or "predatory" are mild adjectives. But, looking over the whole group, there were a host of men, from teenagers to elderly, whose behavior and language wouldn't distress anyone here. But we didn't stand out like the lowlifes did.
I’m constantly surprised and repulsed by the number of classic rock and pop songs I hear still being played today that are about jailbait (even on the satellite feed in Trader Joe’s).
It is perhaps less surprising (but no less repulsive) for those of us who were teens in the 60s and remember.
Or, although not jail bait, considered something like Surf City: "Two girls for every boy!" Even as a teenager when this came out, my first thought was "Doesn't really sound all that great for the girls". Even if you don't classify that as misogyny, it seems remarkably tone deaf.
GftNC, certainly it depends on context. But my assumption was based on a lack of context. That is, a standalone remark. My thought being that, to advoid that assumption from listeners, it behoves the speaker to provide some context to counter the assumption.
GftNC, if the totality of what Chomsky said was the quote ("I’ve met [all] sorts of people, including major war criminals. I don’t regret having met any of them.”), I would take the unambiguous meaning to be that he is perfectly comfortable spending time with the scum of the earth.
I'd say that whether it's ambiguous depends a lot on what's in the (unquoted) rest of what he said. There might well be context that shows what he thinks of those people and their views. Good or ill.
But if the quote is the totality of his statement, it doesn't seem all that ambiguous. At least to me.
I really must take serious exception. Given the behavior on display, amoral seems like sane-washing. Immoral is what we've got here; there really isn't any reason to attempt to whitewash it.