But misogyny is not the same thing as patriarchy. Patriarchy is an institutionalized system of sexist discrimination and its justification. It may be (at least partly) inspired and maintained by misogyny, but it’s not interchangeable with misogyny.
I dunno. Would it have been okay for her to rejoice to find her son dead-instead-of-fled if what he had been doing was, say, saving people from a natural disaster rather than killing them in battle? If he might have saved his own life by abandoning other people to die instead, would it be wrong or “toxic” for his mother to be glad he was a dead hero rather than a living selfish coward?
I struggle sometimes with understanding where to draw the boundaries on toxic masculinity. I definitely agree it’s toxic to glorify war and killing, but I’m not sure that the whole concept of heroic self-sacrifice is inherently toxic.
Depends. If it were her daughter would she be proud of her for doing her best to save those people? If it’s only an admirable virtue when embodied in one sex, but not when someone of the other sex does it, that should set off all kinds of alarm bells.
I agree. That was my point.
Although I might quibble over terms being used. Patriarchy was a legal system that said that the head of a household held all the legal rights of everyone who lived in the household. So one central figure (inevitably a man) had full control over all of the family members, servants, and slaves. This patriarch was the only person in the household who could own property and sign contracts.
I think paternalism is a more appropriate term for our institutionalized system of sexist discrimination and its justification.
It may even take the form of Robert Plant strutting like a cock-of-the-walk and howling “Oo baby! Oo yeah! Oo-oo! Oo yeah!” Critics weren’t impressed, but it went over huge with audiences.
And what is especially wrong is the final statement in that earlier post:
No, sorry, if we feel the matter is just not worth the effort we don’t get to declare that nature makes it be futile anyway…
As far as I’m concerned, you win the internet today. I’m going to the post office on Monday to mail you your prize.
One of my literature professors was talking about the scene in Iliad where Hector is on the wall with his son Astyanax. Hector fears what might happen to his son should the walls of Ilium fall, but at the same time, wishes that his son grows into man becoming an even better more renowned warrior than he is. A lot of modern audiences are sympathetic to Hector and view him more as the hero than Achilles. But why do we feel sorry for him? He’s there on the wall hoping that when Astyanax is a man he’ll go and do to other people what he fears the Acheans will do to Ilium.
One of the things I like about the ancient Greeks, really almost all people from the past, is that I can read something and completely relate and then a few minutes later read something and think, “WTF?!”
I feel anyone who isn’t living in a cave can’t offer cave man genes as a justification. We’ve moved on.
Straight up. I can bring the cite if you like.
Indeed. That contrast for the Greeks is uniquely acute of all world civilizations.
Ancient Tamil is a whole world of its own, radically different from the Vedic Hindu world. Radically different outlooks on existence and everything.
The milk thing is weird, but preferring to have your child die, rather than act dishonorably in some fashion, doesn’t strike me as a particularly archaic attitude. Certainly alien to my personal values, sure, but there’s a lot of people in the modern world acting on that logic.
Some of this is a bias toward corroborating evidence. There are also species in which the male is smaller, weaker, or takes on a gender role that’s very different than what many human cultures assume to be intrinsically masculine and ‘encoded in our DNA’. What about them? Fact is, there’s quite a small number of genetic traits more commonly found in male humans than females. There’s nothing in your DNA that makes you prefer mowing the lawn to doing the laundry, or not being able to cry as an adult. “Manliness” is extremely culturally mediated. People use the “it’s genetic” excuse as a way to avoid examining their own cultural assumptions all day long.
What seems like to me is that women like competent partners. Men, by contrast, like competent partners.
What comprises competence varies by culture. When gender norms are rigid, a man who can’t fulfill the gender norms (hunt a lion or change a tire) might have trouble finding a partner even if he can weave a basket or write a spreadsheet. A woman in such cultures who can’t milk a goat or bake a cake might have similar difficulties. When gender norms are more relaxed, competence can take a much broader set of forms.
I mean, yeah, people like sexy partners, too. But verbal adroitness is sexy in every culture I’ve ever heard of, and that’s not usually held up in our society as part of the manly stereotype.
I’m not competent in most of the manly arts. I can’t repair a car, and I hate yard work, and I’ve never fired a gun or punched a dude. But I can cook a mighty fine dinner, and teach children, and change diapers, and write a grant proposal. There are, of course, women who won’t be interested in me based on my lack of “manly” attributes; but my marriage is very secure.
Yep. I can’t speak for men but that’s sure true of women I know (and me). There are a lot of ways to be competent. I will also add, responsible. And to speak to a different post, there’s little similarity between being emotionally open and being constantly needy. The latter is unattractive in anyone.
Appro of nothing and seeing the title in passing, my thought is: We’d be much better off is more people, in general, cared.
The bastards treating people poorly lack empathy and the Feminists not caring about men in need.
There’s a huge skew, demographically, between those two groups you’re singling out for criticism. Actual “Feminists not caring about men in need” are at most a tiny subset of feminists.
“Bastards treating people poorly”, on the other hand, are a pretty significant percentage of the human species everywhere.
You are correct.
I’m not convinced that misandry is harmless. It certainly doesn’t result in collective oppression, but someone who hates men can fuck up a man’s life pretty severely. I have seen this attitude spread in social circles. Also, a lot of misandry comes with a generous helping of self-hating misogyny. Women who think men are trash also tend to be more likely to dismiss women they don’t like as sluts and bitches. And when misandric ideas catch on, it can further alienate good men from the feminist cause. So I see it several steps above being a run-of-the-mill jerk, generally bad for society and terrible for the feminist cause.
With regard to women being attracted to masculinity, sure, but masculinity is pretty broad. Violent men are an instant turn off to many women, but holding down a job, that hits at someone’s sense of security/safety, especially when, historically, women were entirely dependent on men for material security. I’m very attracted to masculinity, but my husband is not the macho stereotype of masculinity. He’s five seven and he can’t even hang a picture frame. But he is responsible, reliable, preternaturally calm in a crisis, and fits the stereotypical definition of provider. I feel safe with him. So that’s something that fits certain ideas of masculinity that doesn’t necessarily translate to brutishness.
One of the benefits of discussion of gender identities and presentations is that it exposes us to how wide a range they are. Male vs feminine vs female vs masculine are each distinct, yet overlapping, concepts.