thewhat are the implications of patriarchy & those other -isms

Great Debates
1

Not that I have time to be starting a new thread, but in the light of these threads that keep cropping up about males pitying themselves due to x-phenomenon (e.g. affirmative action), or making the claim that women are smarter than men, I was wondering:

To what extent do the as practiced in (choose a culture/country/century) concepts of patriarchy, racism, sexism, classism (insert any other -ism you want) hinder males in particular from developing into more self-actualized human beings? How can we resolve the problem, if it still is a problem?

I don’t have any answers to this question. I’m not looking for an extended debate on affirmative action either. I think I’m looking for the historical and psycho-social implications of these -isms on males. Please use personal experience where you feel it’s relevant. I know the question asks how those concepts hinder males, and it could be argued how they hinder females too, so we can talk about that, but I’m particularly interested in how they hinder males.

Oh, and by self-actualized, I mean the male’s ability to build his self worth on criteria established more by his individual self rather than by societal norms. For example, it appears that many males have been socialized to feel that showing sensitivity (e.g. crying in front of other male friends because a movie’s sad)is a sign of weakness. It’s more macho to hold one’s emotions in.

Both males and females feel free to respond. Have fun with this. Let’s see what we can learn.

2

celestina, a couple of things that may help: narrowing the scope of your debate a tad and taking a position.

3

Okay, Padeye, I see what you’re saying, but I wanted to see what -isms and culture/countries/centuries people would choose. Is this better?

I think that patriarchy and racism as practiced in 19th & 20th Century America have hindered males from developing into more self-actualized human beings.

4

Better I suppose but I think you need to narrow focus even more and be more specific about your position. Just how has patriachy hindered self actualizaion? What is your definition of self actualization anyway? Is this really a topic that is important to you? I’m not trying to be a hardass, just trying to help you get a few bites if I can.

5

Oh dear, I’ve made a mess of this.

Padeye, you’re not being a hardass. :slight_smile: I appreciate your help. I think one of the reasons this question is difficult for me to narrow down is that I’m not a guy, and so I don’t really know what things are like from a male perspective. Let’s see if the following question makes more sense and is narrow enough.

Patricarchy has hindered 20th Century American male self-actualization, the male’s ability to build his self-worth on criteria established more by his individual self than by societial norms. For example, it appears that many males have been socialized to feel that showing sensitivity (e.g. crying in front of other male friends because a movie’s sad) is a sign of weakness. It’s more macho to hold emotions in. Or a male’s self-worth is established along the idea that he has to model himself on the macho image of the gangsta, or have the trophy wife as a status symbol, or drive an expensive car and otherwise show the outward signs of power and wealth. This is not to say that males cannot or do not become self-actualized. It’s just that patriarchy has served as a hindrance to them. How can we help them resolve the problem of defining the self outside of the bounds of patriarchy so that they can build their self-worth on more individualized criteria? If you think that patriarchy as a hindrance to male self-actualization is not a problem why? Are there other factors that I haven’t considered.

6

Don’t worry, you haven’t made a mess of anything. I think most of the SDMB folks have pretty good self esteem so the question just makes us all shrug.

Yes, I recognize that we live in a patriachal society that is slowly becoming less so and that a good portion of us pretty much conform to the “standard” gender roles.

So what?

Those pressures exist but I don’t let them interfere with my view of myself. I don’t have a use for a peer group that requires me to fit a “macho” image. Pressure to get a trophy wife? MEGA-ROFL! I wish I had such problems. Expensive car to demonstrate my worth? I had a used BMW before I got my truck last year and I got a laugh as to how people made judgements about people who drive such cars.

If you want a deep dark confession I do cry at movies. The odd thing is it’s never at something truly emotional and gut wrenching like Schindler’s List but at incredibly sappy stuff like It’s a Wonderful Life. <shrug>

7

Caution: I’ve been drinking, and I’ll probably regret this in the morning, but oh well. If I’m obnoxious, I apologize in advance.

So you’re saying that I’m hitting the wrong crowd with this question and that there’s probably no real debate here for the enlightened males of the SDMB? Hmmm. I don’t know. I appreciate your response since you’re the only one with the guts to do so (And by the way I really appreciate your having the courage to admit that you do cry at certain things that society says men aren’t supposed to cry at. It takes real strength of character to admit that.), but I question how you know what all the other SDMBers are thinking. In the dynamic you mention, would you cry if other males were around?

I refuse to believe that males are shallow. It’s safe to fall back on the things that males do brag about: getting some, their cars, blah, blah, blah, but I really don’t believe that males aren’t in touch with their emotions. What I question is why many of them are afraid to admit it. WHY is it that males shy away from answering questions that ask them to look at their emotions or to question the behaviors society sanctions them to have? Is it because they’ve been conditioned to shy away from them? To not delve too deeply? I think it’s the stereotype/illusion of patriarchy; if you are in control or think you are in contol, then you can control how others perceive you. But perhaps, I’m just not getting it. Enlighten me, please. [celestina seriously contemplates going to go throwup now]

8

I hope you didn’t make yourself too sick. I’ve been there myself and have no desire to repeat the experience.

Despite our best efforts I think this thread is going to die on the vine. It had potential but it happens, don’t stress over it. I don’t know if it’s because we’re all so enlightened as you put it but most of us are well adjusted in who we are even if it doesn’t match the roles expected of us.

It’s one thing to be in touch with our emotions but I think there are appropriate places to express them. I think it’s inappropriate to share every emotion with every person in our lives. Maybe that does show inhibition but I’d rather be open with someone relevent to the situation than to cry about my misery on Oprah

There is a difference between sharing genuine emotion and just trying to get attention. I choose not to be an exhibitionist with my emotions if that’s okay with you.

We all like to feel we are in control of our emotions, that’s human. We live in a society where certain things are expected of us, that’s life. I’m not totally unconcerned with how people percieve me but more important I think it serves no purpose to share emotions with people who will be uncomfortable with it.

9

I am familiar with the “pressures” placed on males by our society (in the U.S.A). I have, in the past, erroneously allowed these pressures to affect me. An example would be the societal mandate to find a trophy wife, get a well-paying job, buy a big house, have a cute little baby, etc.But these things don’t always happen for everyone.
We, as humans, face certain obstacles that must be overcome. Those “prizes” that we are supposed to earn for ourselves are necessary only if we believe them to be necessary. I don’t really need to marry a blonde sorority girl, but I may beat myself up if I don’t. Such “pressure” is self-imposed.

Speaking for U.S. culture, and speaking for myself (a suburban white, heterosexual, college-educated male) only, I won’t claim that any social law (such as affirmative action) prevents my self-actualization. Just like anyone else, I’ve got to make my own life into something useful. I won’t cast blame and expect others to create a good life for me. Even if there is such a thing as “reverse” racism/sexism/sizeism/lookism, I’ve got to overcome it.

10

Padeye, I’m okay. [celestina blushing] Thank you for your concern.

You wrote: “It’s one thing to be in touch with our emotions but I think there are appropriate places to express them. I think it’s inappropriate to share every emotion with every person in our lives. Maybe that does show inhibition but I’d rather be open with someone relevent to the situation than to cry about my misery on Oprah”

You make a very good point, and you’re not being a neanderthal. :slight_smile: I think how much emotion you show depends on your personality, if you’re more extroverted than introverted, and on whether or not the people involved are relevant to the situation. I’m pretty expressive, but I’m also female, and it’s easier for me to be open about how I feel, even though this makes people dismiss me. I think it wouldn’t matter if I were serious/stoic all the time, people would dismiss me, just because of who I am. [sigh] And as expressive as I am, I certainly wouldn’t want to go cry on Oprah or Jerry Springer or Rosie O’Donnell either. ::shudder:: I still think it’s much more difficult for males to be open though, even when the relevant people are there.

AlbertRose, thank you for responding. I agree with what you wrote as well. You say you used to want those “prizes,” what made you change your mind? And, do you think that the “self-imposed pressures” men face are due to patriarchy, or is there something else going on?

11

Celestina:

Frederick Douglas said it well, but I don’t have the relevant text in front of me. At any rate, I think many people have said in one way or anohter that the “other”-ing of any categorical group of people is ultimately as alienating and dehumanizing for its proponents / practitioners as it is for its victims.

I would make the stronger statement: it is always actually MORE alienating and dehumanizing for those who accept its tenets and practice them actively; the victims stand a decent chance of developing deeply sensitized awarenesses of human rights and human autonomy, including compassion for people in a large general sense, whereas the avenues by which this kind of thing is attained are pretty much sealed off for anyone who embraces patriarchy and the others “isms”.

Yeah, I know, let’s all shed a collective tear for the poor Nazis who were dehumanized by Nazism and so forth. But seriously: do any of their victims envy them and wish that they had had the opportunity to have been among them?

Certainly it is a rare radical feminist who says she wishes she (or women in general) had the opportunity to be the people that men have been under patriarchy.

12

AHunter3 said:
“Frederick Douglas said it well, but I don’t have the relevant text in front of me. At any rate, I think many people have said in one way or anohter that the “other”-ing
of any categorical group of people is ultimately an alienating and dehumanizing for its proponents / practitioners as it is for its victims.”

 I believe here you're referring to the Appendix of _The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass_ where Douglass subtly but most effectively denounces the hypocricy of using Christianity to justify the atrocity of slavery. He does imply how the moral/ethical/psychological cost to those slaveholders who called themselves Christian was great, perhaps greater than to those enslaved because they were building their self-worth on the de-humanization of others and not realizing that the only people they were truly de-humanizing were themselves. And I would agree with Douglass and with you that it is more alienating and de-humanizing for those who subscribe to the notions of patriarchy, racism, elitism, and all those other -isms because they are limiting. They allow no room for the individual to breathe.

You also said:

“Yeah, I know, let’s all shed a collective tear for the poor Nazis who were dehumanized by Nazism and so forth. But seriously: do any of their victims envy them and wish that they had had the opportunity to have been among them?”

 I do feel sorry for those people who were Nazis because they believed in something that led them to become less than human. Because they subscribed to the idiotic notion of a superior race, they caused untold suffering and misery. (Before history people get horrified, I realize that Nazism rose for other more complicated reasons as well (e.g. economics).) I just wonder if we can learn from that so that we don't make the same mistake again. I believe this is a view espoused by Jewish people: to never forget what happened in those concentration camps so that something that horrible will not happen again. But I must say that I do take issue with some of what you said. How can you presume to speak for the victims of Nazism?! Neither you nor I can know what it was like to survive concentration camps. I would not wish what they suffered in those camps on anyone.

You also said:

“Certainly it is a rare radical feminist who says she wishes she (or women in general) had the opportunity to be the people that men have been under patriarchy.”

Here you’ve kind of lost me. I’m not a “radical feminist”–I find it annoying in the extreme when people try to label me as anything–nor do I advocate people having the opportunity to be subjected to patriarchy and all those other -isms. I’m an NOT discounting the horrors that Africans who were enslaved by Americans or that Jewish people who were killed by Nazis or any other group of people who have been victims of inhumanity have suffered. What I’m trying to say is that unfortunately we HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED to these things, and they have been damaging to the American male and female psyche. Perhaps moreso to the male psyche because he does not realize it, but I’m not too sure on this point. What I’m trying to do, however clumsily, with this thread is to figure out strategies to overcome it.

13

Sorry, didn’t mean it that way.

No, celestina, I didn’t mean you! Radical feminists do exist, though, among them many brilliant and visionary theorists who are proud to refer to themselves as such. Robin Morgan, Elizabeth Fisher, Marilyn French, Sonia Johnson, Sheila Jeffries, Catherine MacKinnon, Sheila Rowbotham, and many others have made statements such as those that I have described, and they all refer to themselves as ‘radical feminist’. (It isn’t a pejorative term; it merely means that they believe that patriarchy is the original ‘archy’ and the original oppression, and that other oppressive systems and tyrannies came into being in a patriarchal context and are extensions or elaborations upon the basic patriarchal theme.)

Sorry, didn’t mean it that way part II.

I can’t speak for anyone except myself, aside from making some loose generalizations about things I’ve heard them (in general) saying. As with the feminists, I’ve heard broadcasts of Weisel speaking and have read B’nai B’rith posters and gained the impression that the holocaust victims did or do not envy the monsters that their tormentors and executioners became under Nazism.

14

AHunter3, it’s okay. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I don’t think “radical feminist” is a pejorative term, I just get upset when it looks like people are trying to label me. Since you weren’t, no harm done. You mention some interesting references. I’ll have to look up some of these feminist writers.

15

I still want some of the “prizes” – like a lovely family and a good career. I suppose most everyone wants these things eventually. But I’m no longer interested in the other things – a hot car, a sexy blonde wife, lots and lots of money. I think I just grew up. As we mature, we learn to differentiate between our needs and our wants. And then we fulfill our needs in the best way that we can, with or without grasping for our wants. I’d still like to start a family, but I don’t need for my wife to be a rich nymphomaniac aerobics instructor who drives a Porsche. Nor do I necessarily want her to be so. People change.

I’m going to assume that, by “patriarchy,” you mean “the male-dominant culture.”

Pressures to live life in a certain way do exist. For example, I’ve read numerous articles in GQ and Esquire about the correct, manly way to lead the swingin’ single life. I’ve seen a lot of female-analogous articles in Cosmopolitan, Mademoiselle, etc. And you’ve possibly read some of those articles, and felt a slight twinge of jealousy if your life isn’t exactly like that of the supermodels portrayed therein.
(“Wow! Twelve orgasms in one night? And look at those abs!”)
A lot of these magazines seem filled more with fantasy than with reality. Ditto for the TV shows and movies. The societal pressure to be a particular type of individual comes from all over the place. But I as a human can choose whether or not to believe in the fantasy. The Need to Conform only exists if I let it exist. That’s what I mean by “self-imposed.” Some people (myself, at one time) choose to buy into the archetypes – sophisticated bachelor, party animal, Mr. Perfect, whatever.

Getting back to the OP, I have the power to self-actualize myself. It takes a while, and I do have to avoid the potholes in the road there. I don’t consider Affirmative Action to be such a pothole. I do consider twisted priorities to be a pothole.

By the way, you didn’t strike me as a radical feminist.

16

AlbertRose, sorry I’m just responding. Thank you for saying I don’t strike you as a radical feminist. I’ve no objections to people who claim that they are; however, I’m not one. I’m a space alien from another planet sent to observe and interact with humans.

I define patriarchy as a socio-economic and political system that privileges males above females. It mandates that males by merit of their gender are more powerful than females. The system structures itself so that men have control of government, legislation, money, and most other authority positions. So yes, it is a “male-dominant culture.”

I think you hit on an excellent point when you talk about the influence of the media as a mechanism for promoting patriarchy. And it’s interesting that you mention magazines like GQ and Esquire. I’ve glanced at the pictures in GQ, but I’ve not really taken the time to analyze the contents of that magazine. However, I have gotten a kick out of analyzing Cosmopolitan and Mademoiselle among others. It is frightening how these magazines addressed to men and women present the illusion of empowerment, while subtly reinforcing patriarchy. For example in either GQ or Cosmopolitan, you may see a picture of a woman dressed in a business suit and she’s in an nicely decorated office. Let’s say the aim of the ad is to sell business suits designed by X designer. To all intents and purposes the woman and the man in the picture look like they’re in a position of authority, but when you look at the dynamics of how the female’s displayed–in the picture she’s perched on the edge of her desk, her blouse may be open just a tad too much, and she’s looking up and smiling suggestively at the man who’s standing over her–you see that she really may not be an authority figure. By having the male tower over her, maybe so he can look down her shirt, it sells a different message. To a man seeing it, the message could be that success means being in position of authority over a woman, or for a woman the message could be that no matter how high a woman rises, she can’t ever stand as an equal with a man. I know I’ve offered a rhetorical situation here with possible interpretations–there may well be others–but in magazines these are pictures that we glance at. We don’t take the time to think about what kinds of messages the images we look at send, but we do internalize them. Frightening.

What I find even more frightening are the lyrics to some of the gangsta rap out there. I went to http://hiphopraplyrics.com/ and found some lyrics by Snoop Doggy Dogg and his latest album “The Last Meal.” I shudder to think what I’m going to find for Eminem. Anyway, the lyrics for the song “Brake Fluid” are just awful. The last stanza in particular is terrible. According to Snoop:

“I got my own spot and I got my own keys
So can’t no bitch talk shit to me
Like Kiki did me, bitch changed the locks
And kicked me up outta spot
I learned a lesson, I wasn’t guessin’ or stressin’
I got another bitch and she was at the ??? home
She said she needed a companion
Shit I needed a chaperone plus a new home
Snap, crack, it’s on
But in no time at all seems she fell in love
But i wasn’t ready for that
Topcat had to scat
I hit her friend from the back
While she was at work workin’
I was jerkin’ that skirt
And fuckin with all her friends that was flirtin’
And when she found out she told me that that shit hurt (boo-hoo)
A week later she fell in love with my homeboy Kurt
Bitch you a’int shit but dirt for dirt (biotch!)”

In this stanza Snoop’s advocating to another male who’s rapping with him building a male’s self esteem on objectifying women as nothing more than a cheap lay and a place to stay rent-free. Adults and teens generally just blithely sing along to lyrics like these. And they don’t stop to think that there might be something wrong with the scenario Snoop provides in this stanza. I just don’t understand. Can someone explain to me why it is so difficult to step back take a good look at what we see and hear in the media?!

How is this empowering for either men or women? What happens if a guy can’t attain the level of “success” portrayed in the abovementioned lyrics? And if a male does attain this level of “success,” how can he truly say that he is self-actualized? He’s placed the control for his happiness and well-being completely out of his hands and made it dependent on criteria defined by someone else: the subjugation of women. In this stanza, Snoop doesn’t sound happy or self-actualized. The song ends on a note of betrayal. Perhaps it’s ultimately his point to portray the silliness of the song’s definition of “success.” If that’s the case, then Snoop is a powerful poet and he’s doing something meaningful with this song in questioning what “success” should be. I don’t know. I guess it’s upt to the individual to decide. Still when I look at these lyrics what I find even more disturbing is how racist these lyrics are, for they reinforce the stereotype that all black males are shiftless, lazy, promiscuous, violent, and disrepectful of women. For anyone not familiar with black people or logic for that matter, the impression could easily be that all black males are deviant, hyper-sexual criminals and all black females are “biotches and hoes.” Again if it’s Snoop’s aim to show the illogic of these stereotypes, great. But I can’t help but be realistic. People listen to this stuff, sing along, and laugh, but they are internalizing deceptive images.

Now I’m not saying that the media can’t print what it wants, nor that artists can’t sing what they want. They have the constitutional right to do so. But we as consumers have the right not to support media that sells us illusions of empowerment. We as consumers SHOULD take the time to think about what messages the media does send us about how we live our lives. And we as human beings ought to take the responsibility to define criteria that work to support our mental well-being.

17

So what planet are you from, celestina? I’m an Earther, meself. Although sometimes I wonder.

Regarding the “Woman in a Business Suit” ad – I don’t have a cite, but I’ve seen this sort of thing in various magazines (not just GQ, either). I hadn’t really thought about the subconscious message sent. Does this count as subliminal advertising, or does it have a real effect?

And as for gangsta rap: don’t get me started. Once kids (and grown-ups) start rapping along to these lyrics, maybe they start believing their content. I’ve read many a rock critic canonize these guys (along with Guns ‘n’ Roses, et al), claiming that the music is a great vent to inner rage. Well, that’s bully for the rapper, but how about the listener? [Separate debate coming.] Don’t these guys have a responsibility to present something true? And if they’re to be glamorized for speaking for the street kids, then how can they justify their casual hatred of femininity?

Just my opinion, of course. But I’m not so sure that a discussion of gangsta rap doesn’t belong in another thread. Celestina asked about males (presumably of any ethnic origin) feeling stunted by various -isms. Yes, I do believe that racism hinders the personal development of African-American males. But not because they’re men, rather, because they’re black men. And maybe poor men.

While racism and classism may hinder such men from self-actualizing, these -isms don’t prevent such men from fulfillment. The opportunities are there. A question I have is this: how do the -isms hinder us from taking advantage of the opportunities? And how can we overcome?

18

Hi AlbertRose:

I’m from the planet %&(-*. It doesn’t have a translation into any human languages or scripts so this is the best I could do. :wink:

I think we got off the media because particularly in 20th Century America it’s a powerful mechanism for transmitting culture, trends, attitudes, ideologies, blah, blah, blah. I haven’t been able to decide if it’s the media that determines how people live and what they believe, or if it’s people/consumers who determine what the media presents. I got sidetracked–as I’m prone to do :-)–on the business suit ad & Snoop’s gangsta rap because they are very popular right now, and if we’re talking about patriarchy and all those other -isms, it can’t hurt to look at how they play out in the media. By the way, if you want to start a debate on gangsta rap, I’ll try to join in provided I’m not dead or in the nuthouse from all the deadlines I have to meet very soon. :frowning:

You asked me how do these -isms hinder males? Well I think partly because they’re not aware that they do. It’s so easy to get caught up in the moment of what’s “in” or even of what’s traditionally been done that they don’t step back to question the validity of what they do and believe. Perhaps it’s safe not to question because if they find flaws, then that means they have to do something about them. And that can be downright daunting.

In the business suit ad I made up based on the kinds of ads I’ve seen in popular magazines and more obviously in Snoop’s gangsta lyrics I cited, there is the illusion of power reinforced by the subtext of patriarchy–the idea that the man is in control. You ask if this is subliminal advertising or does it have a real effect. I don’t know to what extent it’s subliminal. It’s just business. Advertisers go with what sells, and sex, and stereotypes like the rebel image promoted by promiscuity and profanity sell. I imagine ads in general do have a real effect on people, for example the hypothetical business suit ad I constructed. When I see stuff like that I have to catch myself from wanting to go out and get a suit just like the one the lady’s wearing because it might look cute on me and make me look more authoritative. I could see how a guy looking at this ad if it were displayed in GQ may want to go out and get a suit just like the male’s wearing for the same reasons. Or, when I’m watching tv and I see a commercial for say GAP clothes, I’ll start thinking that I just have to go out and get me one of the items of clothes the commerical features. Whether or not I need them is immaterial. I just want them because I could imagine myself having fun in them just like the people in the commericial. Is that subliminal, or is that just me being a shopaholic? Or, when I look in Wine Spectator and see the artfully displayed cuisine and its accompanying wine and think it’s been a while since I’ve given a dinner party, and I start mentally inventorying what wines I’ve got, making a guest list, and deciding what gourmet dish I can whip up . . . Is this subliminal, or is this me wanting an excuse to show off my knowledge of wine and food and just get drunk? For heaven’s sake, I’m a critic trained to question what I see and hear, and advertisements still trip me up! All I know that I can do is to be hyper-aware of what the media puts out and to make a conscious effort to control my response to it.

You ask how can people overcome the-isms that hinder us from taking advantage of the opportunities? I think that you and Padeye have made good suggestions in your responses. To add to that, just be critical of what’s going on in your environment and trust your instincts. If you engage in x-behavior, ask yourself why? Is this in my best interests? Am I doing x because the majority’s doing it or because I really want to? And then decide how you want to proceed from there. Basically decide what matters the most to you.

19

i’m not exactly sure what the question is at this point, but i thought i’d note that Snoop Dogg, misogynist as he may be, is a pretty damned self-actualized fellow. though he may sing about living the life of a degenerate hoodlum, he’s a millionaire who got signed to a major label, writing raps for one of his heroes (Dr. Dre) at something like 18 years of age. he does what he wants to for a living, and though i can’t speak for his deeper spiritual fulfillment, i’d have to guess he’s pretty darned happy…

so, as some pointed out earlier, you really need to define this self-actualization. for it seems that some people, being Snoop Dogg is self-actualization, if not on the lofty, buddha-like scale we tend to associate with that term. and i wouldn’t exactly say that Snoop Dogg is somehow representative of the “classical” patriarchy (ie the one rallied against by the hard-core femmies) because, ultimately, the classical patriarchy (ie “the man”) is no great fan of Snoop Dogg. perhaps what we’re looking for here is not the influence of patriarchy but the influence of masculinity… ??