Gender Dynamics In a Nutshell

Typhonblue,

This is a fascinating post. Very succinct statement of your theoretical framework.

Your point about femmephobia is interesting. I wrote in an article of mine on Reddit (“Primal Misogyny and Ozy’s Law,” can be found here – http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian/comments/ydohb/primal_misogyny_and_ozys_law/) that many feminists seem to reduce everything down to Misogyny and treat Misogyny as the irreducible primary from which all problems with our gender system flow.

Your point re. femmephobia backs up a speculation I’ve had for a while… perhaps it is not hatred of FEMININITY per se, but rather a disdain for being a moral patient… for being pitied… being a passive recipient of others’ actions… that ultimately underlies so-called femmephobia. It isn’t a dislike of femininity but rather a dislike of weakness. Our culture does unfortunately package-deal femininity with moral patiency but it is quite possible to prefer agency over patiency and not hate the other components of femininity.

Also, one thing… in my article “Male Hierarchy and the Oppression of Men” (link: http://www.reddit.com/r/masculism/comments/11w04k/separating_the_boys_from_the_men_male_heirarchy/) I propose a theory as to how our society ended up with the subject-object role system we have now. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that theory. Thanks in advance.

This model probably has the potential for being very predictive, but I find it to be dissatisfying. I don’t like it. I think that it’s too complicated yet too simple. I’m not sure how it holds up to cross-cultural and historical analysis.

I think that women’s in-group bias could just as easily be explained as parental imprinting, but we don’t have a good way of finding out because nearly every aspect of childcare is monopolized by women. I think that the privileges that society extends to women makes them become patients instead of agents, which in turn demands more privileges. And this makes it hard for us to truly know whether people’s stereotypes and generalizations would be formed the same way if it weren’t for the privileges being there in the first place. I think there are plenty of ways in which people look to the privileged as their betters. There are black people who feel safer around white people; doesn’t mean that it’s caused by inherent differences between them. Almost everyone “looks up to” tall men – women sometimes find them downright charming just because of their height, even when these men are really assholes.

I guess what I’m thinking is that it’s both simpler and more complicated still. It’s simpler because it’s probably just pure discrimination and it doesn’t necessarily be that way. It’s complicated because it creates so many consequences for us that it’s hard to figure out where the consequences start and the causes end. Ultimately you’ll see women who use the “tools of the oppressor” to get ahead and in so doing other women will actually view them as having agency (ha!). You’ll see vast tracts of society talk about the self-made success story as the pinnacle of humanity, yet they unquestionably worship the princes and princesses of this world. Then there’s the fact that we generally live up to the role that society assigns for us. Society really is a whole lot like the movie, Trading Places, where people not only view you by your social position, but having the opportunities of that position enables you to live up to it’s potential.

OO,
“I think in a socity that had no culture, less feminine women would probably be treated like males, expected to hold their own wait..”

We’ll never know, since there is no such thing as a society without a culture.

YAC,
“that many feminists seem to reduce everything down to Misogyny and treat Misogyny as the irreducible primary from which all problems with our gender system flow.”

I have noticed the same thing. They seem to regard misogyny assome kind of primal substance that cause behaviors and informs structures, rather than the reaction it most often is. The advantage to that of course is that those who cause misogyny are excused and those reacting in a misogynist fashion are blamed.

This of course chimes with Typhon’s agent/patient model, with feminists applying the traditionalist paradigm she outlines.

dungone,
“I think that women’s in-group bias could just as easily be explained as parental imprinting, but we don’t have a good way of finding out because nearly every aspect of childcare is monopolized by women…”

I don’t think this has as much explanatory power as Typhon’s model. Your model would yield a system in which authority figures were granted special protections and exemptions, and there are real world examples of that, in plenty. And I can’t see how your model accounts for damseling.

“Men can be demonized for the same exact masculine traits that are celebrated when a woman exhibits them.”

You mean being assertive and able to stand your ground?

If a trans woman exhibits those behaviors, she’s showing she’s “really a man” “invading women’s space”.

The gay liberation movement very much embraced “moral patiency” in it’s aims; It asserted that being gay was not a choice(agency) but a biological fact(patiency).

That in itself is merely a question of objective fact and is largely irrelevant to agency. Whether or not it’s a choice for gay men is no different than whether or not it’s a choice for heterosexuals to be as they are. If gay men claim to have no agency in that, then neither do straight men. The response to any issue where men have a problem with unfair treatment in relationships with women would be summarily dismissed by telling these men to become gay. Oh wait – that pretty much is how it is. If a guy can’t get laid, maybe it’s because he might be gay, right?

The point is, men are seen as “passive” patients merely for refusing to go out and break their own backs just to hand the fruits of their labor to women. And the gay rights movement has actually asked for very little from society beyond being left alone to determine their own relationships. Part of the idea that they can “change” their sexual orientation is driven by the very idea of men as having hyper agency and the whole entire reason for tradcons insisting that gay men change their sexual preferences is so that these men will be taken to task in order to benefit women somehow. Because gay men still work the same jobs, fight the same wars, and pay to be members of the same churches as straight men would. The only thing missing from the entire picture is that gay men aren’t benefactors to women. Men who wish to be stay at home dads, who want the right to raise their own children, have actually asked for more far more privilege than gays ever have.

If they weren’t embracing moral patiency as a counter-measure, they would have said something like “even if homosexuality is a choice, it’s an acceptable one.”

I’m pretty sure that they said that, too. But it doesn’t change the fact that their movement can’t be faulted for embracing what is by most indications an objective truth. It wasn’t embracing patiency, just common sense. The way the opposition portrays them is irrelevant.

It seems to me that whether a man is portrayed as having agency over anything at all is so far removed from reality that it doesn’t even matter. We need to come up with separate terms to have a discussion about this – to disambiguate real agency and socially assigned agency or the lack thereof.

In fact you could say that proves my point. The opposition essentially made up shit about gay people having a choice in order to “agentify” them

In that sense we are in agreement. That they make shit up being the key part of it. Let’s talk about real agency, though. Feminists and tradcons deny the real agency that women do have, agency which women actually exercise with impunity, because for various reasons they want make men servile to women in order to control men. Men’s movements generally have never denied the real agency that they do have and have never asked for the sort of special privileges that are granted to women in society. That’s really the main difference that I see between the gay rights movement and feminism.

So where do political lesbianism and political pansexualism fit into this? The former faces more of a backlash than born-this-way sexuality-isms, perhaps because it describes lesbianism as a matter of agency, but does the latter face much of a backlash, except from monosexual lesbians tired of guys hitting on us and monosexual gays tired of girls hitting on them?

@Typhonblue – I am curious what you think about the possibility of there being a biological piece to all of this. We know now that pre-natal testosterone is related to gender identity and those girls who get high levels of testosterone priming in utero go on as adults to have less “feminine” identity. These are what we usually call the “Tom Boys.” Males who receive higher levels of the testosterone in utero are more likely to reject feminine components in their identity later in life. Could it be that our biology also sets us up for later “agency” or “patient status?” I can’t imagine it not playing a role. What do you think?

Black and white thinking is a feature of immaturity. It is a regression into false simplicity. It is a form of laziness.

One thing that puzzles me:

It seems that men are more likely to face severe trauma, particularly battlefield trauma, and afaik are more likely to receive minimal screening and minimal care for ptsd. But womyn are much more likely have ptsd, almost three times as likely in the United States. Why?

Is this because of more willingness to diagnose womyn than men? It’s consistent with the agent/patient theory, but seems inconsistent with the way ‘hysteria’ has been used to silence/punish womyn, never to create space for womyn.

Is this because there’s actually more trauma against womyn than men? It’s consistent with radfem theory, and I’m open to the idea that our society massively underreports violence against womyn and girls [certainly, most of my friends have faced sexual violence and severe physical violence], but it also underreports violence against men and boys.

Is this because of learned helplessness? Possibly. I can’t rule that out.

Is this because of some kind of biological difference? Possibly. I know that my hormone levels affect my ability to cope, though having high testosterone levels didn’t help *my* ability to cope. I recall reading that high glucocorticoid and mineralcorticoid levels could cumulatively aggravate stress response and worsen ptsd, so there *are* some hormonal influences.

@Marja
“Is this because of learned helplessness? Possibly. I can’t rule that out.”

I would say that this is it. Plus a dash of ignoring vulnerable men.

A sense of agency during traumatic events helps a person cope and is protective against psychological harm.

Emphasizing a group’s victimhood and passivity also, ironically, creates victims.

I am enjoying this thread and these ideas. I can’t help but think that if we could teach our young people about these ideas it might help them greatly in their growth and understanding. Instead we have pep rallies for girls and blame the boys.

dungone,

First, about Ozy’s Law, let’s quote Ozy and Noah on the subject:

“Based on this, we have proposed a rule of thumb called Ozy’s Law: It is impossible to form a stereotype about either of the two primary genders without simultaneously forming a concurrent and complementary stereotype about the other.

This isn’t to say that in any given case, the misandry and misogyny are necessarily equivalent. Sometimes they are, other times one or the other definitely predominates. But they’re always paired.”

Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/156194/what_about_the_men_why_our_gender_system_sucks_for_men%2C_too?paging=off

In and of itself, I don’t see how Ozy’s Law is gynocentric or how it reduces misandry to misogyny. All it says is that sexism towards one sex will necessarily impose sexism of some sort on the other sex.

Now, if Ozy personally engages in gynocentric/gynonormative reasoning which reduces misandry to misogyny, then Ozy is making a mistake. But I don’t believe that this mistake is due to Ozy’s Law. Rather, I believe that mistake is probably due to other factors (perhaps Ozy’s own ideological commitments but there are other potential explanations). Indeed, if applied as written Ozy’s Law would be a safeguard against the reduction if misandry to misogyny… it would encourage people to see them as being organically related (i.e. feeding off each other).

Also, in my experience, the hatred of feminine behavior in men isn’t about a female attempt to monopolize being the recipients of male benevolence. Benevolence granted by a more-traditionally-masculine male towards a less-traditionally-masculine male is, unfortunately, quite rare, so I don’t see how there’s anything that needs to be safeguarded from competition.

When a man displays feminine behavior, the slurs and insults aren’t JUST allusions to femininity, but also to weakness, and sometimes the ‘weak’ slurs AREN’T gendered. “Wimp” and “shrimp” and “loser” aren’t gendered in the way that “sissy” and “pussy” and “girly” are. So I think what we are seeing is evidence weakness ITSELF is disdained INDEPENDENTLY from femininity (or, perhaps, that people don’t necessarily think that a “loss of masculinity” is automatically a “gain” in femininity).

Of course the notions of weak/strong and feminine/masculine interact significantly. My contention is we can’t entirely reduce one to the other – they can be evaluated independently.

You are right that men can be demonized for the same masculine traits that are celebrated in women. I agree! But that’s not surprising… we live in a society where people have very different moral belief systems and frequently disagree. Not only that but people can be very inconsistent with their own nominal beliefs. Trying to gauge the “socially average belief system” is a very, very hard thing to do, to say the least.

Ginkgo,

Thanks for your observations in your reply to me, however I need to register a disagreement with your following statement:

“The doctrine of “inherent” or “God-given” rights, the Tea Party position, is based on moral patiency.
In fact the model of individual rights, negative rights and limited government, is all about being left in peace by society and its agent, the government.”

I find it surprising that you refer to the Classical Liberal political tradition of Individual Rights as the “Tea Party” position, especially given that this position has plenty of other exponents like (for example) John Locke. I can’t help but think you used the mention of the “Tea Party” as a smear against Classical Liberalism.

That said, speaking as an advocate OF the Classical Liberal position, you are totally misunderstanding it by associating it with moral patiency (that said, you are correct in associating many of the claims of the gay rights movement with the Classical Liberal tradition of individual rights).

Moral agency is the perception of individuals as having free will and the capacity to initiate teleological action (and be responsible for its consequences, pro or con). This is IN FACT characteristic of Enlightenment/Classical Liberal thinking (it is also the basis of Austrian School economics, which is very classical liberal in orientation).

Moral patiency, at least in the degrading/”objectifying” sense, is a denial or diminution of this to some degree; from seeing them merely as a stimulus-response meat-machine (example: B. F. Skinner), seeing them as a social construct mind-controlled by their relationship to the means of production (example: classical Marxism), seeing them as a social construct so damaged by the Patriarchy that they are incapable of rendering informed consent to engage in heterosexual intercourse (see Andrea Dworkin), etc.

Take one look at the history of political-economic thought throughout the 20th century.. I cannot think of a single systematic political ideology which denies classical liberalism without making individuals moral patients (in the degrading/objectifying sense) to some degree. On the other hand, classical liberal political philosophers have generally been unanimous as to free will and the value of human thought/reason (the two issues are kind of interrelated).

A statement about someone’s nature, or an acknowledgement that people HAVE a nature (and the Natural Rights position depends on this) does not depend on moral patiency (in the objectifying sense). Moral patiency, in the sense of how we’re using the term, requires diminution or denial of moral agency (because yes, everyone is a moral agent and a moral patient in the literal sense, we can both act and be acted upon… it is only when the capacity to act is denied that things become degrading). The existence of human nature doesn’t do that – indeed, pretty much all Enlightenment thinkers defend free will as part of human nature.

You are correct that individual rights/negative liberty is about safeguarding the individual from violent/coercive interference from other people, including organizations such as the State (and all human institutions are reducible to people). But this is not based on moral patiency. Quite the opposite! The entire rationale for safeguarding the individual from force/fraud/coercion is precisely because of the fact that human agency is celebrated and revered in the Classical Liberal tradition! Individual rights exist to safeguard the proper sphere of moral agency.

This can scarcely be described as a worldview based on moral patiency. Indeed, it is because moral agency is regarded as utterly sacrosanct that the Classical Liberal tradition advocates negative liberty and a small, unobtrusive State.

I don’t want to dwell too much on Ozy’s Law, but I’ll just restate my opinion that it’s nothing more than an equivocation. It’s a clever way of saying “The Patriarchy hurts men too.” From the very beginning it has been used to dismiss the call for an alternative to feminism. I never saw it as anything more than a moderator’s ruse to control the debate. It’s perfectly in line with what I’ve come to see as the feminist modus operandi.

All it says is that sexism towards one sex will necessarily impose sexism of some sort on the other sex.

There is absolutely no reason to make that assumption. The heuristic is dogmatic and lacks adequate proof. What’s worse, it’s a necessary component to erasing men’s issues. Examples of this is the way male suicide is equivocated with female suicide attempts, or the way male life expectancy is equivocated with female pregnancy. Remember, when Ozy talks about it, it’s Ozy’s rule. When you talk about it, it’s the Oppression Olympics. I’m just calling the bluff.

dungone,

I know you don’t want to dwell on Ozy’s Law, but let me just say one thing:

When a principle/idea is misused or abused in some way, the abuse itself does not discredit the principle/idea.

In my experience, Ozy’s Law is a valuable heuristic. Simple example – the Slutwalk protests objected to the idea that woman is “asking to be raped” if she dresses like a “slut” and thus she’s responsible. What’s the underlying assumption about male sexuality, here? Specifically, that men are drooling bestial animals unable to control themselves at the sight of cleavage, and who are far too controlled by their genitals to actually have a degree of (gasp) individual responsibility for their actions.

In short, the misogyny was underpinned by misandry.

You can attack Ozy’s misuse of Ozy’s Law and I won’t object at all (since I don’t know enough to comment), but the misuse of an idea doesn’t prove the idea itself wrong. In my experience, I’ve found it generally correct.

Sandy knocked out my power for a week!

Anyway, IMO when many people talk about gay being a choice vs being something someone is born with, it’s missing the point that IMO the right winger types are trying to make. That if to be gay is acceptable then more people will be open about their gayness. That being openly gay allows for other people to be openly gay too. To choose that gay lifestyle sort of thing. Because for right winger types, sort of controlling your urges and deflect them to another avenue is more important than doing what’s right for one’s inner self. It’s favoring the tradition over the personally satisfying. It’s about conformity to that tradition. That THIS is how one grows personally.

Now, for me, I think the notion that either people are BORN gay or CHOOSE gay is a false dichotomy. To me, people are born with sexual lust imprinted inside them (save for some people, they are cool too, it’s all good to me) and how one is allowed to manifest that sexual lust is determined by society. Anyway, I’ve talked about this before on the various blogs we all visit. I call it polysexuality. I mean humans fuck animals, plastic, etc.

And just quickly, I tried Ozy, and IMO it’s clear she doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about when the topic is men. Sorry but the idea of some college girl less than half my age telling me what’s it’s like to be a full on adult man is ridiculous. And in Ozy’s case, it shows. Maybe she can talk about her life and her interactions with the young men in college she encounters but college life is nothing like adult life..at least where it matters. IMO most college kids are … kids. Kids grow up. Kids change. Yes, maybe I’m ageist towards young people but on the topic of wisdom and life experience and talking about observations you’ve made, time in the field matters.

Sorry for the tangent. I have guests here (people still have NO POWER!) so I’m just posting here taking a break from RL. Carry on.

YAC,
“I find it surprising that you refer to the Classical Liberal political tradition of Individual Rights as the “Tea Party” position, especially given that this position has plenty of other exponents like (for example) John Locke. I can’t help but think you used the mention of the “Tea Party” as a smear against Classical Liberalism.”

Hmmmm….how do you know I mean “Tea Part” as a smear? Yes, they certainly have some very questionable positions, but they are right in principle on limited government and personal liberties, and I think you would agree that’s what we are both talking about when we speak of Classical Liberalism.

I don’t mean it a as smear at all, but just as a quick and easy label to refer to that ideological orientation, the same way I wouldl call a certain personality type”Joan Crawford”.

Ozy’s law – I’m not sure where I stand on that. I don’t think it’s inherently gynocentric as she stated it, but the way she applies it sure seems to slant gynocentric. It doesn’t have to make all misandry underlyingly misogynist any more than it makes all misogyny underlyingly misandrist. But I haven’t really given it a lot of thought.