LADIES’ AUXILIARY OF THE PATRIARCHY – Patriarchal feminism

Gingko, I would like to introduce you to another individual who hides their prejudice
and ignorance in intellectual naval gazing rather than the blunt-edged weapon of direct insults.

This individual, who I’m also not going to name, responds to an article on quantifying child abuse:

“I would never seek to dismiss a victim’s pain for suffering a violation of any kind. Anyone who has been the victim of such a violation deserves care, comfort and understanding. But I disagree with the point of this article very much. The whole arena of sexual misconduct/criminality is a large one that ranges from innocent misunderstandings to full on horrific and torturous behavior. It’s a world swimming with confusing realities, dependent largely upon artificial social norms and delicate psyches. For certain, the issue is very complicated: no victim’s pain is insignificant, but I don’t think equating everyone’s trauma is helpful.

We live in a world that provides endless erotic references and stimulation while maintaining a Victorian and Puritanical superego exoskeletal facade, and it serves to create cleverly hidden deviances and pointless shame. Our children are so sheltered from sexuality that they often can’t accept their own natural beginnings of sexuality as normal. I think this results in two things. First, some develop sexuality that is psychologically “anaerobic;” in other words, it festers, growing unhealthy associations, resentment, and self-loathing. Secondly, should they sadly become a victim, as a child or even as an adult, they are further punished by feelings of shame that they don’t deserve. They blame themselves, and see themselves as “dirty” and maybe “ruined.” I think the trauma of victimhood is magnified by this societal shame, and unnecessarily.

As far as I can tell, this article seems to convey that it doesn’t matter if a child has been patted a little too long on the butt, or if he/she has been physically damaged in an unspeakable act of abuse: that either case depends only upon the suffering of the victim, which cannot be measured. From the standpoint of victims and perpetrators alike, this is a damaging stance. It does a disservice to those who have been severely abused, as if to indicate that their trauma is no more significant than someone who may have only been fondled. It also puts those who may have simply shown affection to a child in a subjectively “suspicious” way into a category with truly sick individuals who belong in prison for the rest of their lives.

Of course, in this article, the abuses in question seem to be much more comparable; but I would still submit that it’s not wrong to make comparisons of degree in the discussion. To take four situations of statutory (consensual) rape–man on girl, man on boy, woman on boy, and woman on girl–and to consider the average effect of society on the traumatic outcome of each is perfectly valid. It seems clear to me that girls are charged in our society with the task of preserving virginity, or at least sexual restraint, whereas boys are “allowed to be encouraged” to lose their virginity. With this in place, a girl who is “taken advantage of” by a man is more likely to suffer internal shame than a boy who is taken advantage of by a woman. This isn’t to say that a boy is not vulnerable to trauma in the incident: he certainly could be very hurt by it, but on average less so. Now, if the abuse is homosexual in nature, there is a societal stigma at play. In this case, boys are in danger of far more shame based on homophobic sentiment than girls. And it depends upon the degree to which the victim is both aware and decided on his or her sexual orientation at the time of the abuse.

I think the author’s point is that to question the severity of sexual abuse is insulting to victims, but that’s not the point of comparison, no matter how it feels to victims. It’s like saying someone who skinned their knee deserves as much regard as someone with internal bleeding. Hey, a skinned knee hurts–no argument there, but if you’re saying you deserve as much attention as the internal bleeding victim, well…”

My response is as follows:

Him: “whereas boys are “allowed to be encouraged” to lose their virginity.

Me: Sorry but in a world where even a six year old boy can be deemed a sexual harasser for kissing a six year old girl on the cheek, and a four year old boy a pervert for hugging a teacher, I find this assumption of yours hard to swallow.

Ask the numerous men who were falsely accused of rape for simply misreading signals or getting on the woman’s bad side. Doesn’t sound very encouraging to me.

Him: ” With this in place, a girl who is “taken advantage of” by a man is more likely to suffer internal shame than a boy who is taken advantage of by a woman. This isn’t to say that a boy is not vulnerable to trauma in the incident: he certainly could be very hurt by it, but on average less so.”

Me: Funny, I hear this all the time from people like you. You start agreeing with the mistreatment of male or boy victims then say that they might not feel pain anyway compared to a girl or woman.

It’s to the point where you’re better off outright stating your prejudices. Because no matter how much vernacular you apply to your explanation, it’s prejudice.

We’re talking human beings here. Comparing their hurt and basing support on it is offensive to their feelings. How do you think a boy is going to take it when he’s denied support because, based on your criteria, his hurt is not a priority?

Him: “I think the author’s point is that to question the severity of sexual abuse is insulting to victims, but that’s not the point of comparison, no matter how it feels to victims”

Me: Oh by all means, please tell me what the point is then? What’s the purpose of comparison?

Him: “It’s like saying someone who skinned their knee deserves as much regard as someone with internal bleeding. Hey, a skinned knee hurts–no argument there, but if you’re saying you deserve as much attention as the internal bleeding victim, well…”

Me: Here’s the thing you miss: Both require attention and treatment. You’re basically telling the boy with the skinned knee to let it poss over and the infection to spread, essentially walk it off because an internal bleeding victim is more worthy of healing.

It may be acceptable in your world, but to me, it”s cruel. For many reasons, both personal and otherwise.

Follow up response by him. Please note that “John” is the name of another commentator he’s addressing at the same time:

“Sorry John, but I think you and Eagle35 (below) missed my point, and seemingly only read what you wanted to read. I think you’re falling into the trap of victimhood that plagues movements of social justice, and helps create so much backlash and stagnation. We ought to be completely sober and honest about the realities of issues, and not allow our own emotional investment to prevent us from seeing the whole picture.

If a woman were to claim that she lives in a world where she feels pressure that she not “appear” to be a lesbian, so she can’t be too close to her BFF’s, or she can’t wear anything slightly masculine, and she didn’t want you to minimize her issue by comparing it to how boys feel, you’d be a little put off. It’s very clear in our society that there is a much bigger homophobia directed toward the behavior of boys than there is toward girls. It’s not that there isn’t SOME homophobic pressure on girls in our society, and it would be callous to dismiss her issue as if it had NO merit whatsoever. Also, it’s a personal thing: she may be particularly sensitive to the issue for certain personal reasons. But overall, as a larger issue, boys are under MUCH more pressure in general. For us to pretend otherwise is intentionally ignorant.

If you’re OK with that assessment, then it’s perfectly fine to realize that boys also enjoy certain privileges in the form of societal acceptance that affect girls more. This in no way indicates that boys have it easy, or that they aren’t as deserving of emotional support in general. That, in a large part, is why we’re here: because, in an overall sense, we’ve recognized that the emotional health of boys and men suffers disproportionately in our society, and we want to change that. We want to bring attention to how society stunts the better growth of boys/men. But in doing so, most of us acknowledge that society also stunts the better growth of girls/women–we may be weary of feminist diatribe in the face of our own issues, but that doesn’t negate their concerns. In fact, if we see the goal as equality, or at least equity, then it makes sense for us to champion valid causes on both sides.

Of course, this wasn’t supposed to a battle of the sexes issue in the first place; it was about degrees. So if we ignore the whole who-has-it-worse argument between boys and girls, we might focus on the degree issue. Both of you infer things in a very absolute way. I never said anything about “agreeing with the mistreatment of male or boy victims” or that a boy should be “denied support”, or leaving the boy with the skinned knee “to let it poss [sic] over and the infection to spread.” In fact, I indicated that “isn’t to say that a boy is not vulnerable to trauma…”

I agree that there is little help for men in issues of personal psychological trauma, and that these issues deserve attention, but picking battles and framing them in the context of the real world is exceptionally important. The author’s reaction to “degrees of abuse” is to assume total disregard of any abuse deemed to be “lesser.” If one victim were to be fondled once and another were to be sodomized repeatedly with a wine bottle, that doesn’t mean that the fondlee doesn’t deserve attention, but it does suggest that victim of sodomy might have a larger issue.

I think what happens with issues of social justice is that they can get usurped by people who are looking more for sympathy than they are for an honest solution. It happens because they are hurting, and they’re human, and in that sense it’s hard to blame them for “overextending” their issue. The problem is, such things create backlash, because they end up being confronted either by other valid issues or by reasonability itself. That’s why I bring up the skinned knee/internal bleeding analogy, because if the internal bleeding victim is not getting proper care, and you’re over there complaining about your skinned knee, you’re not gonna get much sympathy for your cause, and until the internal bleeding victim’s issue is addressed properly, you shouldn’t. This is the application of assessing degrees of anything, even child abuse.”

My response:

Him: ” I think you’re falling into the trap of victimhood that plagues movements of social justice, and helps create so much backlash and stagnation. We ought to be completely sober and honest about the realities of issues, and not allow our own emotional investment to prevent us from seeing the whole picture.”

Me: No, I’m bringing common sense and balance into a discussion that seems to attract people like you like moths to a flame.

Him: “If a woman were to claim that she lives in a world where she feels pressure that she not “appear” to be a lesbian, so she can’t be too close to her BFF’s, or she can’t wear anything slightly masculine, and she didn’t want you to minimize her issue by comparing it to how boys feel, you’d be a little put off.”

Me: Yes I would be put off.

The difference is, I wouldn’t treat her problems and trauma as a priority over a boy with a similar level of hurt and pain. I’m all for equality but not at the expense of others.

Him” It’s very clear in our society that there is a much bigger homophobia directed toward the behavior of boys than there is toward girls.”

Me: You’re extremely ignorant to pass off the aspirations boys and men are given as homophobia alone.

You ever heard of the phrase “Boys don’t hit girls”? Do you also know that boys are instilled this value system in them to the point where they cannot even defend themselves for fear of being labeled the aggressor and punished should a girl abuse that morale value? Then we get to domestic violence and sexual abuse. I’ll give you a chance to guess the results of the kind of backwards, sexist logic we’re hammer into them as kids when they grow into men and are faced with an abusive spouse (physical, sexual or even mental).

Its not just homophobia, but an empathy gap that fuels the dismissal of boys and men who are victims of child abuse. Where domestic violence, for example, is labeled as something only men do to women even as contrary evidence from reputable stories are coming out against this outdated notion. Where sexual abuse isn’t called “Rape” if it’s a woman doing it to a man thanks to said outdated notions and what you are propagating in those long posts of yours.

Now, are you going to address this other half or continue to dress up your ignorance in intellectual jargon again? All I’m asking for is an uncensored, honest, direct examination of the issue.

Him: “But overall, as a larger issue, boys are under MUCH more pressure in general. For us to pretend otherwise is intentionally ignorant”

Me: Yes, you’re right they are under much more pressure. But the source of it is not what you perceive.

Him: “If you’re OK with that assessment, then it’s perfectly fine to realize that boys also enjoy certain privileges in the form of societal acceptance that affect girls more. This in no way indicates that boys have it easy, or that they aren’t as deserving of emotional support in general.”

Me: Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard this all before. Don’t pull my leg, please. I’ve dealt with this argument a billion times that it’s becoming stale, tiresome, and even irksome. To the point where I have the urge to tune you out.

Him: “That, in a large part, is why we’re here: because, in an overall sense, we’ve recognized that the emotional health of boys and men suffers disproportionately in our society, and we want to change that.”

Me: Right. Let me point you out this paragraph of yours again:

“I think the author’s point is that to question the severity of sexual abuse is insulting to victims, but that’s not the point of comparison, no matter how it feels to victims. It’s like saying someone who skinned their knee deserves as much regard as someone with internal bleeding. Hey, a skinned knee hurts–no argument there, but if you’re saying you deserve as much attention as the internal bleeding victim, well…”

This is what you call trying to change all that? Pretty contradictory.

Him: ” But in doing so, most of us acknowledge that society also stunts the better growth of girls/women–we may be weary of feminist diatribe in the face of our own issues, but that doesn’t negate their concerns.”

Me: So far, the version of feminism practiced right now is more concerned with choosing a media event that affects both genders and spinning it as if women were the only victims. Boko Harem and Elliot Rodgers to name a few glaring examples.

Him: “In fact, if we see the goal as equality, or at least equity, then it makes sense for us to champion valid causes on both sides.”

Me: Then maybe you can share this with the current model of feminism being practiced because they certainly refuse to adhere to the “Equality” goal.

Him: “Of course, this wasn’t supposed to a battle of the sexes issue in the first place; it was about degrees. So if we ignore the whole who-has-it-worse argument between boys and girls, we might focus on the degree issue.”

Me: How about we just focus on the issue without degrees, without who-has-it-worse, and look on it as everybody who needs support has a right to it? Sorry if this doesn’t adhere to your standards of equality.

Him: “Both of you infer things in a very absolute way. I never said anything about “agreeing with the mistreatment of male or boy victims” or that a boy should be “denied support”, or leaving the boy with the skinned knee “to let it poss [sic] over and the infection to spread.” In fact, I indicated that “isn’t to say that a boy is not vulnerable to trauma…”

Me: Let me post that paragraph again:

“I think the author’s point is that to question the severity of sexual abuse is insulting to victims, but that’s not the point of comparison, no matter how it feels to victims. It’s like saying someone who skinned their knee deserves as much regard as someone with internal bleeding. Hey, a skinned knee hurts–no argument there, but if you’re saying you deserve as much attention as the internal bleeding victim, well…”

So complete this paragraph then. If the boy who’s suffered grievous harm shouldn’t expect equal, god-given, human support…what? Is he supposed to just accept bread crumbs, leftovers, hand me downs, afterbirth, what? Why shouldn’t we extend him the same courtesy we extend to female victims?

How else am I going to interpret this misappropriation of empathy and charity as anything but denial? You never ask these questions, never apply a modicum of critical thought where required. Simply put it against a slide chart then take it from there then endorse sexist laws that exclude a segment of the population from the help they need, deserve, and have a basic human right to.

Him: “I agree that there is little help for men in issues of personal psychological trauma, and that these issues deserve attention, but picking battles and framing them in the context of the real world is exceptionally important.”

Me: No, this is your version of the real world. Don’t pass it off as anything but.

Him: “The author’s reaction to “degrees of abuse” is to assume total disregard of any abuse deemed to be “lesser.” If one victim were to be fondled once and another were to be sodomized repeatedly with a wine bottle, that doesn’t mean that the fondlee doesn’t deserve attention, but it does suggest that victim of sodomy might have a larger issue.”

Me: Yet they’re still victims aren’t they? Fondling is sexual assault and is just a serious issue as being violated with a bottle repeatedly due to the fact the victim was violated. It’s sickening you would try to put these two hypothetical victims against each other based on what you think is the larger issue.

Him: “I think what happens with issues of social justice is that they can get usurped by people who are looking more for sympathy than they are for an honest solution. It happens because they are hurting, and they’re human, and in that sense it’s hard to blame them for “overextending” their issue”

Me: If you were seriously hurt by the opposite sex and find that the culture itself permits and lends credence to it with little to no exposure to the issue, would you be calling it “Overextending” the issue?

I’m not going to bore you with further details but I’m one of those people who, day after day, has to avoid thinking too hard about the abuse. For I would have to face the fact that I’m expandable and have scant support in the current climate due to this empathy gap. This brings on serious trigger issues and even leads to the occasional suicidal thought. Thank goodness I know better than to follow through further. Still, when you feel alone, facing a world that is reluctant to listen, when the trauma grips tight, it takes mental stamina to climb your way out of it. Something that would’ve been offset if there were support structures and environments available for me in the first place. If people would shut up with the “Don’t expect equal attention because of (insert sexist absolute here)”.

Unfortunately, I deal with what I’ve got and take each day a step at a time. Luckily my writing has given me a successful outlet for these feelings. Imagine if I wasn’t blessed with this talent.

Him: “That’s why I bring up the skinned knee/internal bleeding analogy, because if the internal bleeding victim is not getting proper care, and you’re over there complaining about your skinned knee, you’re not gonna get much sympathy for your cause, and until the internal bleeding victim’s issue is addressed properly, you shouldn’t.”

Me: And this is where I part ways. You are cruel, incredibly cruel to think my skinned knee shouldn’t receive equal sympathy until the internal bleeding victim’s issue is addressed properly.

You realize what you’ve just done? You’re leaving me to rot. Leaving the boy to rot and walk it off. Telling the man to “Man up and take it”.

Congratulations, you’ve lost every ounce of respect I could spare.

________________________________________________________

Ginkgo, what we have here are two things:

1) An intellectual misandric bigot who thinks that if he takes a giant shit and sculpts it fine work of art it negates the fact that it’s still a pile of shit. The main reason why I loathe intellectuals with a fucking passion!

2) A blantant, uncouthed example of patriarchal feminism if I ever saw it with this paragraph here:

““That’s why I bring up the skinned knee/internal bleeding analogy, because if the internal bleeding victim is not getting proper care, and you’re over there complaining about your skinned knee, you’re not gonna get much sympathy for your cause, and until the internal bleeding victim’s issue is addressed properly, you shouldn’t.”

The skinned kneed boy should man up, internal bleeding girl first. Walk it off and don’t complain. Be a man, not a pussy.

This should probably gets it own article but I’ll let you decide.

Again, I won’t link to where it took place. Need to protect my privacy and am above doxxing people.

http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/95781560733/empowerment

This blog post is pretty awesome and relates to “patriarchal feminism” in so far as it covers how constantly pushing the ‘women are oppressed’ line is contributing to women’s oppression (or rather their underachievement)

Sans-sanity have you seen this?

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2014/07/30/women-are-underrepresented-in-politics-but-its-not-for-the-reason-you-think/

I think you misstepped by accepting his “skinned knee” framing and referring to the hypothetical men’s injury as a skinned knee, and arguing from there it’s just as worthy of treatment.

Analogies about skinned knees and internal bleeding, or similar injuries are really common in feminism when comparing treating men’s needs and treating women’s needs. Also, a very common refrain in the “why MRAs are stupid and dumb and Bad” diatribes.

Here’s the response I give: “But it’s not like a skinned knee and internal bleeding. That’s you being sexist. Your sexism is your unexamined assumption that women are *so incredibly weak* that any injury they suffer must be likened to horrible internal bleeding, and that men are *so invulnerable* that any injury they suffer must be likened to just a skinned knee, unworthy of attention or sympathy next to the injuries of poor, weak women.”

Not sure if this qualifies but the recent ‘Like a girl’ youtube advert/ campaign.

This message of positive female empowerment and gender equality is backed by ‘delicate flower petal’ music and features a very ‘girly’ girl who looks borderline anorexic, in heels, standing in a ‘weak’ pose (legs crossed, feet together). It is clearly designed to trigger the maximum ‘patriarchal’ protective instinct in its audience.

What is so tragic (clever?) is that the phrase ‘like a girl’ IS actually ’empowering’ (to use their lingo) ……. when it is directed at a girl. Telling a girl she throws “like a girl” demonstrates you have ALREADY granted the girl ‘honorary’ male status (or just equal status) and you are judging her as a ‘thrower’ rather than as a ‘little delicate girly thrower’. Criticising a girl for throwing “like a girl” is criticising her for conforming to traditional ‘patriarchal’ socialised ideas of what a girl should be (or to be more precise what a girl should not be expected to have to do for herself – ie physical exertion).

Saying a girl throws ‘like a girl’ is not literally criticising her for being a girl, because (as the advert even points out at one point) she is a girl who is a girl and therefore cannot help being any thing else but a girl.

So under the pretence of being about equality and empowerment the advert is actually depicting women as weak, delicate, flowers who need to be protected from being treated as equals….. as ‘people’ …. because that is just so insulting and harmful to their self esteem etc etc.

Hmmmm….. no mention of boys … you know, the are the ones who actually ARE oppressed by the phrase ‘like a girl’. The ones who are often beaten to a pulp in the schoolyard and occasionally driven to suicide for being ‘like a girl’.

To explain the difference…..

When directed at a boy or man the phrase ‘like a girl’ criticises him for daring to stray outside traditional ‘patriarchal’ male gender roles by acting in a weak and feeble way. It reinforces the traditional male gender role as strong, capable, provider and protector.

But when directed at a girl or woman the phrase ‘like a girl’ criticises her for conforming to traditional ‘patriarchal’ female gender roles which define females as precious, weak, inept, child-like dolls. It urges her to break free of this restrictive and highly socialised gender role and fulfil her true (repressed) potential.

Welcome to feminarchy-ception ….because this is also the official message of the video which also urges women to break free of socialised gender roles and fulfil their true potential. At one point the feminist director (who features in the video) even invites the women to have a go at running again, only this time without doing it ………quite so much … you know … er ……… like a girl.

So the message of the video is that ‘like a girl’ is an insult to girls, which lowers their self esteem ….. unless you are a feminist doing a sanitary towel advert in which case urging women to not run about ‘like a girl’ is positive, wholesome, empowering advice.

And the fact that the phrase actually IS negative and hurtful when directed at boys and men is totally ignored because, as every good patriarchal enforcer knows…. men’s feelings count for nothing because they do not really exist. Any man feeling upset about being criticised for running ‘like a girl’ is just acting …. er …. like a girl…. which is not acceptable because in a patriarchy only women’s feelings count.

And now if you excuse me I am going to have a little lie down.

Feminarchy, welcome!

And that example you give is absolutely apposite, in a couple of ways. One is that it is an example of damseling – poor me, so misogynist! and the white knight/damsel dyad is central to chivalry. The other is the impressionistic, id-like style of the thinking, which is a tradcon gender stereotype of female irrationality.

David H, that is an excellent article. I saw it posted on the Men’s Rights reddit and that is about as wide an exposure as it can get.

If anybody wants some stark raving examples of patriarchal feminists the NPR post covering the mens conference is a good place to start.

I even saw one women posting “give up the equality garbage” in response to men saying fathers should have parental equality to women in family court.

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/02/343970601/men-s-rights-movement

I responded to one woman named Vera about the draft, but the mods ate it for some reason.

Luckily a helpful person screen-captured my post:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59039905/NPR_deletes_what.png

On a side note, I was wondering if anybody would be rendering some help teaching me to how to utilize free editing software to make a short movie to post on youtube?

I have some really great ideas, but I have zero experience using editing software.