This is an archive page for April 1999.
Where reader comments are of interest or where they raise significant points I publish my response in dialogue pages such as this one. Reader comment excerpts are in black and my replies in red. Please send your scathing critiques and observations to the email address
From: Paul PROBBINS@CCSI.COM Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 I just came across your website and found it insightful. It articulates some concerns that have been ruminating in my brain for a while seeking expression. My own conclusions on some of the issues you raised could be expressed simply as this: that what is needed is a new framework in which to discuss the relationship between the sexes. The moral/religious framework has lost some of its persuasive power; the feminist framework is useless for discussing men's issues. Within the feminist framework, men start wanting to claim they're victims too. Whatever that new framework is, it must be based on a sense of personal responsibility, all but lost in the feminist framework, combined with fair and just treatment of both sexes, while recognizing that the "social contract" does not always involve an exchange of identical benefits. That's my view in a nutshell, as the saying goes, but as of now is more a prologue to creating a new framework than a conclusion. I often debate the feminists on the net, and would identify myself as anti-femnist, but that stance alone is not always productive--it's not so much than I'm against feminism, as that I'm seeking a vision to replace the bankrupt vision set forth by modern feminism. Articulating that vision is a work yet to be done.
Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
The critique of feminism, which occupies centre stage in the discussion of sexual relations has to be carried forth. But it has limits. Furthermore it creates an environment in which anti-female and anti-progressive forces are just as likely to have their nurturing. So the longer term goal is to take a look at sexual relations and sexual power clear of ideological and quasi-religious restrictions on our thoughts. Furthermore, it should contain some socially constructive and personally beneficial insights and lessons. But I can tell you this task is not easy.
Feminism has provided one valuable contribution in defining a variety of social forums, institutions and relations as the areas where power is exercised. These are a worthwhile starting point for both making the critique and for moving on to an honest analysis of social sexual power. My personal goal in that regard is to take a look at the myths and ideals that societies have created around female and male identity. It is worthwhile to look at "traditional" spheres of supposed male and female power and to critically analyse these. Sometimes this reveals that the power may be quite constrained, or even dubious in its benefit to that sex.
Actually, power itself is a concept that is hard to quantify and when you start looking at the idea of "having power" vs "not having power" you realise how contrived the concept is.
To sum it up for the moment: we used to have a view of male and female roles that were idealised in a given era, especially pertinent being the post-war nuclear family ideal. Since then feminism has criticised this idea: both as if it were real and as if it were mythical. However the original concept was loaded with myths of power and the feminist critique in turn created its own myths. It all has to be unwound.
We are well on the way to deconstructing the feminist myth. The next task is to scrutinise the previous myth. All this must be done with the view of not simply tearing the fabric of society apart. It must have the purpose of improving society. But even the way it should be improved is subject to debate. Do we want greater peace between men and women. Do we "just want to get along"? I don't necessarily think so. The answers are still wide open.
From: "Angelica" angelika@zaz.com.br Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 This is the first time I read your home page. Congratulations for the level of reflexion. I am brazilian, from São paulo, 39 years old, divorced, one 18 year old daughter, economically independent and trying to be men's emotionally independent. I am in the 2nd "trying marriage". I intend to keep up with my participation on this discussions and I would like to begin making you a question: Do you believe it is possible a matriarchal based society take place of patriarchy in a short period of time? It strikes me that a new power and leadership is emerging in substitution to the current (that we can't deny is male). Do you agree with that ? This power should be feminine ? Why ?
Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
You suggest that contemporary culture is patriarchal and that it is heading in the direction of matriarchal power. I would appreciate it for the purpose of discussion if you elaborated on this opinion. Why is it patriarchal as you see it? However, in any case, I don't see it as patriarchal. Men have, as a collective sex, some official and unofficial powers in terms of their dominance in certain areas of social activity. All men benefit to some extent from the status of individual males dominating in certain fields. The fastest runner in the world is a man and so am I. This might make me feel proud of masculinity. It doesn't for me though.
Then again, the first person on the moon was a man and yet we don't think of it that way. The first person on the moon was an American. And yet we don't need to see it that way either because it was "one giant leap for mankind." ie men and women of the world.
Feminism has encouraged us to see the world as patriarchal and therefore everything men do reflects their power while everything women (traditionally) do, reflects their weakness. This is the rule, except where women do what men do and then it reflects women's strength against the odds. It is worth noting that there is no movement to endorse men where they do what women normally do. This is actually an important point.
The fact is that in modern societies men and women are becoming increasingly generic in certain parts of their lives. Both men and women can have careers. Women can now officially do whatever men do and go where men go, wear what men wear. This does not mean there is simply greater equality. This means that women may have gained greater options. However it is also arguable that women's options have reduced. There is a moral obligation for many women to have a career. Certainly the elite females who are university educated are now compelled to not marry early and then develop a career, competing on the same plane with men. In the process many women complain that life is now harder than it was before. They have less time.
Arguably, for men who are not so competitive or intelligent the new competition for good jobs has denied them an opportunity to get into the career system. They must settle for unskilled work. But this is not all men.
In response to all the changes happening in moderns societies we have seen a men's movement emerging. This is not very large or prominent but it is distinct and potent. It is apparent to many men and women that women have, as a collective sex, made great gains. They seem to be very successful as a sex. They are ambitious, skilled and in demand. Furthermore, they seem to have retained all their old attributes as well. They are still able to be mothers, to be seductive and erotic and dress nicely and nurture. They are also emotionally competent, seemingly. Men on the other hand are questioning their own strength. They feel frequently insecure. This is no different to the way most men have always felt. They have, as human beings, wondered at their role, status and ability to succeed. But today, more than ever, they are no longer burying their heads in the sand on this issue. They are confronting it and talking about it. The definition of manhood has changed and the strengths and status of manhood has been undermined. So in a sense men (as a sex) could be seen as in crisis. However a crisis poses the possibility for positive change and development. Men may become more mature, nurturing, versatile, emotionally competent. In other words men may learn some of the seemingly traditional competencies of women.
Everything I have said so far is however qualified. What is happening is true for groups of individuals according to cultural factors, country conditions and levels of awareness.
To go back to the question, Is society going from a patriarchal structure to a matriarchal? There are different ways of seeing the question. In some respects women are possibly becoming more patriarchal and men more matriarchal. That is if you don't see these forms of power as absolute. Not everybody participates in these changes. Not everybody wants to, needs to, or is in a position to change their sexual role and attitude. Things were not so bad before and things will not be so much better in the future. But we must respond to all the changes and be sure of what they mean and find out how we can best benefit from the new conditions.
There is a lot more to be said on this subject but we must then move from the abstract to the specific. In other words we have to look at a particular subject.
I get the impression that you have looked at your own condition; your own power as a model for the changes happening in society. You feel economically independent from the male. Perhaps your former partner is now unsuccessful, or weakened?? Your current partner may not live up to the model of male strength that you expected. Do you see these males as having lost their status and power over your life and the life of your child, and therefore in society. The role of these men in family life has been diminished. They have lost something and you have gained something. With the increasing rate of divorce, and women having usual custody there is certainly an important power and status issue at stake here. But again it is divided along several lines that include class, personal conditions, cultural, legal and political factors. From: "karma serena" punkrwker@worldnet.att.net Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 You are exactly right! In a society where women think they're oppressed, men seem to be oppressed now more than women. Like the Ally Mcbeal thing, if it were to have been about men picking up women and making them want them and then just give her the flick, it would be sexist. if a woman does it, it is great! Its hypocrisy. Id like to thank you for your sanity in an insane world.
Skip to next entry or continue with my reply. From: Kelli "digital lipstain" siren@graffiti.net Subject: kate moss Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 You mentioned on your website that feminists hate Kate Moss for being slip, pretty, and having a personality. Please tell me where you have seen her exhibit any "personality" beyond her modeling career. Did you know that Kate recently admitted to never being sober on the runway? I don't hate Kate Moss. I despise her. I despise her simply because she is a poor role model to young girls. She is the epitome of the waif-look popularity that disgusts people like me. While I too dislike gender feminists, I think you need to recognize there are also feminists out there who believe in equality (hence the name EQUITY FEMINISTS) that agree with you in many ways, like myself. Don't generalize all feminists or you'll get it wrong almost everytime. I recently bought the perfect shirt for guys like you to see: "I'll be a post-feminist when I live in post-patriarchy" Go read some Mary Daly. She's a scary woman that will give you as many nightmares as she does me.
Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
There are times when my writing clearly wavers between objective analysis
and personal invective or observation. In the case of Kate Moss I have to
acknowledge that my judgement is not as detached and considered as
elsewhere. I happen to like Moss for a number of reasons. The first reason
is aesthetic. She has a nice facial bone structure. Secondly she is one of
the few models that displays what to me looks like a sassy and defiant
beauty, in which I include aspects of her overt personality. The first
reason is perhaps just my own taste but the second reason
has good justification. To me most of the supermodels exude a bland,
indifferent neutrality. This in a sense is perfectly apt because they are
meant to portray subliminally the emotionally detached and elite bourgeois
woman whose life involves no labour, just wearing clothes, shopping and
pouting.
Supermodels aren't just the most beautiful women in the world at all. They
represent the aspirations of many women to be higher in status and to
emulate a luxurious lifestyle, with its associated class implications. This
is why the supermodel life becomes an extension of their glamour. They are
the
upper class style princesses who can only be courted by the upper class
princes. Thus supermodels marry prominent lawyers and businessmen. Recall
the model who had been dating the guy who later married Princess Dianna. She
spent her life lying on a yacht sunbaking.
The supermodel gaze in public is
not
outward but inward because they know how much they rise above men in
general. They are desired. They do not desire.
When I say this I am thinking now of supermodels on the catwalk. Of course
when
they pose in magazines it changes dramatically. "Between the covers" of the
magazine the image usually concentrates on their faces,
portrayed in a swoon of desire and seductive pre-orgasm, directed at the
reader.
The
supermodel parade is invariably portrayed on the evening news as
"newsworthy". It's the latest fashion trend from Paris. But the supermodel
close-up
occurs mostly in women's magazines and is in part perhaps designed to show
women how to look seductive and attractive, and classy. Men are far less
likely to see
these particular images frequently, because they are marketing products that
allow ordinary women to buy the makeup which will supposedly put them in the
blush of orgasmic desirability. However this is a subtext of the
whole mystique of modeling.
One supermodel who also falls slightly outside this stereotype is Elle
Macpherson. She lacks the upper class edge and is far more sporting looking,
reflected in her specialisation in swimwear, lack of make-up. Clearly she
also appeals far more directly to men. The reason is I think partly because
she does not have the same haughty look and is in a sense
childlike/unaffected in her
facial expression. She also has large breasts which make her look fecund,
able to breed. This ordinariness makes men less intimidated and gives
them a sense that they can relate to her.
This brings us back to Kate Moss. Despite my fascination by her as a
supermodel it surprises me that this includes no sexual desire. Her
attractiveness is reliant on her versatility and complexity. Firstly, she
has the ability to exude a combination of precociousness, defiance,
intelligence. So she is more overt in her emotional presence. Also, she is
the most versatile model in terms of images she has adopted: sultry, youthful, bohemian, primitive, wild, sophisticated, childlike, slacker. The other supermodels are
relatively one dimensional.
Your main critique of Kate Moss relies on an old chestnut that she has
"waif-like" popularity." That seems a judgment based on a very narrow and
obsessive criteria. Consider that waif means: "unowned or abandoned child,
homeless and helpless, neglected." (Oxford) This is somehow an inaccurate
description. She barely looks "streetwise". This anger at Kate Moss thus as
much reverberates to a feminist resentment of ideal females as thin and
whispish, playful, youthful and desirable.
We know that in response some feminists have insisted that "fat" women be
shown in women's magazines. And they have succeeded in a limited sense.
Other young women who resent the imposition of stereotypes, that they cannot
live up to, have also protested. However in this I think you forget the
possibility that even the "waif" female deserves to be represented. Kate
Moss has small tits and no cleavage. She therefore indirectly also
represents young women with underdeveloped breasts. She represents in fact a
very common body and personality type of young women. In the context of
representation of a reasonble variety of other types she deserves to be a
representative of female archetypal beauty and demeanor. Even though her
smoking habit is vile, can we condemn her for a weakness experienced by many
young men and women.
Is this whole issue about equality? Probably not. We know that men who
represent role models also frequently "let down" public (male) expectations.
This ranges from Hugh Grant, Michael Hutchence, (lead singer of INXS who
committed suicide) Frank Sinatra, who once suggested you shouldn't be awake
and sober, Rock Hudson, that tennis player who used to throw tantrums...etc.
Digital Lipstain replies:
Women are slightly different to men in terms of weight but not always vastly. Females are usually fairly thin in youth and tend to fill out later. Both
men and women may get a 'middle aged spread' later in life. In today's
society thinness is considered one form of beauty. All supermodels are
relatively thin. Some are very thin. But none resembles an anorexic. There
is a distinct difference.
Furthermore, today society is combating one of
the blights of modern life: overeating. In some respects overeating is just
as insidious as the smoking which you find so distressing. It kills people in vast numbers and reduces the quality of life in between. One way to
discourage women from becoming obese is by providing role models of slim
women. Fatness is not intrinsically always unhealthy nor even unaesthetic.
But in general it is indicative of poor health, immobility and the chance of
having an early death due to coronary problems. That is why fatness has a
low social status and necessarily women who are fat get a low social status.
That's how it works.
However, feminists have this perverse agenda where they glorify fatness.
They have inverted the status relationship. The reason they do this is
because it taps into a potential conflict between men and women. It
encourages women to rebel against men who might feel concerned about their
girlfriend's growing weight; the wife's overeating. Some men fear for their
life at the thought of telling their "partner" she might be a little
"chubbier" than she should be.
By standing up for fat women feminism enhances the system of female
solidarity. Fat women get promoted and get support for continuing their
lifestyle. It's ok to eat too much, to not do any exercise. We are there for
you. This is designed to win converts particularly with women of low self
esteem. Yet society continues to see fatness as ugly. Feminists know this
perfectly well and it suits their purposes. Fat is a feminist issue. They
want to recruit women who feel that they are ugly or potentially rejected by
men. These are primary targets for the ideology that harbingers man-hating.
It is no wonder that in this context the Venus of Willendorf becomes one of
the perverse amulets of feminism. This figurine actually represents a unique
symbolic value for ancient peoples, perhaps related to the ideal body
shape of women, only in a society where famine and hardship were a constant
fear. When people where pervasively fit because only the fit survived the
image of a fat fecund woman was idealised. She represented endless bounty:
food in super abundance. However in modern societies we have achieved this
ideal tenfold. We are all able to be as fat as the Venus. We therefore now
have another ideal which represents new peaks of achievement. Thus the
contemporary image of woman embodies the new social material conditions. The
ideal is thin and athletic. It is of a body that is unburdened by work, but
healthy. It is of a woman who goes to aerobics and eats healthy organic
foods. Sure, the women who represent it may not actually be healthy. But
that is beside the point. Men's bodies are subject to many of the same
criteria. The ideal male varies across the spectrum between body builder and
suited executive. In the contemporary world the well dressed shaven and slim
male has become more significant. However men's continued important role in
heavy labour and outdoor work still leave these as ideals. From: Layla fairywings@wildmail.com Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 I'd like to put in my two cents worth in response to your anti-feminism web-site. I'd like to address how sexism affects both men and women in a negative way. First of all, I find it impossible to believe that anyone could say we don't live in a male-dominated world. The reality is (as everyone with an IQ above about 40 that I've spoken to thinks) society simply has less respect for women. However, I think what you really are complaining about is this overlooked effect on men. Obviously, we (the females) are getting a tough deal from being given less respect, but people don't seem to have considered this also has an effect on men. Your mockery of the female vanity is a very good example of this. Women, whatever you say are judged on their looks. There is no doubt about that. Have you noticed how many girls have eating disorders? Do you think it's merely a coincidence that men so rarely have the same problem? I'm also really sick of men riculing women putting creme on their faces, watching what they eat, wearing make up etc. What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to be naturally perfect (what the men have decided is perfect)? That's simply impossible. And if someone didn't do all these things to please men, they would not have a boyfriend, not get hired by any males, and no one would listen to them! And please don't say men make the same amount of money. There is a 2 billion dollar gap! In fact, studies proved that a BA in a prestigious school will result in an average $11,500 increase for men, but a $2,400 DECREASE for women. Men are hired because of their qualifications and mind. Women are hired because of the way they look. Also, I am far happier supporting myself. Women who become dependent housewives, are simply lacking in self-respect. They have no ambition, their lives consist of serving their husbands, so please don't complain about the poor husbands who have to make the money, have ambition, and a life of their own. However, what I think you really should be complaining about is not the feminism, but the same thing that women are complaining about. Your complaint of "Women and children first", for example. Also the women getting off murder trials. And women sleeping their way to the top. That's simply using sexism to our advantage- and shows how it harms males as well. It seems to me like sex is the only power granted to women, we'd be helpless without it. The idea is: Put women on a pedastol, so they look pretty, take care of them, but god forbid they are granted any opinions, responsibilities, ambitions, ideas etc.
Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
For example there are very few women represented as heroes in science. I saw
an article recently listing Einstein, Wittgenstein and Baekelund (inventor
of Bakelite). Yet we do have a certain equivalent in Marie Curie and
Margaret Mead (social anthropology). The argument I make is that women did
not in the past have great ambition to succeed in these areas and certainly
there was no strong incentive. However they were glorified if they did
achieve something.
Take a look at the pilot Amelia Aerhart who became famous in the 1930s. As I
state on my
hystery page: "Amelia Earhart was made famous simply for
being the first woman to fly across the Atlantic.
Who was the first man to fly across? Nobody knows."
If you read newspaper reports from this period you find everyone falling
over themselves declaring admiration for her as a representative of female
skill, success and ability...kind of exactly as they do today.
Now take a look at some area where women dominate: fashion. Yes I know you
think it's stereotyped and limited but the fact remains that it is glamorous
and socially significant. Feminists are always downplaying women's tangible
status whenever it doesn't conform to the status they are seeking. Now how
many men can you cite who are supermodels? I would guess none, compared to
the 6 or 9 females who are household names and who will be remembered as
historical figures no doubt. There are certain perverse and oppressive
aspects of this characteristically female power of beauty. Yet it is one of
the greatest status features of women giving them enormous influence over
men. It may have negative repercussions and unfair implications but it is
real. (It's not all bad either.)
Status is a complex thing with many facets. People can have status for their
achievements or simply for who they are, or what group they belong to. Women
have status as mothers and housewives. Women have status as athletes and
actors. Feminists seek to downgrade some of these statuses and enhance
others. Equally, men have status in areas such as politics or sport or
acting. Equally feminists want to alter the status of the male aura, make
men typically appear domineering and violent.
At the same time not every man or woman can live up to the status of the
sexual archetype roles that give them credibility. Not every woman is
fertile and so she feels not only sorry she can't have a child but also
diminished as a woman who should have the status of the ability to bear
children. Men who are unable to pass exams into university may feel they
will never achieve the status of being a corporate player. So the story goes
on. Status is expressed both formally and informally. Some roles and
characteristics are universal and some are unique to the sexes.
The subject of beauty and power as a woman's special status deserves to be
explored. It needs an honest analysis, not a feminist one.
I cannot agree to the simplistic notion that women simply have no status. From: "peter mason" rpmason@business-solutions00.freeserve.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999
I am currently in the process of compiling information for a documentary concerning some of the issues you attempt to raise in your essay. Your attempts at being provocative are dismal when compared to the complexities which should be explored. Try redirecting your efforts into establishing a case which would be sustainable when faced with the real dynamics of academic confrontation. Read my reply or Skip to next archive (March)
If there is a genuinely sophisticated and complex academic debate that I am
not familiar with perhaps you can elaborate on it or refer me to its key
points.
I am "impressed" by the obscurantist and complex arguments engaged in by
academics. But I tend to be skeptical of the intellectual honesty and social
purpose of their velbalising and scribblings.
My aims are still in the process of being developed. They are currently in
the main satirical. They are also analytical of the current dominant
ideologies of sexual power. The next step would certainly be toward the
effort of looking at the true qualities and deficiencies of men and women,
at a personal level and in terms of social structures. Then some
contribution might be made to the resolution of issues and crises.
|
Contains a summary of the critique of feminist perspectives. |
 The site map with all current pages on sexual politics, links and essays. |
 The 'doublestandard' from another perspective. |
 Back to the ThinkBomb directory homepage. |