DISCUSSION FORUM:
feminism and its influence on the portrayal of sexual power



This is an archive page for March 2000.

Where reader comments are of interest or raise significant points I will publish my response in dialogue pages such as this one. (Private comments are not published.) Reader comment excerpts are in black text and my replies in red text.
Please send your scathing critiques and observations to saRCasmo


From: Annie a.bradford@mail.utexas.edu
Subject: Feminist day story
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000

I hope this is satire, because you have single-handedly recreated a "day in the life" story that I have seen in some feminist publication, except you turned it around and made it male. Both are horribly overexaggerated... so please, please tell me it's supposed to be funny. That it's making fun of the victim-culture feminist "poor-me" bullshit by beating it at its own game... And NOT because it's serious in any way!

As far as your "herstory" article is concerned, you give a one-sided view of women's history.. the success stories. I'd like to think that what "really" happened lies somewhere in between what you claim and what feminists claim. For example, while acknowledging the sporadic influences of female writers, you fail to mention that writers such as George Eliot (author of Silas Marner, a classic) chose to use masculine pseudonyms in order to receive fairer critiques for publication. Conveniently sidestepping known former prejudices against women (such as popular views about the 'lower' intellect of women, which can be found in literature as old as Plato) weakens your case.

A less knee-jerk, here-and-there approach to refuting feminist claims would make your arguments much more thought-provoking and interesting. It is possible to avoid a feminist worldview without rejecting the fact that in many civilizations including our own, women have, at one time or another, been classified in an unequal status.

I am a supporter of men's issues, including better provisions for divorced dads, heightened awareness of [male] spouse abuse, and more realistic cultural expectations for men. However, I can't support a man who is blubbering because the beautiful woman he has been drooling over for a year doesn't give him any respect. Nor can I support a woman who claims that she 'loves' her boyfriend even though he treats her like a doormat. People who are attracted to someone for one reason only (for example, SEX), and then claim injustice because they don't do what they want, are ridiculous. Whether you're a man or a woman matters not.

My opinion: If more people were mature, fair, open-minded, and thoughtful, there would be fewer sexists - of BOTH sexes!! The bad qualities that PEOPLE exhibit are not exclusive to men or to women. Yes, there are women who abuse, exploit, manipulate, and so on... And any woman who claims to be justified in doing so is a loser bitch. Men do it too, it's just that they don't have a victim-culture to back them up. But there are no general groups of "innocents" - individuals do awful things to one another, and to generalize them to their sex, race, religion, location, etc. is bitter and irresponsible.

If you want women to join your push for REAL quality (and maybe you don't, I can't really tell), then don't isolate those of us who aren't radical feminists. Don't shut the door in our face just for being female.

Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
Just to answer some of your questions in brief. Yes the page you refer to is satirical. However the nature of satire is always that there is a potent element of truth to the subject. Basically I adopted a persona of a person who has a chip on their shoulder and is both acutely aware of sexual politics and confused about their response, bitter and yet trying to act reasonably. Actually, a lot like I actually am! The details that I use come from real situations, just concentrated for the purpose of interest.

Your mention of people like George Elliot deserve response. It is something I left out of the discussion of history. You are wrong on this subject, I suspect. Women in Britain who were writers frequently changed their name to male names. However the reason for this was partly more likely because they themselves could not take women's sexuality seriously. It was not to disguise themselves. Some of these women were lesbians and felt more comfortable with male identity, just as a lot of women today like to be known as Johny, Lee, Darrel, Glen, Joe etc. If you start with a feminist mindset you draw a feminist conclusion, but never the right one.

There are women today who write and who identify with male names. It doesn't mean anything in terms of getting published, just as women WERE published in the last century Britain. (See Bronte sisters etc) If we really did live in a patriarchal society, why are some of the most famous authors female? There are not as many as there are famous males but the ones that are famous are really quite big and nobody would suggest they cannot be taken seriously.

I think that certainly a lot of men hold many women in a sort of disdain. It is popular among many men to look down on bimbos and sneer at women like Pamela Anderson. But this does not mean our society holds women in low estimation in terms of their intellect. Undoubtedly the same is likely to have been true in ancient Greek society. Just because Plato made a "sexist" remark about women, and I don't know even that he was sexist, that does not say anything about their society. Sexist remarks are often a defence by certain men to secure their sense of empowerment, rather than indicative of their own power.


From: CCSUZI@aol.com
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000

I think you have the wrong idea about feminist. Do you want to know what feminist are? They are women who are sick and tired of being treated like sex objects everyday of their life and of being treated like they can't do something because I'm a woman. I'm a waitress, so I experience this everyday. Men order from my breasts, coworkers carrying objects I'm supposed to carry because it's just to big for me to handle, and so many men propositioning sex that I literally get nauseous. I bet you are thinking, why don't you quit? Well, I can't. I'm in school and this is the only job I can get that will be lenient for my classes. Another thing, did you ever think about your "women and children first" so they must be equal theory? Do you even know why that is? Because women and children are considered to be the least likely to survive, not because we are more precious. As you guessed, I am a feminist. However you have feminist and extreme feminist confused. I don't believe in Affirmative Action, in fact I'd rather work harder than anyone else to get a job. If you insist on ridiculing feminist ideas, the least you can do is put extreme in front of the word feminist so that you can be somewhat right. Thank you, and I do commemorate you for taking feedback.

Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
You've raised an issue that has a number of dimensions or implications. I want to look at this from both a personal and analytical perspective.

Firstly, I have to admit that I was in a cafe recently and I saw a woman serving there who had what many men would describe as incredible breasts. I usually don't get too worked up about that because unless the woman also looks interesting then the mere physical attributes don't mean anything much at all. What was interesting about the above case was that this woman had dressed in such a way that when she put a coffee on the table it was inevitable that a good impression of her cleavage was shown. Other waittresses, nowhere near as attractive, wore t-shirts that did not show cleavage. I found it intriguing because this woman looked intelligent, but at the same time she had adopted a dress style which to my mind, is used by women who use their sexual attributes as a way of gaining attention from men and status. I thought that she would be similar to how you express yourself, contemptuous of an overflow of male interest, and yet she dressed in a way that would in no way reduce that attention. It had me sufficiently intrigued to almost think about asking her for a date. I mainly wanted to know what her psychological make-up was, because it seems that women are so divided between those that use their sexual attractiviness as a lure, and those who suppress that, divided in some ways over an intelligence border. Now I'm not sure exactly what your circumstance is, and how you dress. It is an important issue to what you mention, although it is certainly not fundamental to the issue. If you dress in a sexual way and strongly display your physical attributes as a woman you are more likely to get the attention of men. However, there are obviously a lot of women who get this attention regardless of their intention, and there are men who give their (unwanted) attention regardless of how a woman looks. I will assume (for what it is worth) that you are either above average attractive, or have a significant endowment of breast.

A lot of men, like myself, do not get excited by women who have big boobs or even noticable boobs. There are plenty of women walking around the main street in my town who are letting their titties get plenty of sunshine, nearly shoving them in men's faces, pretending though, that it is all unintentional. And there are also plenty of men who are obsessed with breasts. Obviously these are the ones that you have had to deal with. If your position is genuinely neutral on this issue then I sympathise with you and have to admit that many men basically do come across as pathetic and annoying.

For many men the size and appearance of breasts signifies something awesome that they cannot cease to be fascinated by. They are so interested in this aspect of a woman's features that the breasts are more important, almost, than the woman herself. It is a unique symbol of her sexuality. Your face is just a face and your legs are just legs, but tits only happen on a woman, and they are 'out there', unlike the vagina. It is a pretty primitive reaction to women, and it suggests that these men cannot understand that a woman is also human, and deserves to be treated with respect and courtesy.

Looking at a woman's breasts is fairly inevitable among men and it may even be fascinating. There is no denying that. But it should be done with respect to that individual, with subtlety. A friend of mine claims that if a woman displays her breasts in such a way as if there is a public exhibition with free attendance, then she should expect men to stare straight into the canyon. However it looks pretty pathetic and it is intrusive, even if the woman has at some level invited inspection. Yes, I am offended by that sort of behaviour in males and I feel sympathy for women who must put up with this.

Mostly the obsessive interest in a woman's breasts, in the type of public display that you mention reflects poorly on some men. But I also highlight that it is some men, or many, rather than all men. Mostly what it indicates is a lack of civility, socialisation and maturity in these men, rather than that it is primarily oppressive. This point brings me finally to the issue of your espousal of feminist beliefs. It has to be said that the situation you face is distinct and particular, working in a public space, confronted by a certain portion of the male population. To condemn all men for this, and furthermore to condemn them based on your contempt and annoyance, rather than fear, is no justification for a feminist perspective. Unless of course feminism is an ideology that espouses contempt for men, and a sense of female superiority, which of course subliminally is precisely what it does. Keep in mind that with this criteria it is equally possible for a certain number of men to hold womankind in contempt for the pathetic and ridiculous actions of a portion of all women.

Men have a breast fetish. One day you will meet, or you have already met, a man who will be both fascinated by your breasts, and most importantly also interested in you. This combination should be erotic and exciting, perhaps fun. I hope that your current attitude would not conflict with such a scenario.


From: Brooke.Wright@ucu.uu.nl
Subject: Facts please!
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000

I think maybe you need to research a little bit more. Women make 70% of what men make at the same level with the same qualifications.

Regarding women killing their husbands - they received approximately three times the punishment on average that men who chase their women who escaped their abuse receive. Also, re Battered Wife Syndrome, it really is a shame that this is recognized in court: instead of recognizing the fact that women do have to kill in defense, now women have to prove that they had a mental condition at the time. It has worked against a huge number of women. The only reason it was needed was because courts were so (and still are) unequal in their judgement of men and women who kill their spouses.

Whether there is a universal system of patriarchy or not is debatable, but these facts are not.

What's interesting to me is how willing people are to condemn the women who stand up for themselves in the only way they know how, after years of abuse (I am speaking about the vast majority of cases where women kill their husbands or lovers). And by the way, it is very common that abusive men (who are only a small portion of all men) do follow through on their threats to kill women who leave them. However, as I already mentioned, they rarely receive punishment comparable to what women killers receive. And if you sympathize with those men, who follow the women in a rage because they are being excluded from their childrens' lives, why not sympathize with the women who kill in a rage (if we imagine for a moment that it is not out of fear) after watching their children being abused by a man? Why is one rage more understandable than the next? If they are both equally understandable, doesn't it seem they should receive equal punishment? Despite your claims that violent women (usually one instance) are getting off easier than violent men (usually repeat abusers, who will abuse other women eventually), the disparity of punishment is huge: hugely in favor of men, not women.

One unfortunate aspect of feminist critique is that it is often ignored that most men are neither violent nor abusive, nor do they only possess privileges over women (such as the Draft and dangerous jobs - although those too are a bit of a privilege since women are denied access to those jobs even when they are qualified). However, it is not entirely ignored. Although you may not believe it, a significant portion of a Women's Studies course that I took was devoted to that very subject.

Man-hating is neither condoned by moderate feminists nor radical feminists. Like all ideologies, there are aspects that are anti-male, there are factions that are anti-male, but they represent a much smaller minority than anti-feminist critique would have you believe.

Judging from your main page, I would actually guess that you were a poorly informed feminist. The essence of feminism is the belief that women deserve as much respect as men, and you seem to condone that. I hope you found this useful.

Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
Your argument that women who kill their husbands receive three times the punishment men receive begs the question, what is being multiplied? Is it the time of the imprisonment? That seems a pretty implausible claim.

My own argument is based partly on the idea that society is so skeptical that women CAN be violent that some women get a way with murder, literally. Nobody believes she could have killed. You may know of a recent case of a woman who, unusually, went to the electric chair in Texas, I believe, having killed a series of husbands. Would it surprise me if she used the 'battered wife syndrome' argument in a desperate defence? And she was the first woman to go to the chair, for decades, though by no means the first murderer/murderess!

I agree with you that there are many men who are violent and are particularly violent against women, or rather their wives, for the simple reason that they want to dominate someone, get their way by any means, and the woman wont hit back, like another man might. However this is a minority of men and we have to acknowledge that. At the same time perhaps we don't acknowledge enough the need to address this issue in a constructive way. However my argument is against the systematic cultural bias that is cultivated by feminism, to misrepresent the totality of male behaviour and character. In turn it misrepresents female character and behaviour, either by omission or propaganda.

We live in western societies, in cultures that are almost as cliched and limiting as any that can be imagined, officially. This is the work of a relentless feminist ideology, with adherents of both male and female sex. This is the issue I am dealing with. It is necessary to ensure that people get a balanced perspective on sexual power and an ability to judge men and women, without prejudice, without favoratism and without traditional (or new) notions that constrain freedom, opportunities and rights.

Feminism is not sympathetic to women. It uses horror stories and issues of injustice, wherever it occurs against individual women by men, either imagined or real, as the basis for the cultivation of an ideology that seeks to undermine the traditional male and female roles and power. Unlike many (male) antifeminists and activists, I am not opposed to some of the changes in attitude and behaviour that feminism has had a hand in promoting. However there is an associated bias and delusion that is destructive and socially reactionary.


From: "Alan Millard" amillard@bibbs.com
Subject: Men's Equality (website/book/educational info.)
Date: Tue, Feb 29, 2000

I want to express my concerns for men's equality to as many people as possible. This includes use of my website, 563 page book and other educational information I have to offer. There exists more violence against men than women, and violence is accepted as more permissable against men than against women. Laws are extremely biased against men in today's society. Rape laws have been sculptured to target normal heterosexual males who are held accountable for women's behavior, actions and mutual situations where under the premise of an equal status, women would be held equally accountable to men. More male criminals in our prison system? Sure! (Daa, I wonder why?) Laws as these target men. Women have used their sex to entrap and incarcerate men in recent times, much as a predator (Black Widow Spider or Venus Fly Trap) preying on the male by use of his sex-drive. Yet the law fails to acknowledge the abuse of this tremendous female power over the human male - a power that has incorporated extreme prejudice and hatred of men in today's society. We must learn to think by reversing the scenerio as to use the equivalent situation regarding the female - perhaps as with sex, baiting a trap with food for a female who is starving to death to truly see it the same way. Feminists claimed they would use their sex in the battle of the sexes and they have. Our laws and convictions of men now reflect it. But more than sex is used. A female sex-bias and denial of the female commodity/power is also at stack. Spread the word and visit the website www.alanmillard.com and find out more .


Whose Next??

Skip to next archive (February 00)


that's all folks.

Simpsons: a cartoon about sexual roles.

sitemapimage

Site map with current pages on sexual politics, links and essays.

ladder snake

A piss poor effort with yellow streaming video.

indexation

Index of reader responses for 12 months.

home page

Back to the ThinkBomb directory homepage.