In the Confluence yesterday, in the comments section, riverdaughter sayeth:
And how much wealth do the tycoons need? Is it a pathological addiction in some people related to testosterone poisoning?To which a reader replyeth:
RD, everything about men is a pathological addiction related to testosterone poisoning. By a fairly heroic effort, some men can overcome this and pass themselves off as reasonable members of civilized society.This sexist bilge is equivalent to a Klan member saying that the brighter blacks can have the bones removed from their noses and be taught to function as normal members of society.
I'll be very amused to hear feminist rationalizers try to sell me on the good old "We may say such things and you may not" argument. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Strained rationalization is my favorite form of humor.
If some of my female readers now want to stomp off, please do so without making any "look at me!" exit harrumphings. Just go. Go in silence and leave Cannonfire as a game preserve for the Penis Monsters. My fellow Monsters may then have the freedom to discuss just which sex has cornered the market on the following items: Incessant insecurity, incessant whining, incessant guilt-tripping, incessant attention-hogging and incessant use of tears as a tool of manipulation, topped by the shameless invocation of a mythical oppression by a mythical "patriarchy" as an all-purpose excuse for personal failure.
Don't get me started.
42 comments:
Hmmm
I am a female reader and I am not leaving. I find you interestting, often right on target, funny, and intelligent. This is a good quality site.
bert in Ohio
Quitcher bitchin'. Don't get testy over the phrase testosterone poisoning. Wall Street is made up of some pretty hyper aggressive types and most of them happen to be men. Go watch The Smartest Guys in the Room about the Enron scandal if you want to see an example of unfettered greed and capitalistic aggression.
It is overwhelmingly men, Joe. XY, XY, XY. What is it about men together in a group that cause them to act out in this way? What kind of behaviors are reinforced and rewarded and why? Testosterone poisoning is just a description of observed phenomenon. It isn't to be taken literally. For all I know, women who have this much power would behave in much the same way. However, we do not have a similar system to observe with respect to women, except in the suburbs where a similar but much darker power struggle happens among women. In that case, estrogen poisoning may be just as descriptive but the outward aggression is not noticeable. Just as damaging though.
So, get off your high horse, Joe. If you want a clear example of reverse sex discrimination, go read one of Anglachel's diatribes on rape where she accuses all men of being secret racists.
I agree, Joseph -- and I'm a female who considers herself a feminist, although I have found that some more extreme comments, like these, make me feel ill at ease on some feminist blogs. This is one reason I find it hard to go back to aglanchel's site, after she posted a slightly deranged essay basically implying that every male on earth was a rapist, and those that haven't raped anyone just haven't raped anyone "yet." I have found it difficult to venture back there ever since.
Wow, nice try Joe. Ridicule a whole group of people and then tell them to leave quietly. Talk about a hyserical overreaction to someone's opinion. Grow up, Joe.
Very, very amusing bout of strained rationalization there, rd.
You write as though women have never held power. Cleopatra tried to conquer the known world, and ended up doing great damage to Egyptian civilization. Bloody Mary started a British civil war and persecuted the Irish. Elizabeth I of England established a vicious police state in which Catholics were killed in public as a matter of sport. Queen Isabella of Spain persecuted the Jews mercilessly. Catherine the Great was one of the most tyrannical despots Russia ever had -- a war-monger and a monster toward the Jews. Queen Victoria may have presided over more wars and than any other monarch in history. Tz'u-hsi (the whore who came to rule China) murdered her relatives and rivals, and exploited her people ruthlessly. Golda Meir persecuted the Palestinians, whose very existence she refused to acknowledge. Maggie Thatcher was the British Reagan.
There's a special place in hell for the women who rule through their husbands, whom the women usually consider "weak." Consider, for example, Alexandra's sway over Nicholas, whom she constantly urged to resist the democratic reforms that would have staved off revolution. As for Madame Mao -- well, do I need to say one more word? More currently, we have the cases of Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Chandrika Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka.
Not a very happy history, is it?
Of course, one could argue that Theodora of Byzantium (another girl who hooked her way to the top) was one of the more enlightened rulers of ancient times. But I can't name another Theodora off the top of my head.
Some on the Confluence argue that women should have equal representation in Congress. Fair enough. But given the above examples, I don't expect history to improve as a result of estrogen shots. That's why I'll continue to vote based on resume and ideology, not on genitalia.
Oh, I forgot to mention dear Arianna, who definitely belongs in the rule-through-a-puppet-husband category. While her plans may have failed, one could never fault her for lack of audacity. Had she succeeded, she would have been the most powerful female in history.
And do you think she would have governed wisely...?
The comment by RD was careful to use the word 'some' in relation to 'testosterone poisoning.' The comment was...a comment. One comment. It's a bit of a leap from that to the backhand accusation that it's the female sex that has "cornered the market on the following items: Incessant insecurity, incessant whining, incessant guilt-tripping, incessant attention-hogging and incessant use of tears as a tool of manipulation, topped by the shameless invocation of a mythical oppression by a mythical 'patriarchy' as an all-purpose excuse for personal failure." In fact, that last statement seems rather in the vein of what you're arguing against. Esp. basing it on one comment on a multi-comment post on a blog that often gets hundreds of comments per post.
Certainly not all men are Penis Monsters. But given the virulent misogyny demonstrated this election season one might be forgiven for perceiving as such, since the contra-example blogs and political coverage aren't nearly as numerous as the pro-examples. I'm a long-time cynic, and yet even I was astonished at the sexist crap this year that went by without a peep from most major outlets.
Hmmm, I suppose that's not stompy enough? Maybe you should lay out more of a template of how you prefer your self-validating harrumphing exit stompings. Until then, I'll likely stick around, waiting for instruction.
Okay, you had me until the "incessant" whining. Whassamatta, a little "testosterone poisoning" buildup? Let's face it, women are better at everything men aren't. Then there are things neither gender does very well, except for all the stuff we're great at. And some men can't do any of the stuff they're supposed to know how to do, and some women know stuff only men think they know. Tell the truth, if a hot chick could fix your car, wouldn't you cook for her in the morning?
Your examples of women rulers, few and far between, proves what exactly? We are talking about women in isolation.
What I am referring to are systems that are composed predominantly of men. Business types, Wall Street types, energy traders, Obamaphiles, party elders. When they are in a group, they tend to have a synergistic effect on one another. Any bad behavior is excused in a sort of "boys will be boys" manner. Aggression is OK. Men are like that. Misogynism is sanctioned. What do we expect? Greed and competition for greed, dog eat dog behavior and unfettered biserking is all rewarded, approved, egged on. Jack Welch built his whole GE empire on "rank and yank". It's brutal, nasty and short and men stick together, close ranks and reinforce it. You will rarely find this kind of behavior among women except in middle school and the suburbs, although if we learned how to direct this energy outwards instead of at each other, we might have had Hillary Clinton as our President this year.
But men get together, organize and go pillaging together and society seems to approve of this behavior. It ends up looking like some kind of biologically induced behavior and testosterone poisoning is a very fitting description. Testosterone because it is overwhelmingly male and poisoning because the effects of losing one's mind in this kind of frenzy is very destructive to everyone around them.
Now, not every man will engage in this type of behavior. My family didn't raise these kind of guys. But certain professions do attract men who are susceptible to testosterone poisoning. You can pretend such phenomenon does not exist but you're not fooling anyone. And if someone has a more scientific word for it, I'll gladly switch to using it. But don't tell me that I am condemning the entire male gender when I simply point out the behavior of those who travel in packs and get away with some pretty rotten acts of selfishness and aggression.
Party elders? Hm. How did Donna Brazile work out for ya?
Business types? By your logic, all women bosses should be just peachy. Well...personally, the women I've worked for have been fine. But I've met plenty of others who have some horror stories to tell. "The Devil Wears Prada" may be fiction, but it isn't JUST fiction. Ask around.
You are mirroring the false arguments of the Obots, who seem to be under the impression that a black pol must be a saint, simply by virtue of being black. You are arguing that females, simply by virtue of being female, are exempt for the human race's all-encompassing tendency toward vileness.
I disagree. I am an equal-opportunity cynic.
Good debate.Suppose you have a penis but no testosterone? Where does that leave you? (Yes, I was a straight man in another life.)
I have to second the poster who said you had me until the "incessant whining" end-rant. But now that you've said "equal opportunity cynic," I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were poking fun by example.
Even tho, given what you've revealed about at least one personal past relationship, and believe me, I sympathize...there may be a little righteous souring on the opposite sex going on as well. I'm an equal opportunity sour, um, puss.
Still, I love seeing RD get a little of her own medicine. And I note you do not call the commenter out by name...plus, you give RD leave to post. So you're at the very least two up on her, standard-wise. When she let one of her penis-poisoned posters publish an entire headline rant against me, complete with my nym, after a comment I made in a thread elsewhere about the systematic gender apartheid of certain religions, not only did I not have my own domain from which to reply but my comments there began to evaporate....without even the courtesy of informing me I was banned for protesting the abuse of power.
Now, suppose we agree, Joseph, that we know women granted leadership positions will be as flawed as men? Don't you think we deserve that chance to be as human? Don't you think it's beyond absurd that more than once our MSM convened all male panels of "experts" to discuss whether there was any sexism going on during the primary and election coverage? Is an all-male panel of experts congratulating themselves that the media coverage wasn't sexist not the funniest example of strained rationalization ever?
RD isn't as bad as some other bloggers, but as a female and a feminist (the two are mutually exclusive IMHO), I think women and feminists who bitch about about males like that need a high hard one. The constant cries of sexism and victimization only get you so far and ultimately will and do drown out a legitimate message for legal and social reform.
If you use the biological assignment of T&A as excuses for everything from lower pay to a hang nail, people will tend to ignore your more valid concerns. In a way, Palin was right about HRC needing to be careful about complaints of sexism. It can be a double-edged sword and, in the end, women leaders have to show they have the thickest of skins and the most level of heads because of undercurrents of real sexism. Sure- some stuff is outrageously sexist- like the rampant use of the C word in the primary, but other things aren't....say like consensual sex (?!?!?). Self aggrandizing snots like Andrea Dworkin and her ilk need to just STFU. Maybe my views are more in line with Camille Paglia in that I do not see men as the enemy, and instead see ignorance and the unrecognized competition between women as being of more concern than a male preference for the feminine rather than the feminist. But seriously, at some point the more publicity crazed feminists need to stop undermining the legitimate complaints of the majority.
Lastly, as rampant as misogyny was against Clinton from the O-bots (particularly young males), what about the virulent attacks on Palin by "liberal," "tolerant", "socially conscious" Democrats and/or women? Feminism doesn't mean aborting children nor does it mean not being feminine. It means making one's own choices for herself. Palin chose to have Trig. I would not have. Palin is very feminine in her appearance and I'm not so much into eyebrow pencils and whatnot, but at the end of the day, she makes her choices and I make mine. Any woman who would attack her for those choices or any man for his mere possession of frank and beans is worthy of the H-word- hypocrite.
Fighting a male sexism with a female one equals to fighting white racism with a black one – as we all know Black Panthers were instant success story.
Seriously, defining every man as an enemy, while supporting any woman regardless if she opposes the core principles of female emancipation (like at Puma PAC) is doomed to failure.
Candy Cane
I'm glad you kids find banalities to bicker about while the adults are busy repairing the country.
It's good for a laugh, though, so by all means, keep it up!
A more scientific word for the behavior of those who travel in packs and get away with some pretty rotten acts of selfishness and aggression?
* Arrogant vapor-headedness?
* Psychosis?
* Learned inhumanity?
* Beastfulness?
This is a fantastic question for a multi-lingual forum.
Further (one must make some allowances for this having been spoken over 1000 generations past)...
One who harms living beings, and speaks false speech,
Who in the world takes the not-given, and goes with the partners of others,
The one who is given to drinking distilled and fermented drinks—
Not giving up this fivefold hate is called immoral:
...the fool arises in hell.
One who harms not living beings, and speaks not false speech,
Who in the world does not take the not-given, and goes not with others’ partners,
The one who is not given to distilled and fermented drinks—
Having given up this fivefold hate is called virtuous.
...the wise arises in heaven.
I agree with Valhalla.
The comment was...a comment. One comment. It's a bit of a leap from that to the backhand accusation that it's the female sex that has "cornered the market on the following items: Incessant insecurity, incessant whining, incessant guilt-tripping, incessant attention-hogging and incessant use of tears as a tool of manipulation, topped by the shameless invocation of a mythical oppression by a mythical 'patriarchy' as an all-purpose excuse for personal failure." In fact, that last statement seems rather in the vein of what you're arguing against. Esp. basing it on one comment on a multi-comment post on a blog that often gets hundreds of comments per post.
And BTW, the patriarchy is far from mythical, and our oppression by it is also far from mythical. Unless you think that women WANT to get 77% of the pay as men for doing the same job? And as for whining, puh-LEEZ. Men are far whinier than women could ever be. Just look at your reaction to ONE FREAKING COMMENT on RD's site. LOL!
I love your site, Joe, but this is a ridiculous post. Talk about much ado about nothing!
"My fellow Monsters may then have the freedom to discuss just which sex has cornered the market on the following items: Incessant insecurity, incessant whining, incessant guilt-tripping, incessant attention-hogging and incessant use of tears as a tool of manipulation, topped by the shameless invocation of a mythical oppression by a mythical 'patriarchy' as an all-purpose excuse for personal failure."
I imagine Joseph, sitting having just writ that, with caring woman, chin on his shoulder and impish grin on her face.
I am a woman feminist -- and I agree the remark you quote, Joseph, was sexist, as well as uninformed. Some studies have shown the most violent criminals have very low levels of testosterone. Some women have bad experiences with a number of men and I am afraid that leads many to make broad statements which really do not apply to men in general. I would prefer to just chide them gently.
Yes, there are a lot of jerks in the world (and I note Riverdaughter's point about men acting badly in groups, but women can also behave badly in groups). But the most common male fantasy in America is to save someone's life. That says something pretty positive about men in my book.
djmm
joseph, I am a feminist who truly enjoys your site and your point of view. I am not leaving, nor am I taking the bait. riverdaughter has a valid point of view too, one we can all grow and benefit from. There are abuses by men AND women - hello! Let's put it on the table, see it for what it is, and learn to work together. There is enormous power from overcoming our own reactions and moving beyond them, right wingers aren't the only ones who "react". It's hard work but soooooo necessary. The male/female dichotomy is the ultimate yin/yang split. Having practiced Chinese medicine for 20 years, I've seen that eternal roiling battle of yin and yang within us undo whatever shred of "reason" exists time and time again. Please take this in the spirit in which it is meant for I really enjoy your site AND riverdaaughter's site - may we all tolerate and appreciate each other's unique point of view for there is so much work to be done.
Geez, imagine if Hitler were twice as juiced! The testosterone maybe (or usually) leads to certain behaviors which induce adrenal gland steroid production - surely more so in males than in females. Among all primate genotypes, Danes have the largest testicles, Japanese the smallest. Prick any of us west of the Indus Valley and we'll bleed some Viking (or be unable to digest cow's milk). The Japanese stayed put on their islands for like ever. It's nice to live in interesting times. Joseph ought to write a movie like It's A Wonderful Life but about our time (post-WW2) and if the Beatles were killed in the blitzes instead of surviving.
riverdaughter... what she says.
Fighting a male sexism with a female one equals to fighting a white racism with a black one – Black Panthers were instant success story for sure.
Seriously, defining every man as an enemy, while supporting any woman regardless if she opposes the core principles of female emancipation (like at Puma PAC) is doomed to failure.
Citizen Cane
Fighting a male sexism with a female one equals to fighting a white racism with a black one – Black Panthers were instant success story for sure.
Seriously, defining every man as an enemy, while supporting any woman regardless if she opposes the core principles of female emancipation (like at Puma PAC) is doomed to failure.
My City's Poet Laureate (What? You don't have poet laureates?) wrote something a few years back about this, a tenable argument ...or is just throwing more gas on the fire? either way, it's called; The Male Rage Poem and it seems fitting...
"she posted a slightly deranged essay basically implying that every male on earth was a rapist, and those that haven't raped anyone just haven't raped anyone "yet." I have found it difficult to venture back there ever since."
I suspect that most of these woman were victim of rape. It's a bit like someone becoming racist after being the victim of a violent attack by members of a different ethnic group. It's not the right answer, but it's understandable.
Generalization and painting everybody with a wide brush is always the problem... like what Joseph do all the time with his "ennemy du jour": obots, trannies, progs, etc. But when Joseph do it, it's fine, because he's SUPERIOR to you and someday you might be bright enough to admit it.
"If some of my female readers now want to stomp off, please do so without making any "look at me!" exit harrumphings."
Dearest Joseph, you assume that only female readers might stomp off? Kinda reinforcing RD's argument about the herd -nudge nudge-
A real man would stomp off too!
"You will rarely find this kind of behavior among women except in middle school and the suburbs"
Come on, RD. There are plenty of women in corporate America who are just as vicious, hard-driving, and soulless as the men they work with. Maybe they have to be to compete in that workplace, and maybe they, too, are drawn to that work because it makes the best use of those traits.
And the women leaders that Joseph cites--you say they are "women in isolation." Well, that's a nice rationalization; Dubya and Joseph Stalin were "men in isolation" too.
Read the very illuminating book "When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence," by feminist scholar Patricia Pearson. It will open your eyes and your mind to the fact that there is no "inherent goodness" in women. Pearson marshals some very powerful evidence refuting the idea that women are naturally tamer, milder, or less violent than men--and guess what? She does it in the service of--not refutation of--feminism (arguing convincingly that that myth does nothing but perpetuate the infantilization of women). It does noone any good to say that "men are all bad, women are all nice," when history proves that these things aren't true.
Pearson even pulls together some fascinating (and controversial) research showing that some women don't develop the so-called maternal urge--yes, even AFTER having children. We're only now beginning to accept the notion that some childless women don't have this urge so you can imagine how wild this notion makes some people.
By the way, I'm not saying any of this as a form of attack. I enjoy a healthy debate and think this is an interesting subject for some back and forth.
One more thing. The term "testoterone poisoning" is not a far stretch from "her PMS made her do it."
Zee:
I called for religious bigotry against Mormons. Riverdaughter had nothing to do with it, and neither did Cannonfire.
I told you before that if you have issues with me bring them to my blog and leave poor Joe alone.
I think there is such a thing as testosterone poisoning. Look at our prisons: 90% violent criminals are male. And Riverdaughter is right: most of the people who have gotten us into this mess are swaggering swinging dick hedge fund monsters. Virtually all men! And what about war - not the legitimate self-defense of a small people resisting oppression, but the shits who convince young dummies who want some action to sign up for god and country - men, men, men.
And there is such a thing as estrogen poisoning - the manipulating, whining, lying, cheating little sluts who dress up for action and scream harassment when a guy does what she wants him to do: proposition her.
Some women do lie about rape. REMEMBER THE DUKE HOAX??? Crystal Mangum, that pathological liar, is scot-free.
Larry Summers nearly got publicly castrated because he told the truth about women in science. The greatest theoretical scientists have almost all been men because men's intellect is distributed differently than women's. Women's IQ clusters more thickly around the mean. Male IQ is flatter, and the tails are longer. More male idiots and more male geniuses. This is fact, and no feminist dogma can overcome it. Tough.
Fuck all ideologues, I say. I follow the facts.
But Joe, read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5265057.ece
In New Guinea, women have been killing their baby sons to end war.
Why?
Were they reading Andrea Dworkin?
Or were they just desperate women who resorted to desperate measures?
And BTW, the patriarchy is far from mythical, and our oppression by it is also far from mythical. Unless you think that women WANT to get 77% of the pay as men for doing the same job? # posted by madamab : 10:03 AM
The myth of the pay gap was debunked by a University of Chicago study from 1991 (possibly 1994; I have it in a stack of magazines, but forget which issue offhand). Studies showing the pay gap lumped married women in with single; the times married women leave the work force to bear and raise children result in a loss of raises, perks, bonuses, etc. The U of C study compared single women to single men and found they earned 94 cents on the dollar; the remainder of the gap was more thna made up for by the fact that women do not tend to ask for raises (nor negotiate a higher wage during the hiring process) with the same frequency as men. (Also note that at the time of the study, the supposed pay gap was touted to be 28 cents.)
Even if this weren't true, one could easily use your same reasoing to argue the reverse (matriarchy) by saying no man would want to have to pay child support or alimony.
Sergei Rostov
Seriously, defining every man as an enemy, while supporting any woman regardless if she opposes the core principles of female emancipation (like at Puma PAC) is doomed to failure.
Candy Cane
PUMA PAC philosophy is actually to defend all women against sexism regardless of political bent. It's analogous to defending the right to speech even if you don't agree with what is being spoken.
Sergei Rostov
Now, suppose we agree, Joseph, that we know women granted leadership positions will be as flawed as men? Don't you think we deserve that chance to be as human?
# posted by Zee : 8:35 AM
This aside, statistics show that overall, men tend to vote for women more often than women vote for women...so it seems that it's women who are holding women back in this respect more than men are.
Sergei Rostov
zee,
"Now, suppose we agree, Joseph, that we know women granted leadership positions will be as flawed as men? Don't you think we deserve that chance to be as human?"
Of course! Goes without saying.
Look, whenever I hear people trying to convince me of the innate moral superiority of women or blacks, I feel as though I'm listening to someone trying to convince me that dark cockroaches are morally superior to light cockroaches. Or female cockroaches are superior to male ones.
Hey, they're COCKROACHES. All of em. Just a mass of ugly bugs.
We live on Planet Cockroach. This planet is not inhabited; it is infested.
Do you really think that I desperately want to be ruled by a King Cockroach instead of a Queen Cockroach? Nah.
That factor simply does not matter. Either way is fine by me.
All I'm saying is -- a roach is a roach is a roach, whatever the sex, whatever the color. Don't get sentimental about the insects.
Larry Summers nearly got publicly castrated because he told the truth about women in science.
In fact, it's even worse than this; he merely proposed this as one hypothesis of three: motivation, inherent talent, discrimination. He was lambasted for 1) mentioning the very notion of the first, and 2) not ranking the third first.
Looking into what really happened, it seems that the outrage was a smokescreen put out by Harvard professors who wanted him out because they objected to his new policy that they should have to actually TEACH their own classes.
Sergei Rostov
J, I wasn't talking about sexual come-ons. Although it used to bother me when young women would wear ultra-tight snippets of thin cloth designed to reveal as much cleavage as possible, only to act outraged if they caught a guy staring at said cleavage.
Actually, that faux outrage doesn't happen nearly as much as it used to. Back in the 1980s, the hypocrisy was much more blatant. Nowadays, everyone pretty much admits that any woman who dresses that way does so for a reaction. We've all stopped kidding ourselves -- at least, most of us have.
But I'm not really interested in the game of mating rituals and sending sexual signals and so on. The same game is played across the animal kingdom. Men do stupid things to attract potential partners, and so do women. So do male and female ocelots, dogs, hyenas, wasps...
What bothers me is a much more subtle process. A process of control. Of dominance.
To illustrate the point, let us turn our attentions to the area of household furnishings.
Every (married or formerly married) guy I have questioned on the subject has admitted to me that the woman in his life chose EVERY STICK OF FURNITURE IN THE HOUSE.
Most men, if they had a say in the matter, would arrange their physical environs quite differently.
We go from being messy bachelors with Frazetta paintings on the wall to being married men with "tasteful" posters from museums on the wall. And tasteful throw rugs and doilies and blond woods and...
And then one day the guy wakes up, he looks at this utterly ALIEN environment around him, and he asks: "How did this happen? This place isn't ME. Not even a little bit. So how did I end up living here?"
Now, if you ask the female in that relationship, she will say -- and she will honestly believe -- that every decorating decision was mutual.
It wasn't mutual. But she THINKS it was. She's kidding herself.
So how did she get her way on the furniture issue 100% of the time? Yes, I am going to use the word: She did it by WHINING. Or by letting the male know that if he protests too strongly, she will go into whine mode, and his life will be hell.
The female never admits, not even to herself, that she uses whining and the threat of whining in order to get her way. That is why the female's opinion on the "whine factor" is irrelevant; it's like asking an antebellum slave owner whether he mistreats his slaves.
Ask the men. THEY know.
Men quickly learn not to engage in a battle over whether to hang up their beloved Frazetta posters, because women will fight about a thing like that TO THE DEATH.
Men quickly reach a point where they say "Fuck it." They are trained to go along, go along, go along.
In my case, my first "marriage" -- a marriage in every sense but the legal one -- was very much like the one depicted in "Juno." I'm talking about the adoptive parents -- Jennifer Garner and whatzisname.
I was JUST LIKE whatzisname.
I made money by being creative. I was also in advertising. I had a small "room" of my own in which the creative work got done. Outside of that room, every molecule of "our" home was in the complete control of Ms. OCD.
Could I hang up examples of my work, the stuff that paid the rent? Nope. I was an illustrator, which means that my stuff was loud and garish and vulgar. My work fetched us a decent living (in those days, I made money) but was relegated to the closet. She insisted on hanging up "tasteful" posters from museums.
What an insult!
An artist's home should OVERFLOW with loud and vulgar bric-a-brac. An artist's home should look like the Addams' family mansion, except with LOTS MORE WEIRD STUFF.
Instead, I was living in Jennifer Garner's Good Taste Manor. Muted colors. Blond woods. God, I hate light woods.
Watch "Juno" again. Pay special attention to the subtle scene in which they "mutually" decide on the color of the paint to be used in the baby's room. That's how it happens. She is never impolite. She pretends to solicit her husband's opinion. In reality she insists on having everything HER way. Her consultation of his opinion is really just a face-saving formality.
Now let's expand on this thesis.
I'm not just talking about the wallpaper, the furniture, or the artwork on the walls. I'm talking about every molecule of the immediately surrounding physical universe. The woman always sends the signal: "I must control this environment or I will start whining."
I wasn't allowed to dress the way I wanted to dress. I dress in black, and did so before black was common. But SHE had me dressing in pastels.
She didn't approve of my friends. On my birthday parties, I was surrounded by friends she chose for me.
Oh, and don't get me started on the "choose the restaurant" question. This has been a constant in every relationship I have ever had. Why do women even bother to ask "Where do you want to eat?" If the man says "Let's get pizza," and she doesn't want pizza, then pizza simply isn't going to happen. She will act as though she is being tortured if the man suggests that, just this once, she might consider forcing down a meal that isn't exactly what she craves.
I swear, a man has to be involved in a full-out Master/slave BDSM relationship, with cuffs and chains and floggers and all, if he wants to be able to choose the restaurant even 30 percent of the time.
Okay, you have now heard my justification for my use of the term "whining." If you like, we may proceed to the topics of "insecurity" and "manipulative tears" and so on...
Joe: I can't believe that you are you denying the patriarchy exists but are in fact denying a woman's right to complain about it. Taking one person's comment (and btw, that person may be male or female) as what "feminists" think is beneath what I have come to expect from you. I am sure you will feel better tomorrow.
I find the premise of this discussion quite ludicrous, as it pretends to argue against stereotypes by stereotyping. Talk about straining yourself.
But I am coming to a valuable conclusion here: homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality. In gay relationships you're simply not going to have as many problems over furniture, toilet seats, and cuddling.
My 2 cents: Nobody's perfect; not you, and not riverdaughter. You've both said some stupid things here, but ultimately I love what you do, so I'll keep reading.
That said, I did learn two things reading this post and the comments:
1) That I'm not alone in thinking there's something different between men and women that is accountable by behavior. (serial killers being an excellent example of this) [ftr, this does not mean I think women are better than men, or vice versa--they're just different]
2) I'm not alone in thinking that the way some feminist and feminist-oriented people talk about men is a serious problem that leads to alienation and prevents progress.
So thanks for that. I found a silver lining.
I'm not sure how the misogyny of the primaries figures into it, but male-bashing is also remarkably acceptable in our culture. I'm thinking back to an iconic female-power sitcom like "Roseanne." I remember watching it back in the 1990s as a young man and being astounded by the number of anti-male jokes. Roseanne really hated all men, frequently that included her husband. A sitcom with that many women jokes would never have survived on the air.
Having said that, Joseph's furniture analogy is silly. The idea that Joseph speaks for every married couple in the world is, let's say, unreasonable. In my family there are two married couples: my parents and my sister/brother-in-law. My parents' home is filled with furniture and paintings my mother chose. And my father doesn't give a rat's ass; he's never shown the slightest interest in interior decorating. As long as he's got an armchair and a footstool (he has both) in front of the TV, he's quite satisfied. Then there's my sister and her husband. I don't know who picked out their couch, but that 60'' flat-screen plasma and 5.1 surrounded sound system were bought so my brother-in-law could play video games, watch football and "Star Wars," not because my sister wanted to enjoy her soap operas in HD.
riverdaugher's original statement may have been an exaggeration - it is a common tool of writers and essayists. Anybody want to go through Joseph's writings to find his own? You can start with this post and work your way back.
Post a Comment