You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Patriarchy’ tag.
As I was assiduously avoiding planning my lessons for my upcoming classes, I happened to redirect myself to this list from the Blog Mistress Mom.
It is a simple post really, just a list of reasons as to why her son is wearing pink. I stopped at this particular point:
“Because even if pink is for girls, what’s wrong with being (like) a girl?”
What a brilliant question. What brilliantly loaded question!
Just what exactly is wrong with being like a girl? I mean, women represent more than half of our population and are prominent role models in the majority of our lives (for better or worse).
So what is wrong with being like a girl?
When I deal with problems I rely on my critical thinking skills and rationality; they are the first responders to the majority of situations. Even when I need to produce a response with a emotional basis there is that precursor thought of ‘oh…this requires my emotional intelligence…lets spin up the empathy/feelings centers and put them to work’…(I realize this is quite “meta” and is certainly not 100% accurate, but necessary for where I am going.) So my first response to this question was of course what I’ve learned of feminist/gender theory:
The hetronormative values of our Patriarchal society implicitly and explicitly diminish, dismiss and marginalize females and the idea of femininity. The assumption: To be female or associated with femininity is to be inferior.
This underling assumption is appallingly prevalent in our society, it permeates every facet, every interaction, every assumption we base our reality on.
What this question did was prompt one of those delicious “Ah-Ha!” moments when a deeper understanding of a theory or notion finally sinks in. Where does rape culture come from? How can women still be oppressed when they have, in theory, equal rights? Why are the standards we live by so permeated by hetronormative values?
“To be female or associated with femininity is to be inferior.”
I am usually quite a fan of gaining knowledge and expanding my horizons and what not, but sometimes I wish I could claim the protection of ignorance, to shield myself from the profound sense of injustice and sadness that accompany such melancholy revelations.
Studying history brings similar moments; for instance discovering that we in the West are not the ‘good guys’ and more often than not are just as ruthless and inhumane as our official ‘evil’ enemies. What is worse (of course it gets worse) is that most of the people refuse to accept their unhappy role in this oppressive, exploitive, blood-drenched narrative we as a race have written. It is the same with the patriarchal nature of our culture, people refuse to see the superstructure because they have internalized the values the patriarchal structure presents. They are not defending “oppression” they are defending what is “right”. And what is “right” is rape culture and the oppression of half the human species…how dare you challenge those assumptions?
I challenge those patriarchal assumptions because they are fundamentally unjust and irrational. By default that makes my opinion an outlier…*sigh*… but given my political and historical views of history, this is nothing new under the sun.
All I can say now is thanks for the “Ah-Ha” moment Mistress Mom, I owe you one.
Ah, cue the outrage. We certainly cannot have seven (7!) year old children traipsing around in a carnival role which is being described by the media as “sexy”. I’m curious as to why it is culturally acceptable for mature females to prance around during Carnival topless but not children.
I mean, speculating from Puritan North America it would be easy to categorize the whole affair as an exercise in lewd, hyper sexual ribaldry. But is it a fair analysis? The BBC’s article weighs in:
“The Rio de Janeiro state Council for the Defence of Children and Adolescents suggested it would only “increase the treatment of children as sexual objects in Brazilian society”.
Whoa…there we go, objectifying people is bad. Whoops! Hang on…
“We’re not against kids participating in Carnival; it’s part of Brazilian culture,” the council’s director, Carlos Nicodemos, told the Associated Press (AP) news agency.
“What we can’t allow is putting a seven-year-old girl in a role that traditionally has a very sexual focus.”
Oh, I get it, it is okay to objectify older females.
But this is right out…
Hmm… her protective father says the following:
“Any man who looks at a seven-year-old girl and feels any sort of excitement should go see a doctor,” her father, Marco Lira, told AP.
Way to go Dad! People just need to realize that objectifying women starts at a later age and that putting a child in a stereotypical ‘sexy’ role is all about the dance and the carnival and not an iota of anything else.
Check.
Another victory against the Patriarchy for sure.
Update: Fire has ravaged the floats this year (2011).
Michal Coren gets it wrong even at the best of times. I can always count on the Sun Newspaper to annoy me enough to blog about the inanity that fills its pages.
I really want to agree at least once with Coren before I die and with the opening sentence of his article I though today would be the day.
“These are sad days for the American right.” intones Coren.
My eyebrow twitched, would this be the day? Naa… It would be easier to smash an atom with my shoe then agree with Mr.Coren. Case in point – next sentence (italics mine):
“The Republicans have no credible leader, Rush Limbaugh has conquered the art of perennial outrage and the men in smart suits and women in shrinking skirts at Fox try to outdo each other in their use of hyperbole.”
Very nice ass-hat. ‘Smart’ men and sexualized women. Isn’t institutionalized misogyny great?
“The tragedy is that all this comes at a time when we have one of the most worrying presidents in American history. Then, just as we think it can’t get any worse, comes the dream ticket of Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean, both former beauty queens and both proving that jokes about beauty queens are somewhat justified.”
Ah, yes. Beauty queens are always stupid. Check. Throwing a “somewhat justified” does not fix the message. Just like after punching someone in the face then saying ‘sorry’ does not mitigate the initial transgression.
“Actually she is an ordinary, nice woman blessed with beauty, a devoted husband and a good family. It really should end with that. But no.”
Bra-vo! She should be constantly pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen too. Sex class! Back to the galley with you and make me a sam’ich bitch.
“Palin wants power and is willing to close her eyes to the facts as she marches forward in glorious denial. Perhaps most chilling is how so many conservatives refuse to accept the obvious and twist into awful shapes trying to justify the woman’s failings.”
The ‘facts’: You are a woman and should never ever aspire to power. The public sphere is not your domain and how dare you even contemplate running for the highest office in the land. How could the Right even think of backing a female candidate? Patriarchally speaking, we have not gotten past the archetypal feminine “built in” flaws! The horror.
“Her daughter Bristol’s pregnancy,[…] Yet, where was your relationship with your daughter, one that would have indicated to you in numerous ways that the girl was hiding and doing something that was wrong?”
Because mother daughter relationships are always open and communicative, if only you’d just play your role and tend to the children. I guess Mr.Palin does not get the whole ‘girl’ thing and could not spend the extra time strengthening his role and bond with her daughter, his culpability is never questioned, while hers is immediately put front and center.
Awesome. Could this patriarchal values 101 lesson get any worse? Of course it does, the ass hattery kicks into overdrive as Coren trashes Carrie Prejean. What follows is his cogent response against her arguments(insipid as they my be). Hmmm…calculating the possibility my previous sentence being true…err… did I mention the smashing atom thing with my shoe… ?
“Carrie Prejean is an even more frightening example of right-wing hypocrisy. Her now famous defence of genuine marriage — only between a man and a woman [Wow, parroting the hetronormative standard. You go girl!]. […] she has posed almost-naked for photographs and that she made at least one graphic sex tape for a former boyfriend. We’re also supposed to believe that her recent relationships with young athletes have all been entirely celibate.”
What?! Pose nekkid for pictures? How dare you, whore! You are a public figure and you go off parading your sluty-slut-slut-lifestyle for all to see? No, no. You keep your sexuality ensconced in terms of patriarchal expectations or it will be a extra slut-shaming lightning round for the likes of you, after-all it isn’t your sex life for heavens sake.
“What she does on her own time is her business, but a moral position demands consistency and so should the response of social conservatives. This woman has even less right to speak for the American right than does Sarah Palin. And that, I’m afraid, is something I thought I’d never say.”
If only the italicized phrase applied to women…
So the calculus is in. If you have taken nekkid photos of yourself, and/or had sex with more than one partner (outside of marraige…ohhh the vapours take me now) as a woman that is an automatic disqualification from being in the ‘moral’ category.
The burning nuclear stupid burns! No Mr.Coren the morality of women is not intrinsically tied to their ranking in the Sex class. Women are autonomous beings capable of thinking outside of their imposed gender roles.
You should try it sometime.
I do not endorse what Mrs.Palin or Ms.Prejean represent, it is social conservatism of the most repugnant variety. Would it be too much to ask that we tackle their arguments as opposed to their gender?
**Update: You know what absolutely tickles me frakking pink? This post is getting hits from people searching for rape pictures and pictures of pornography depicting rape. If you’re here that reason, welcome to exactly what you do not what to see. Women being treated as people instead of objects for your distortedly pervtacular fantasy world. I savour the sweet irony of you being directed to a feminist blog while looking for rape pictures. Your kind is pathetic.
But, hey if you are not here looking to reinforce mindless observance to patriarchal norms, be welcome and read on!
Andrea Dworkin was a brilliant feminist theorist, activist and writer. The question you should be asking yourself is why does this sound radical? Dworkin makes many brilliant points in her speech entitled “I Want A Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape”.
Dworkin pulls no punches:
“We are very close to death. All women are. And we are very close to rape and we are very close to beating. And we are inside a system of humiliation from which there is no escape for us. We use statistics not to try to quantify the injuries, but to convince the world that those injuries even exist. Those statistics are not abstractions. It is easy to say, “Ah, the statistics, somebody writes them up one way and somebody writes them up another way.” That’s true. But I hear about the rapes one by one by one by one by one, which is also how they happen. Those statistics are not abstract to me. Every three minutes a woman is being raped. Every eighteen seconds a woman is being beaten. There is nothing abstract about it. It is happening right now as I am speaking.”
On the Patriarchy:
“The power exercised by men day to day in life is power that is institutionalized. It is protected by law. It is protected by religion and religious practice. It is protected by universities, which are strongholds of male supremacy. It is protected by a police force. It is protected by those whom Shelley called “the unacknowledged legislators of the world”: the poets, the artists. Against that power, we have silence.”
On Male Privilege:
“That is the way the power of men is manifest in real life. That is what theory about male supremacy means. It means you can rape. It means you can hit. It means you can hurt. It means you can buy and sell women. It means that there is a class of people there to provide you with what you need. You stay richer than they are, so that they have to sell you sex. Not just on street corners, but in the workplace. That’s another right that you can presume to have: sexual access to any woman in your environment, when you want. Now, the men’s movement suggests that men don’t want the kind of power I have just described. I’ve actually heard explicit whole sentences to that effect. And yet, everything is a reason not to do something about changing the fact that you do have that power.”
On the Politics of the Right Wing:
“Some of you are very concerned about the rise of the Right in this country, as if that is something separate from the issues of feminism or the men’s movement. There is a cartoon I saw that brought it all together nicely. It was a big picture of Ronald Reagan as a cowboy with a big hat and a gun. And it said: “A gun in every holster; a pregnant woman in every home. Make America a man again.” Those are the politics of the Right.
If you are afraid of the ascendancy of fascism in this country–and you would be very foolish not to be right now–then you had better understand that the root issue here has to do with male supremacy and the control of women; sexual access to women; women as reproductive slaves; private ownership of women. That is the program of the Right. That is the morality they talk about. That is what they mean. That is what they want. And the only opposition to them that matters is an opposition to men owning women.”
Why if Freedom is to be had, Rape must stop:
“And on that day, that day of truce, that day when not one woman is raped, we will begin the real practice of equality,
because we can’t begin it before that day. Before that day it means nothing because it is nothing: it is not real; it is not true. But on that day it becomes real. And then, instead of rape we will for the first time in our lives–both men and women–begin to experience freedom. If you have a conception of freedom that includes the existence of rape, you are wrong. You cannot change what you say you want to change. For myself, I want to experience just one day of real freedom before I die. I leave you here to do that for me and for the women whom you say you love.”
You want to know where to start to fight the Rape Culture? Start here. One teaspoon, one hour, one woman at a time.
One finds a good fantastic post every so often. This one really helps for driving home the point of our patriarchal culture. The blog in question is called Kate Hardings’s Shapely Prose and the article is a primer directed toward men on the dynamics involved in approaching a woman. I intend this to be a reference post because I often come up against individuals who have no clue about how the constructs of the rape culture or the patriarchy or Feminism work.
Access the entire post here, with many thanks to the blog KHSP and Sweet Machine for her important words.
Sweet Machine says: […]
“To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some women, particularly women who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those women do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to date them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Women are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy.
The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.
This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them.
Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange woman.
Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited. Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.
On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the woman is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…