Friday, April 20, 2012

The Madonna-Whore conundrum

With Bellita leaving The Gendersphere, no-one will feel her absence more than me.
She was the one to hand me 'The Crazy Pill' that saw me start up this blog, a crazy pill that I subsequently handed to BeijaFlor by his own account :-)

As Bellita and I both note, we had a certain synergy going.
When she leaves, where am I going to get my ideas from?

I am grabbing as much as possible while she is still with us in the Gendersphere.
My latest poach from our dear Bellita actually comes from someone else who commented on her blog.

Bill writes, in response to Bellita'a post The face of Mercy:

"My best friend reminded me the other day that much of classical English literature portrays women as either the Madonna or the Whore. Neither model is wholly accurate and few women fit neatly into one category or the other.
Yet much of the thesis of Gender Feminism is that Woman’s natural state is the Madonna: virtuous and noble.
Much of the Manosphere categories women as the antithesis of the Madonna: the Whore. They see all women as venal and self-centered.
The more accurate model of reality probably lies in the synthesis of the two. A few women are outliers on either extreme. Most are a mix of the two.
The problem with that is how to develop rules for men to follow in such a complex world. In the United States, the legal system has been so permeated by two dogmas:
1. “All women are inherently vituous, until proven otherwise”, and
2. “All men are selfish, irresponsible and stupid.”
That combination has made marriage a fool’s errand for men.
We men want virtuous women whom we can turn to for mercy. Unfortunately, the gender feminism message coming from American society is, “Ladies, you are virtuous by nature. Your wants, no matter how base and selfish by patriarchal standards, are naturally pure and wholesome. You Go, Girl!”
As that mindset becomes more widespread and more deeply ingrained in all aspects of Western society, the “treat all women like whores” model looks better to men."


I always sit up when I hear a man express a deeply-felt sentiment such as this.

For two reasons:
1. I am inherently primed to be 'grateful' when a man 'talks'. That in itself is a kind of 'treat'.
Seriously.

2. It is a chance to reflect on a shared experience of sorts.
It is a great opportunity to sink or swim.
That is, swim with a man or sink with him to the bottom of the sea, figuratively speaking.

Or at least flail my arms wildly in his vicinity hoping he will rescue me from my impending drowning :-)

So, does Bill have a point?
My overwhelming response would be, 'Oh yes Sir, most definitely!'

On a related note, Bellita herself also brought in (on a post on this blog) the related concept of the perception of women as Maiden, Mother or Crone.
Which, to my simple mind is the depiction of the three main stages of a woman's life, (in the same way that we might intuit that the three stages of a man's life are something of the order of 'Page boy, Prince or King') and there is room to suppose therefore that the Madonna-Whore spectrum still applies to each of these stages to relative degrees.




I guess this post should really have been titled 'Film Review: Maria di Nazaret'.
Because Bill's comment took me back to this Italian film which I recently watched over Easter depicting the life of Our Lady.
It is of course a play on the more famous 'Jesus of Nazareth' exploring the life of Jesus.

I am not sure it is available in English. But if I may digress, of course there are many biblical films like this one in English which are shown around Christmas time and Easter. Pre 'Maria di Nazaret', my favourite one was 'King of Kings' for the sole reason that the 'Mary' in that one is so unbelievably beautiful. (With my Manosphere goggles on, easily a 10 :-) The casting team certainly did their job very well in that one.

And then of course there is the film by Mel Gibson that caused all sorts of controversy, not least because worldwide, no fewer than 6 people died from heart attacks watching it.
The film, 'The Passion of the Christ' was so raw in its depiction of Christ's suffering that I can see how it can draw out emotion in its audience.

More on 'Maria di Nazaret' later.

But first, my own thoughts on the whole Madonna-Whore thing.

For the life of me I don't know how this happened, but I shall hazard a guess or two as to how and why the opposite ends of the spectrum of female chastity became so entrenched in one another as to be deemed almost (and absurdly) interchangeable.
I do agree with Bill in that no woman is exclusively one and not the other.
Everything in life is a spectrum.

But I can tell you, as a former convent girl, I have had my fair share of this confusion.
A confusion which is definitely not helped by the antics of another former convent girl, aptly named 'Madonna' but given her public behaviour, is anything but.
A confusion not helped by recent reports of a certain Prime Minister with a penchant for under-age prostitutes and 'bunga bunga' parties where female participants are dressed as nuns.

By the way, on the subject of Madonna the singer, I realise that 'Madonna' was in fact her real name, and not a stage name. It was her mother's name - a mother she lost quite early on in life.
(I have a lot of sympathy for this reason).
But...and there is always a but.

I have always wondered what the deal is with Madonna.
In fact I could easily write a whole post just on her - for she seems to singlehandedly embody the whole Madonna-whore debate.
I don't understand the whole thing with her seemingly obsessive 'imitation' of Our Lady - with titles of her songs/albums such as 'Like a virgin', 'The Immaculate Collection', 'Like a prayer' and so forth, all the while churning out gratuitously graphic material which are so explicit as to elicit a ban from The Vatican, a step which is fairly unusual by The Church.
And then she names her daughter 'Lourdes'...

I don't get it...
But then again, maybe I am not supposed to.
They do say that imitation is the highest form of flattery.
But this is the most unusual form of flattery I have ever come across.
All I want to know is, is Madonna confused or sinister?
Yes we all know that sex sells. But does one have to go so far to earn a bob?

Let's just say that there have been depressingly woeful moments in my life where associating myself with a convent school was not the smart option.
Because of this confusion.

Let's just say I am on intimate terms with the whole Madonna-Whore debate.
As are, I guess, most women.

I have said before that there are some locker rooms I will not enter. This is one of them. But I shall hover on the threshold of this one long enough to say that it may be not so much a locker room as an enclave of the great unwashed.

It does not escape my notice that the whole association between the Madonna and the whore may have come about as a result of what I would call 'faulty womanhood'.

No man could have come out with that fantasy unless somewhere somehow a woman created it.
I am joining up some murky dots here, I know.
The same murky dots can be found in the association of children and said fantasy.
Think the pop industry.
Think Britney Spears and her school uniform outfit in 'Baby one more time'.
And of course, that's not the very worst of the pile.
But in the interests of keeping The Sanctuary relatively clean...


We reap what we sow.
With that I make my hasty retreat from the locker room door.

I am however not totally humourless when it comes to this issue.
I can see (very much so!) that there is a funny element to the Madonna-Whore complex.
The film industry has exploited this to good effect.
If anyone has seen Robbie Coltrane and Eric Idle in 'Nuns on the run' or Whoopi Goldberg in 'Sister Act' you will know what I am talking about. Sister Act is particularly funny. You haven't lived if you haven't seen this film (and its sequel) or the musical :-)

Of course there are more traditional films based on nuns, such as 'The Nun's story' and 'The Sound of Music' too. But these are relatively mild compared to what we are talking about here.



Back to 'Maria di Nazaret', one thing bothers me about his film. I may be nit-picking here, but it happens to tie in perfectly with the whole Madonna-Whore thing, so I shall pick away...

In most depictions of the life of Jesus, eg. in the films mentioned above, Mary Magdalene, a woman of let's just say, less than desirable repute until she is forgiven by Jesus, is a woman who becomes a friend of Mary's, in the sense that Mary takes her under her wing and they become involved in a sort of mother-daughter relationship.
At least that's my interpretation of things.
I find it ridiculous of course when it is suggested by the anti-Christian crowd that Mary Magdalene becomes a 'girlfriend' of Jesus.
I think it is more likely she becomes a sister of Jesus due to the arrangement she has with his mother.


Anyhow, the unusual feature of this film is that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus are depicted as childhood friends whose lives take on different paths and who remain friends despite the Grand Canyon of a gulf that separates them as their destinies diverge at a given point in their young lives.

The ultimate in the Madonna-Whore divide.

Somehow, I find this angle a little distasteful.
I am not sure why the idea that the mother of Our Lord was best friends with Mary Magdalene before  and during the time she was a prostitute bothers me so much and not so much the idea that they were friends after she was 'made clean' again.
Is this my 'prude within' coming up for air?

I dunno.

But it does leave a bitter taste in my mouth somewhat.
It smacks of a 'Charlotte-Samantha' friendship ala 'Sex and the city' and I don't like it.

I am neither Madonna nor whore.
Like all women, I am somewhere in between.

But it won't ever sit well with me to see the ultimate Madonna depicted as BFF with the ultimate whore at the peak of her whoredom.

That's just not right.





Excuse the Italian in the following videos. Like I said above, this film was an Italian production and I can't find a version with English subtitles.
Any requests for a translation should be directed towards Danny, our resident Italophone :-)



This scene resembles 'The Passion of the Christ' in its brutality. Please avoid if you have a tendency to heart trouble.








34 comments:

Bellita said...

Re: Madonna

Haven't you heard? Madonna wants to be called "Esther" these days. ;) It's part of her commitment to Kabbalah (or however it is spelled). And I'm not surprised that she wanted to change her name. A few years before she became a mother, she said that her entire career was her way of living up to the name she had been given by her own mother. That full name, by the way, is Madonna Louise Veronica. I think it's beautiful.

In America, there is a well-known (in Catholic circles) Franciscan priest who says one of his intentions is that Madonna return to the Faith and become a Carmelite nun. Apparently, he has an entire convent of Carmelites praying for this intention with him.

Frankly, I'd be happy if she returned to the Faith and became a garden-variety lay woman . . . but as Joe said on my blog lately, if you're going to dream, then dream big! Besides, given Madonna's penchant for doing things in the most spectacular way possible, I think it would be "Carmel or nothing" for her.

All I want to know is, is Madonna confused or sinister?

I think the truth is closer to what I said on my blog lately about wanting to defeat a certain dragon so much that you turn yourself into it in order to vanquish it more effectively. (But in this case, the dragon ends up winning. I wish I had known that earlier.)

Re: Maiden, Mother, Crone

Since we're being Catholic about this, I think it's worth pointing out that the model of Catholic womanhood was both Maiden and Mother at the same time and never became a Crone. Instead, she was crowned a Queen. I think this one of the best examples of how God "makes all things new"--and I'm glad Mel Gibson took that quote from Revelation and had Jesus say it during the Way of the Cross in The Passion.

But it won't ever sit well with me to see the ultimate Madonna depicted as BFF with the ultimate whore at the peak of her whoredom.

Hahahaha! I know exactly what you mean, ST, and I agree with you, but I have to laugh in snarky delight at your way of putting it.

I've mentioned to you that I help edit a literary magazine, but not that gets a lot of submissions in the "Biblical Fiction" category. There are some really outlandish scenarios from the imaginations of the writers that just don't fit what we know from both scripture and tradition, but which clearly come from their own deep devotion Mary. So while I can think of several ways this might be true for Maria di Nazaret, I believe it would be downright impossible for Mary and St. Mary Magdalene to have had that friendship during the, uh, "whoredom." For one thing, I'm sure St. Joseph would have put his foot down! For another, it seems much more plausible that Mary would have been so agonized by her friend's choices that she would have put some distance between them herself. Portraying her as someone who would have been able to tolerate it is just too politically correct.

Spacetraveller said...

Bellita,
Thanks for your great comments.

"...she said that her entire career was her way of living up to the name she had been given by her own mother."

What a way to live up to this name!

"Haven't you heard? Madonna wants to be called "Esther" these days. ;)"

Somehow, if my real name were Esther, I would be tempted to change it by deed poll right now, with the complaint 'what did I ever do to Madonna to deserve her changing her name to mine?'

Why is this woman so hell-bent on offending the sensibilities of those who hold certain things sacred?
Soiling the name 'Madonna' is not a good thing. I for one cannot hear the word 'Madonna' eg. in the context of the painting 'Madonna and child' without visualising her.

I was going to say 'Good luck to you' to the Franciscan priest you talk about, but I reckon that's perhaps uncharitable of me. Nothing is impossible...

"For another, it seems much more plausible that Mary would have been so agonized by her friend's choices that she would have put some distance between them herself. Portraying her as someone who would have been able to tolerate it is just too politically correct."

Political correctness...
This concept alone has killed off all notion of common sense in our modern world. I agree entirely with the Manosphere on this one.

This is one of the reasons Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ elicited so much 'passion' from The Church and laity alike. It was definitely a no-nonsense look at the events of Holy Week. In this sense, it was very much, 'You either like it or you don't'.

"For one thing, I'm sure St. Joseph would have put his foot down!"

He tried.
In the very last bit of the first clip, when Mary mentions to her parents that she wants to go to Jerusalem to see Magdalene, her mother asks, "What would Joseph say?"

In the next scene, Joseph is expressing his anxieties about her going despite her assertion that she trusts God to keep her safe. He even offers to go with her but she declines saying she needs to do this on her own.
Hm...how plausible is this conversation, in the Middle East 2000 years ago between a roughly 15 year old girl and a significantly older man who has just asked her father for her hand in marriage?

Exactly. I don't think so either.
Another reason to have a problem with this otherwise great film.

I think Mel Gibson should have directed this one :-)

Bellita said...

You won't be surprised to hear now that my main reason for rejecting several Biblical Fiction submissions about Mary was that they got St. Joseph so insultingly wrong!

Anonymous said...

Firstly, I want to point out that even John Paul II said that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. Apparently this was a notion that came from a papal bull issued in the 6th century.

I read an article once, about an interview a journalist had with a Colombian political leader, wherein the journalist asked why the Colombian government was not more active against the drug cartels. The reply was something to the effect of, "Drugs are an American concern, there would be no drug trade if there was no demand for the drugs in America."

Similarly, our culture of the celebrity gossip is only fulfilling (or pandering to) our desire for the outrageous and ridiculous. Spacetraveler, you asked, quite reasonably,

"But does one have to go so far to earn a bob?"

Apparently, yes. Data is data, and while I am not a trained sociologist, I can pretty much draw the conclusion that offending the establishment does wonders for your profit column.

Here is another bit of free advice, Spacetraveler... don't waste your time with a man who wants either a Madonna or a whore. Find a man who wants a woman and only a woman. All these cliches may have a grain of truth in them, but here's a thought: maybe it's somewhat that most women want to be treated like a Madonna on some days, and like a whore on other days. (N.B. Not like a prostitute in 1860s society, but like a woman who drives men wild with lust)

This relates to the 'special snowflake'. Men tend to be pretty satisfied with their own self, at any given point in time. They are more than aware of their own shortcomings and needs for personal development, but at any given moment in time, they're pretty ok with themselves. Men just want to be men. But as the term implies, women seem to want to be all things, to at least one man. I've mentioned this song before, by Berlin, from the 1980s:

Feel the fire, feel my love inside you it's so right
There's the sound and the smell of love in my mind
I'm a toy, come and play with me, say the word now
Wrap your legs around mine and ride me tonight
I'm a man, I'm a goddess
I'm a man, well I'm a virgin
I'm a man, I'm a blue movie
I'm a man, I'm a *****
I'm a man, I'm a geisha
I'm a man, I'm a little girl
And we make love together

Slip and slide in your wet delight, feel the blood flow
Not too fast, don't be slow, my love's in your hands

I'm a man, I'm a boy
I'm a man, well I'm your mother
I'm a man, I'm a one night stand
I'm a man, am I bi
I'm a man, I'm a slave
I'm a man, I'm a little girl
And we make love together

Skin to skin, tongue to oooh! come on honey hold tight
Come inside, it's a passion play just for you
Let's get lost in that magic place all alone now
Drink your fill from my fountain of love, wet your lips

Note that the man is just a man, while the woman wants to be all things. I don't know how many women are like this, but I sure do know that nearly all women I have known are like this.

Point being, I don't really care what the Manosphere says about Madonnas and whores. This attitude may work for these guys, but it's incomplete, and flawed in it's generalizations. This is why so many in the blogs say All Women Are Like That, because they see it is true on a daily basis... and for the women that it is not true, well, those women are ignored anyway, yes?

The Navy Corpsman

Bellita said...

@NC
Firstly, I want to point out that even John Paul II said that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. Apparently this was a notion that came from a papal bull issued in the 6th century.

Papal documents leave a nice paper trail (especially in those ages before the printing press), but this understanding of St. Mary Magdalene would have been much older than Pope Gregory's making a record of it.

Like him, SC is drawing on a Tradition that has often juxtaposed St. Mary Magdalene, a "sinful woman," with Mary, a woman who never sinned. And that popular imagination has conceived of St. Mary Magdalene as literal prostitute should not be surprising, given how many Manosphere denizens draw parallels between a man picking up the tab on dates and a man paying for sex.

That is, St. Mary Magdalene's sin was very likely of a sexual nature. Whether it was prostitution, adultery, fornication, abortion or whatever is just splitting hairs, although I do see your point that we want to be as accurate as possible.

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

I take your points on board. I however also think that society really disorted womanhood, and so many men found themselves 'short-changed' a bit in the male-female arena. Hence their attitude. Fair is fair, they do have a point.
But alas, no-one is allowed to wallow in the mire for too long... but a healing time is nonetheless required.

Re the thing with Mary Magdalene, Bellita's point is very apt especially today where a woman so much as accepting a free meal off a (crass type of) man could result in him taking the view that she is 'his property', at least for the night. I think we can all agree that this is an untenable situation. Hence a woman's need to pay for herself, even when she would prefer not to seem 'graceless', as we previously discussed in the post about going Dutch.

Also, yes, there seems to be a tight spectrum of 'sins' by women in the bible. The Samaritan 'Woman at the well' was deemed sinful because she had had far too many husbands than was deemed acceptable, so in that sense she too was seen as some sort of prostitute, especially as she was cohabiting with the current man in her life and was not actually married to him.

Interestingly, in the film 'Maria di Nazaret', one of the opening scenes sees Mary Magdalene's mother being caught committing adultery by her father, who promptly orders her stoning (to death), an event witnessed by both Marys.
So in this film at least, history seems to repeat itself.
When Mary visits Magdalene in the um...house of ill repute in Jerusalem, she asks her how her father is. Magdalene replies that to him, she might as well be dead. So it appears father wasn't too thrilled his daughter had turned out just like her mother...
Is it me, or does all this deviate too far from what we know from 'tradition/religious history'?

Anonymous said...

*shrug*

I'm not Catholic nor Christian, just thinking that it's a bit dangerous to 'tradition' vs actual points made in your sacred literature. I'm also not too fond of papal authority that is considered infallible, only to be 'corrected' by later holders of that office. That in itself tells me all I need to know about infallibility.

As for society distorting womanhood... well, let's just say, a small part of society that thought the rest of us were stupid, yeah, I can see that as true. And, like your low hanging fruit, some men are just taking advantage of freer sexual mores to get laid as often as they can. I'm about as responsible for their behavior as you are for the women that divorce a guy and take the house and half his income.

I can spend hours on the internet, and find horrifying commentaries by radical feminists, as you can search the Manosphere and find some pretty disgusting stuff. I've read your Bible, the Apocrypha, the Qu'ran, Hindu scriptures and many other religious tomes. I caution you to be careful equating/conflating religious beliefs with morality, there is simply far too much history proving that to be incorrect. By the same point, be careful not to infer Manosphere opinions to be held by all, or even a majority of males. The Manosphere is very diverse, and I include men's rights advocates as well as PUA blogs.

Back in her day, Mae West was considered by many to be the Whore of Babylon. Today, she is seen as a sexy vamp, a woman who knows what she wants and has no problem expressing it. Let us be clear on one very important point, however; using celebrity Madonnas and biblical Madonnas as examples tends to dilute your points. I have no doubt that Roman Catholic females see the Blessed Mother as the epitome of female spirituality, but is it a realistic goal, except perhaps for a nun who takes holy vows of abstention? In the same vein, I've read plenty of stories about PUAs gaming women who sleep with them within hours of meeting them. Is it correct, or even fair, for these men to then equate all females with whores? Is it correct to point to Madonna the singer as a typical female? I spent enough time in a Catholic run school, that I understand your points very well. Think of it this way: Would you want to be compared to either Madonna? One would make you feel slimy, the other would make you feel very inadequate. This isn't the best way for women to reclaim their womanhood. Part of the issue here is the oft quoted apex fallacy, but more germane is the simple belief that many women are being taught (or have been taught) that acting like a man will create equality.

Think of how your grandparents opinions of men who slept around, acted as if the world owed them a living, and held contemptuous attitudes of everyone they encountered. Now apply that to a woman, and tell me what you think.

For a while, I thought I was an alpha in my youth, because I had very little problems with the ladies, though I did not sleep with every woman I met. Then, I figured out about a month or so ago, that 'Alpha' male to certain parts of the Manosphere means that you are like an alpha wolf, the only male that gets to breed.

Let 'em breed, male Alphas and female whores, I say. That's their bag, and as long as I teach my sons and grandkids differently, I have no worries about the whole thing.

The Navy Corpsman

Bellita said...

@NC
I'm not Catholic nor Christian, just thinking that it's a bit dangerous to 'tradition' vs actual points made in your sacred literature.

I know you're not a Catholic and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. :) But if you brought up that point about St. Mary Magdalene thinking we were in error, then it's only fair to expect our explanation of why we're not, yes? And I guess it has now become worth adding that a papal bull is not considered "sacred literature" any more than the employee records of the Swiss Guard are.

Think of it this way: Would you want to be compared to either Madonna? One would make you feel slimy, the other would make you feel very inadequate.

"Madonna-Whore" is ST's theme and I'm not quite sure where she's going with it, but I will say that I personally have no problem with Mary as the ideal of Catholic womanhood. It would take me much longer to explain why loving her doesn't make me feel "inadequate" (because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms), but I'll try if you're really interested.

It seems to me that you think holding up Mary as the ideal is equal to suggesting that everyone be exactly like Mary. Since Mary is who she is because she was made sinless from conception, I doubt Catholic girls are under any illusions that they could ever be exactly like Mary. I don't think you're framing this issue correctly even as you're right that ST's extreme examples may be hindering her from making her point.

I have no doubt that Roman Catholic females see the Blessed Mother as the epitome of female spirituality, but is it a realistic goal

More on the frame . . . If the goal is to be absolutely perfect on earth, then of course it's not realistic. If the goal is to get to Heaven, then, yes, it is realistic.

Spacetraveller said...

"Madonna-Whore" is ST's theme... " "

Bill started this...and now I am left holding the baby, so to speak.
What's new, eh?

:-)


NC,

"I personally have no problem with Mary as the ideal of Catholic womanhood."

+1.

Bellita is right. There should be no conflict between wanting to be like Mary (the best ideal for any woman - and I can almost guarantee that in any religion/belief system, there is an equivalent high ideal for women) and living a normal life on Earth.
Many women before us have managed it quite easily.
Our current rotten society however is so adept at convincing us all that it is nigh impossible to achieve this that some poor souls are buying into the hype.
Sure, Mary had one big advantage over us in that she was 'born without sin' and the rest of us were born very much into sin.
But it doesn't mean we can't try.

Whether we succeed of course... is another matter entirely!

Anonymous said...

Ok, I think I understand. It's an impossible goal, but worthy of attempting, is that correct?

Question for the ladies here:

Aside from the obvious flaws, as seen by our 2012 eyes, what are the main problems women like yourselves have, with the way men viewed women for the time period 1880 to 1950?

In other words, what was the worst of this fabled patriarchy?

The Navy Corpsman

just visiting said...

Ok, I think I understand. It's an impossible goal, but worthy of attempting, is that correct?

Perfection is for the divine. For the rest of us, the struggle is divine. Lol.

As for how women were treated, the only problems I would have were the inabiility to vote, inheritance law which could leave you devastated finacially and certain educational and work related fields being closed off . Most of these issues were dealt with by the 1920's. (Though even into the 1940's, women teachers in Canada were forced to retire once married.)

Yes, there were some chauvinistic attitudes. I'd say that it was a lot less than the chauvinism shown toward men in this day and age.

As for sexual attitudes....my own personal view is live and let live. Does my viewpoint make for a better society. Apparently not. It could be that we were caught up in the rules, but forgot about the spirit of why certain choices just seem better for individuals and society. The pendulum may be swinging back on that. Instead of following certain dictates because it's expected or because we're shamed into them, the last few decades may have taught us that we would want to choose those ways because they make our lives happier and easier. I'm still back and forth on this. Some days I think this may be how things turn out, others, I worry about the lack of role modelling.

just visiting said...

I would suggest that men want virtuous women, and women want virtuous men. To steal a concept made by Dalrock, that becomes about honor.

If sexual honor is the basis by which women are judged, and courage is the basis that men are judged, then would the anti chivalry rants be the equivallent of slut walks?

Again, interesting to see the concepts of sluts, feminine virtue, chivalry and lack of it play out in the sphere. Would the coward-hero be the male equivallent of whore-madonna?

just visiting said...

I think my comment on the male equivallent of whore madonna got trapped in the filter

Anonymous said...

@ SpaceTraveller,

Bill started this...and now I am left holding the baby, so to speak.

Just a darn minute!

< Grin! >

I just made a comment on Bellita's blog. You take it and spin a whole post of of this. That's like link-love once removed.

Then you blame me when it gets controversial!

Like I have any idea what I'm talking about...

For the record, I agree with Bellita that the whole Madonna - Whore continuum is too simple. A multi-variet problem, at minimum. The topology for depicting it makes my head hurt.

Bill

Spacetraveller said...

JV,

Re your 'lost' comment, sorted...
:-)

"If sexual honor is the basis by which women are judged, and courage is the basis that men are judged, then would the anti chivalry rants be the equivallent of slut walks?
Again, interesting to see the concepts of sluts, feminine virtue, chivalry and lack of it play out in the sphere. Would the coward-hero be the male equivallent of whore-madonna?"


You make an excellent point!

If I am reading the Manosphere correctly, the problem is the imbalance.

Their perception is that there are many more 'whores' than cowardly men.
But I find their definition of 'whore' interesting...
A woman who has been in 'serial' monogamy (without marriage) is deemed unacceptable for 'wifedom' because she still rode the carousel of sorts.
It astounds me that it is men who are defining the standards of 'morality' for women.
I am trying to work out in my mind why that is astonishing, but haven't got there yet...


@ Bill,

Hahahahaha!!!

Woman blames man for problems of her own making...
Sound familiar, Bill?

Apparently you didn't get the memo - you know, the one that says 'it's always the man's fault'...
*facepalm*

:-)

Grasshopper said...

@JV… “… what is the male equivalent of whore Madonna…”

Would it be nice guy or rogue?

I’m not sure where chivalry fits in. That is what a man does not who he is.

A nice guy can behave chivalrously but so can a rogue. But a rogue can get away with not behaving chivalrously (at least occasionally) while a nice guy is shown the door the minute he behaves anything less than chivalrous.

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

@ grass hopper

Well, that's what I thought too. Niceguy/rogue. But In this case, I'm riffing on something Dalrock mentioned where the common aspect male or female comes down to honor, and breaking down to male and female themes on that. I suppose the thinking being that a man doesn't want a slut for a wife and a woman doesn't want a coward for a husband.

So, in keeping with that, nice guys and rogues can be either, so I wasn't sure whether to frame it that way. Am I off the mark?

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to comment on what makes the most sense to me, just very curious about female attitudes today. Of course, I have to take into account that ya'll are rather unique in terms of modern women.

Thanks to Just Visiting for the points about patriarchy... for what it is worth, Lady Just, you are a lot like me... born and raised in a world that was really pretty good, but decades too late.

I have another question about removing the State from any and all marriage and divorce laws completely, but I'll save that for another day.

I do find the chivalry/rogue interesting. Perhaps if I might suggest, the male equivalent would be knight and knave?

The Navy Corpsman

Bellita said...

@NC
Ok, I think I understand. It's an impossible goal, but worthy of attempting, is that correct?

Correct, as long we remember that we're not supposed to be so literally like Mary. (Winona Ryder's character from the movie Mermaids is coming to mind. She is a Jewish girl who wants to be Catholic so much that she ends up believing she has conceived the second Messiah. There's a reason it's played for comedy.)

Aside from the obvious flaws, as seen by our 2012 eyes, what are the main problems women like yourselves have, with the way men viewed women for the time period 1880 to 1950?

I don't live in the West, so I don't know if my answers will apply. For one thing, some of the attitudes taken for granted in the past are still kind of in effect today. My favorite example is that married women are prohibited by law from having sex with any man other than their husbands, but the equivalent prohibition against married men is only against financially supporting a concubine.

@JV
If sexual honor is the basis by which women are judged, and courage is the basis that men are judged, then would the anti chivalry rants be the equivallent of slut walks?

What an interesting idea!

I know many MRA activists refuse to help any woman in distress unless she is already a friend or relative. This doesn't mean they are cowards, of course, but it's fascinating to see their stinginess with their "favors" as a response (albeit an indirect one) to women's being freer with our "favors."

just visiting said...

@ NC
I like the knight/knave idea! And yes, I think we see things rather similarly,lol.

@ Bellita

I think there's a connection between the two.

Bellita said...

More on men and courage . . .

I just got off an HUS thread in which some men said that they learned never to cry in front of their girlfriends/wives not from Game bloggers but from Susan and her commenters. (Yes, I include myself in that.) I wonder if a woman's visceral reaction to a man's tears are like a man's visceral reaction to a woman's "number" (so to speak).

Even I can tell these thoughts need some refining, but I wanted to toss them out there now, for everyone's consideration.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bell,

"This doesn't mean they are cowards, of course, but it's fascinating to see their stinginess with their "favors" as a response (albeit an indirect one) to women's being freer with our "favors." "

Certainly interesting, this one, isn't it?!

"I wonder if a woman's visceral reaction to a man's tears are like a man's visceral reaction to a woman's "number" (so to speak)."

I think you're on to something here...

Grasshopper said...

@JV… OK I see where you’re coming from comparing behavior to behavior. That makes sense to me.

Taking the thought one step further I would say a man does not want to be gamed into an act of courage by a woman in the same way a woman does not want to be gamed into sex by a man.

A woman who can too easily be gamed into sex would be thought of as a whore. A man too easily gamed into a pseudo act of courage is a damned fool. So I would say higher than courage on a woman’s list would be respectability. I can’t think of a better word right now.

There is an old saying … “Discretion is the better part of valor.”

@B… “…some men said that they learned never to cry in front of their girlfriends/wives not from Game bloggers but from Susan and her commenters…”

These men would be better off learning from their own experiences rather than vicariously through others. I’ve known women who responded very sympathetically to tears. It would take a short novel to explain the situation but suffice it to say when it comes to male tears NAWALT.

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

@ Bell

I wonder too, if timing has something to do with it. If a man shows too much emotion early on, it can end things. Too late, same thing. A strange parallel being how women who are sexual too early on can end a relationship, too late, same thing.

@ grasshopper

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Wow!!! That sums it up perfectly for both sexes.

And yes, NAWALT on the tears. Though as I stated to Bellita, I think timing counts. I'd have to know a man for a while to feel comfortable with that kind of intimacy. On a primal level, tears from men scare the heck out of women. I suspect it might be a hold over instinct from warriors raiding villages. If the men were crying, you knew there was no hope. Prepare to die.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"If the men were crying, you knew there was no hope. Prepare to die."

This had me laughing so hard, JV. I don't think men realise how much women are dependent on them for protection. This sentence of yours sums up the sentiment well.

Your point on timing is also spot on, I think. Excellent point, as usual :-)

Bellita said...

@JV
If the men were crying, you knew there was no hope. Prepare to die.

Hahahaha!

But how would we fill in these blanks: "If the women were __________, you knew there was no hope. Prepare to ___________"?

As for the tears . . . Even Susan agrees about the timing. She was so turned off when she saw her biggest crush in high school crying (even though he was crying over the death of his father!) that she refused to date him after that. But she has seen her husband cry many times in their marriage and continued to love him. So, yes, you have to get your foot in the door first . . . at the very least.

Having said that, I think men are more forgiving of women who are sexual "too early"--as long as no "price discrimination" is involved.

Grasshopper said...

@JV… Yes to the situation. In the context of a couple I think the woman has to at some level understand the situation that triggered the tears and possibly be on the verge of tears herself. It would be kind of a shared experience.

In a less personal context I can recall an older gentleman giving a farewell speech at his retirement luncheon at work breaking into tears at one point. I don’t think anyone thought any less of him for it.

There are also “tears of joy” situations. I could go on with examples but I don’t want the readers of the Sanctuary to be “bored to tears”

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

@ grasshopper very good points that I hadn't considered.

I think that some very intense bonding moments are made from such times.

And the man making the speech is a good example that tears being non threatening. Quite appropriate.

@ Bellita

Good question. What would fill the blanks? Perhaps the men on the blog would know.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV, Grasshopper, Bellita,

Yes the timing is crucial, as JV states. And the occasion as Grasshopper states. I think it was a bit unfair to dump that guy who was crying on his father's passing.
Recently, Novak Djokovic the tennis player was told of his beloved grandfather's death whilst he was on the practise courts at Monte Carlo preparing for his semi-final match. He burst into tears and had to leave the court. And men and women everywhere were moved by this. I don't think any woman looking at him would think of him any less than 'manly'.

On the other hand, if he's watching a soppy chick flick with you and cries more than you...
Houston we have a problem...

Bell,

While we are waiting for the men to 'fill in the blanks', would you accept my humble offering - this the eternal mantra of The Manosphere:

"If the women were dishing it out left right and centre, you knew there was no hope. Prepare to feed another man's kids for life. "

Or maybe that last part should be 'go your own way'.

Grasshopper said...

@Ladies of the Sanctuary…

"If the women were __________, you knew there was no hope. Prepare to ___________"?

The first blank: To stop baking cookies. The second: Go on a diet.

Seriously though, that is very difficult for this man to answer. For one, I cannot think of anything I am dependent on a woman (or women in general) for that if she were to ______ I would be left with no hope.

For another, I think I have hope hard coded into my DNA. At one point in life hope was all I had going for me. I pulled through and learned the value of never losing hope no matter the circumstances.

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
For one, I cannot think of anything I am dependent on a woman (or women in general) for that if she were to ______ I would be left with no hope.

Would you happen to remember a discussion we were having last February about a man having no one to turn to if his significant other denied him sex, but there being no equivalent for a woman? ;-)

I believe it was ST who suggested that protection was the equivalent . . . but it didn't seem right to me because men often do protect even women they don't know if they see them in danger.

Now I wonder . . .

Since the sexes are not opposites but complements, we can't really look for exact parallels. So what if a man is dependent on an individual woman for intimacy, but a woman is dependent on all men for protection?

Grasshopper said...

@B…
I do remember that discussion now that you mention it but the context was different. The key word in your inquiry here as I saw it was Hope. Perhaps you were really asking something different and I misunderstood.

I do not see a woman being dependent on all men for protection. I would think the duty of protection falls on that individual woman’s husband or boyfriend or perhaps her father up until the time she was married.

She too has a duty to protect herself by staying out of bad neighborhoods or away from other types of danger. She should not go looking for trouble and expect men to protect her.

I would say my protectiveness as it relates to women in general is subject to a fitness test. 1. Where is here husband/father? 2. Did she bring this on herself? 3. Am I being manipulated into this?

Just as women have a b-tch shield to detract unwanted suitors I think men have developed an indifference shield to protect themselves as well. B-tch shield is to sex what indifference shield is to protection.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grashopper and Bellita,

Perhaps potentially men are dependent on all women for sex, with their desire for variety, but would rather have one woman for intimacy, and similarly, women are potentially dependent on all men for protection but would rather have one special man protect them.

Could this be a passable summary?

Grasshopper said...

@ST…
I think what B said earlier that we can’t really look for exact parallels. There are some interesting similarities in the concepts of protection and sex between the genders but not enough to call it a parallel. Too many other factors are at work.

Great discussion this thread.

Grasshopper