One of the beauties of living in a non-English-speaking country is that one hears a variety of accents when English is spoken.
Some of which are entertaining :-)
And in Switzerland, you get the full range. German, French and Italian are only the 'official' languages. There are also large communities of Spanish, Portuguese and Africans of different nationalities (mainly french-speaking, of course).
So the potential for self-amusement is immense.
Voilà another one of my guilty pleasures.
And of course, I give back what I take from the Swiss :-)
My french accent is apparently as hilarious to them as their English is to me.
My German makes small children cry. (At least I hope it's the accent and not anything else about me :-)
Don't go there with the Italian...
It's the perfect symbiotic existence.
I may poke fun at it, but I like it.
Nothing better than to hear English with an accent for which it was not designed :-)
So this post is dedicated to all the people who have ever said to me, 'what it mean, this ________?'
Bellita did a good job not so long ago delineating for us what she had gleaned from her own experiences of the definition and practice (conscious or otherwise) of Manhate.
This topic was so nicely dealt with, that, thanks to her, I am now absolutely clear on what this entails, and I will certainly recognise it easily when I see any facet of it.
So thanks again, dear Bell.
But alas, I am not done with the questions yet :-)
There are always two sides to every coin.
My thoughts having been directed to the topic of 'Manhate', now veer uncontrollably towards the other elephant in the room.
Over the last few years, I have heard the word 'misogyny' a lot. Under all sorts of different contexts.
And let me add that until I hit The Manosphere, I had never heard the word 'misandry'.
This is the honest truth. Or Truth, as NC would say.
So there is clearly a mismatch in Blue Pill world.
But...a mismatch is not necessarily a bad thing.
I can be persuaded that in this context, it is a good thing.
But I would really need convincing.
I am willing to be open-minded on this one.
So open-minded that my usual request of 'explain it to me like I am a 6 year old' applies :-)
What is misogyny as applied to our current SMP?
At the basic level, a misogynist is a man who hates women.
But how does this 'hatred' manifest itself?
Is it a man who walks into a gym and selects out women to be killed?
Is it a man who beats his wife?
Is it a man who believes women are objects to be used and abused?
Is it a man who believes women are inferior beings?
Is it a man who thinks women are intrinsically evil, all of them?
Is it a man who wants a world where women are in the kitchen, pregnant and barefoot, never seen nor heard (as opposed to children who may be seen, but not heard)?
Is it a man who wants women to be feminine as he is masculine?
Is it...
I have heard all of these examples cited...almost verbatim.
These may be the extreme ones (specially chosen by me to make a point), but there are subtler versions of this.
Misogyny is a word used a great deal by feminists.
I have learned not to trust anything a feminist says.
Because there are lots of inconsistencies there that defeat their own argument.
Until I come up with a post on why the newer version of 'feminism' may be an 'ally' rather than 'foe', I remain sceptical (^^).
I believe I know when I encounter true misogyny.
But has the definition of 'misogyny' widened to include cases which would never have been considered 'misogyny' fifty years ago?
This topic fascinates me somewhat, because I know that The Manosphere is exactly the type of forum that would be first on the 'blacklist' of 'misogyny'.
And yet, I do not feel this way about most Manosphere sites.
Some are shocking, yes, especially when first encountered.
But it must be said, I have encountered surprising levels of philogyny amongst some Manosphere bloggers. And the fact that it is surprising to me is testament to the gravity of the problem at hand.
Why are these men labelled misogynists?
Is it because their message is brutal, aka undiluted, or is it really because they refuse to 'sugarcoat' the realities of the current SMP?
What they say, afterall, is what one's father or brother would say, should his opinion be sought.
But are (current) female ears so extra-sensitive to the words of males because males are disappearing from our midst on a logarithmic scale and we are not used to their no-nonsense and rather direct modus operandi anymore? Is this the problem?
Have women accidentally sensitised themselves to men, such that anything a man says or does is seen as an attack on the female??
Is this a manifestation of the female ego getting 'roided up?
Can a woman be misogynistic?
I ask this because we established that there are men who are clearly 'Manhaters'.
Is the accusation of 'Misogyny!' a new strategy to quieten down the man who dares assert himself in the face of fem-centric pseudo-dominance?
Is the goal-post being ever so slightly shifted each day such that true misogyny is confounded with false misogyny to cloud the issue?
Are the ever-louder cries of 'Misogyny!' designed to cover up the ever-growing contempt of men (aka misandry) that is destroying society?
They do say that 'offense' is the best form of 'defence'...
What is clear is that the 'devil beneath' has changed its face over the years.
What is so often labelled 'misogyny' may be a smokescreen to prevent a much-needed message from being heard.
Yes, there are some things with The Manosphere which are not necessarily to the taste of some. Agreed.
And yes, there are some heinous examples of misogyny out there. Undeniably so.
But if a man's plea to a woman or women of 'Be feminine!' is equated to the actions of a serial rapist whose personal history includes a mother who repeatedly denied him food when he was aged 3 (and therefore has become a true misogynist), then something has gone wrong.
Clarification is not so much wanted as needed, much in the manner of a thirsty desert-wanderer seeking an oasis.
I have a good reason for this:
If a message is to be delivered, it needs to be heard. Not just listened to, heard.
If what men of The Manosphere say is to be heard, the label of 'misogyny' has to be uncoupled from them.
Otherwise, sensible young women (the target of this message) will simply not hear it.
Because they would not listen to it.
They would have been lost at 'hello'.
A normal self-respecting woman with a healthy dose of self-love, and none of that self-loathing that is often to be observed among a certain crowd will not tolerate misogyny.
And rightly so.
Same as men will not tolerate misandry in any shape or form.
So we need to be careful what we call misogyny.
What it mean, this misogyny?
Is it??
Yes, he committed an act consistent with misogyny... is there anyone who would argue with that?
He called a woman who wanted free Pills a word rhyming with 'rut'. Does this make him a misogynist?
This woman is probably from Afghanistan. I think she is truly a victim of misogyny...is there anyone who would argue with that?
Religious misogyny...does this exist? Why can't I agree with Mr. Obama on this issue? Is it because I sense he is attacking my religion? Is blind adherence to Catholicism blinding me to my own experience of 'misogyny'? Or is this what the feminists would have me believe?
Is denying a Western Woman the right to have an abortion the same as what the Afghan woman above is facing in her life?
Are both equally 'misogyny'?
There are facets of this topic which are very confusing and blurred. Precisely why I seek clarification...
38 comments:
Misogyny is any man who won't put women's interests ahead of his own.
Catholicism's take on male/female relations is marriage, friendship, or family.
I've written before that marriage is a cooperative venture that is slightly unnatural for both sexes. What it does is create a set of rules for both genders to follow that when followed properly give both the advantages they require most while the downsides are relatively unimportant.
Such an arrangement always requires sacrifice on the part of women. Marriage has always been voluntary. There are old words to describe women who refused to marry. Same with men.
For some reason, some women got it in their heads that any concession by women (regardless of the benefits obtained) to man is misogyny. They then went further, saying that since women have the right to their bodies, they alone have the right to decide what is right regarding sex.
The logical first principle women typically use for "misogyny" today is: "Does this idea in and of itself go for or against a woman's sexual agenda?" You see it in divorce law. You see it in religion. You see it in human rights debates.
Spacetraveller was right in saying that there's something wrong with the discussions in these areas. The problem is that particular first principle is evil. Just invoke the categorical imperative. Universalizing female body agenda naturally brings women in conflict with men, other women, and even their own children. Want to know where the gender war comes from? Here it is.
I have an idea ST. Do a post on the rampant misandry in society, the media, etc.
... there are no answers to these questions ... only mistakes that must not be made ... for both genders.
So you're in Switzerland ? And your English is excellent. There is only one thing I can say to that then :
Salaam
Oddly enough I had never heard of George Sodini until yesterday, and I wrote an article on my blog about him.
Sodini, and men like him, hate women because they feel humiliated, rejected and ostracized by them. For decades. If you want to use Mansphere terms, they're Omegas.
People who feel humiliated seek revenge. I think that's very important because it happens all the time. In fact, it's the lesson of Cain and Abel.
I have for years thought feminism was never about equality. It's about humiliating men because of women's envy of men. The Manosphere, which in some ways is a needed corrective to feminism, is in some ways based on men's envy of women.
And what do the envious do? Try to bring others down.
That applies to these so-called Alphas. They're supposed to be immune to what women think because they don't take them seriously.
That's the devaluation of women based on envy.
All of this is a feedback system, and there are some people who see it as such.
@ OTC,
"Misogyny is any man who won't put women's interests ahead of his own."
Interesting definition. Perhaps this is the new version?
The old version is what I call 'true misogyny' and is the version that no-one would argue with. This newer version is working against women, in my humble opinion, because it puts men on the defensive...and defensive people in general are not fun to live with.
Ceer,
"Want to know where the gender war comes from? Here it is."
I can't help but agree with you. A poor understanding of how men and women process thoughts/feelings is perhaps at the root of this falsification of what misogyny really means. Perhaps my joke about feminism being a case of developmental arrest might have a grain of truth to it :P
I know that the message you give is unpalatable to many. But perhaps therein lies the very first problem: we are less and less inclined to listen to and do something which requires effort on our part these days. Everything has to be 'easy'. And then we find that we don't enjoy 'easy' afterall...
In this, both men and women are guilty. But women will pay the higher price. Because this is our territory :-)
Men pay a different price in other areas of life.
Danny,
Your wish is my command, Maestro :-)
I was wondering if Bellita covered it all in her 'Manhate' post, but now I think she has covered the thought processes that lead to the outward action of male contempt.
Yes, with a little preparation it shouldn't be too hard to find examples of outright injustice towards men.
We already know about the injustices towards women. I by no means sweep these under the carpet. But it doesn't mean that the other side of the equation does not deserve a mention...
Watch this space...
Marellus,
Yes, there are no absolute answers! But hopefully we can come up with mistakes to avoid - together.
I am British, which is why my English is passable, lol.
But I currently live in Switzerland, yes.
I'm afraid I don't get the 'Salaam' bit.
But perhaps I am not meant to?
Hahahahaha!
Bob,
I loved your post, but I had one or two reservations which I addressed...
Sodini's case was sad, yes. He was a good-looking man with a great job and life, other than the lack of a woman by his side. He should have hung in there. (Maybe this is advice best given to a woman, not a man? This reminds me of the different standards of morality/sexuality of men and women. A 40 year old female virgin is very different from a 40 year old male virgin in their experiences, simply because of their very different biologies. Not to say Sodini was a virgin, but certainly, he needed something only a woman could give him. This something was apparently something he was prepared to kill for...)
We both agree that whatever may have led him to do what he did, what he did was misogynistic?
@ST
OTC is being ironic, if not also helpful. There are women who will say a man is being misogynistic just because he isn't giving them what he wants. You and I know them as "manhaters." ;-) But just because these women go overboard, it doesn't mean there aren't men who really do hate women.
Here's my take
Misogynist - anyone that uses lies, deceit, hate, a willful ignorance of reality, a unwitting ignorance of reality, NAWALT, or male supremacy as a means or reason to strategically deny women any place in society that would allow them to pursue happiness, physical health, and mental health. A woman is not guaranteed any of those, but just as the constitution says and men have lived with and known since the founding of this country, she has a right to pursue those.
A misandrist is the same, only applied to men.
A feminist usually is both of those, often unwittingly of one or both, sometimes of one, and then there are just some women that want to see the whole world burn.
That's about as good of a definition as I can give without adding to the numerous blog posts that make up the 'Sphere
You want my definition of misogyny, or the definition of the feminists, or society at large?
The Navy Corpsman
Bellita,
Isn't it an interesting coincidence that it is often the Manhaters who believe a particular man is 'misogynistic' even when he is not?
But does this pan out the reverse way? Is a man who is a true misogynist believe that women are misandrists?
Somehow I think not. These men are just reacting to a specific issue in their lives. I don't think that the thought even occurs to them. As Danny and others have pointed out before, there is indeed widespread misandry built into the media/laws/religion aka modern 'churchianity' as some have called it... but somehow, outside of the 'Sphere I don't usually hear 'so and so is misandric', or 'so and so hates men' from men. Whereas I hear a lot of this from women: 'such and such a man is a misogynistic (usually chauvinistic) pig.
Men would often say abstract things like, 'the laws are misandric'. They keep it general.
Maybe I have a skewed perception of things. Does anyone have a different experience of this?
@ Leap,
That's a pretty comprehensive definition! Thanks :-)
@ NC,
Just misogyny, please. Thanks :-)
Oh, do you think there is misogyny directed at women in the military?
Or is this a moot question because women should not be in certain positions in the military anyway, for their own good?
More and more, I am reflecting on Bellita's recent post 'On Human Life 2'. She presents great insights into the unwitting masculinisation of women. It has struck me that in some ways, ALL my recent posts address the masculinisation of women. Funny that.
PVW here.
I like that you are interested in discussing both misogyny and misandry, because you are right, there is a lot more discussion of misogyny in the world than of misandry.
I like leap of beta's understanding of each:
Misogynist - anyone that uses lies, deceit, hate, a willful ignorance of reality, a unwitting ignorance of reality, NAWALT, or male supremacy as a means or reason to strategically deny women any place in society that would allow them to pursue happiness, physical health, and mental health. A woman is not guaranteed any of those, but just as the constitution says and men have lived with and known since the founding of this country, she has a right to pursue those.
A misandrist is the same, only applied to men.
Me:
Mere criticism is not misandry or misogyny, but it can easily lead to those types of mindsets, ie., "all women are..." "all men are..."
Or arguments that point to an inherent mistrust of women or men, presumptions that one group is more competent or less competent as a whole, or an unwillingness to recognize legitimate criticism of one group or an other.
I read Bellita's post, thanks for noting it, ST, and I replied there.
I liked the arguments about unwitting masculinization of women, but in discussing the story of the nuns, I was struck by something interesting.
Yes, it is true, that women should not be sent to those types of regions, ie. parts of Africa where the nuns are so vulnerable to sexual assault that they are now asking for birth control.
But here is the thing, religious authorities have been sending women into regions like those long before feminism and the masculinazation of women ever began and long before there ever was birth control.
I pointed to nuns being raped in the Belgian Congoe in the 1950s, I think it was. Or it might have been the 1960s.
Nuns were sent there because they were believed to have special gifts for ministry that were useful and particularly feminine, ie., running orphanages, educating wives in being good Christian mothers, etc.
And let's face it, I think about us finishing up our search process for a new priest, it is not as though they are Protestant religious who have a greater role in determining what jobs they will apply for.
But criticizing the nuns for taking birth control without recognizing their corresponding vulnerability at the hands of men who would not respect their charism, good works and celibacy, is troubling.
Failing to recognize that there are situations where women must protect themsleves from men's misogyny leads easily to those sorts of arguments where detractors to yell "misogynist!"
PVW here again.
And if we were to argue that to give them birth control means that we are opening them up to temptation means that on some level we see them as less trustworthy, that we don't really believe they will keep their vows.
The interesting thing, though, is that those very arguments are used in places in the Middle East that would deny women education, deny them the ability to drive, deny them medical care, subject them to honor kilings, attacks etc., for doing things that we take for granted in the West and which except in the most conservative of circles, is not taken to mean that women who do so are on the road to becoming sexual libertines.
Or at least, it has been years, decades, centuries, even, since more Westerners shared those views.
@ PVW,
I hear you!
I like your reasoning here, because it is very fair.
But I smailed at this:
"...and which except in the most conservative of circles, is not taken to mean that women who do so are on the road to becoming sexual libertines."
Um, did you mean to say that last bit? :-)
Now, please be clear, I am NOT saying that the out-of-control hook-up culture of today is singularly correlated to all the above 'privileges' of women you mention.
No!
But I am saying that with all these privileges came an attitude of 'rights and no responsibility' which is precisely why we are where we are today.
As I stated in the thread about educating women, I am NOT against educating women. I could never be. I myself have had an education afterall, and I think I am better off with it than without it. But I also believe that if I thought my education made me anything 'higher' than I should be with respect to a man, my education would have worked against me rather than for me.
That's the point I am trying to make.
With respect to the nuns, there is a caveat. For sure, I am perhaps emotionally reacting to nuns seeking contraceptives. That I would admit. I am not being totally logical on this topic. You know how I feel about nuns, or at least the idea of nuns. So any deviation from the little fantasy I have built up in my head about them really sets me on the path to war with whatever is upseting my utopic delusions :-)
But, that aside, it's not that I don't trust the nuns. No. If anything, it's more like I don't trust the men around them who might attack them, and in fact do attack them. And neither should the nuns themselves! So with this in mind, they shouldn't go to these places, and if they do, they should not see contraception as a way to mitigate the risk to them, because in fact, contraception takes care of only one aspect of the danger to them. What about disease prevention? And...in any case, what does it do to a potential rapist if he knows that the nun he is thinking about raping is 'protected'?
That's right, he is encouraged to go right ahead...
The nuns might be unwittingly increasing the danger to themselves by asking for contraception...
There are other ways to minimise the risk to them should they bite the bullet and seek to do God's work in highly dangerous places...
ST:
"...and which except in the most conservative of circles, is not taken to mean that women who do so are on the road to becoming sexual libertines."
Um, did you mean to say that last bit? :-)
Now, please be clear, I am NOT saying that the out-of-control hook-up culture of today is singularly correlated to all the above 'privileges' of women you mention.
No!
PVW replies:
I'm not saying you are, not at all, but let's face it, you are reasonable in your perspective that you can criticize certain aspects of women's progress in society but without going overboard and saying "ban all education for women."
And there are plenty of women like us, who blend the mix of modern and traditional fairly well, so that they maintain their femininity at the same time they are highly educated, capable and competent in the outer world.
But let's face it, whether they are tongue in cheek or doing it for shock value, there are some manosphere types who don't want to address the nuances but who instead are definitely in the direction of "ban it all," or who presume all women who are successful in non-traditional careers are "ball-busting, lesbians, not interested in familes, etc.," and their arguments sound misogynistic.
ST:
If anything, it's more like I don't trust the men around them who might attack them, and in fact do attack them. And neither should the nuns themselves! So with this in mind, they shouldn't go to these places, and if they do, they should not see contraception as a way to mitigate the risk to them, because in fact, contraception takes care of only one aspect of the danger to them. What about disease prevention? And...in any case, what does it do to a potential rapist if he knows that the nun he is thinking about raping is 'protected'?
That's right, he is encouraged to go right ahead...
Me: I agree, I don't think they should be there at all.
I also don't trust at all the men they are around, and I must admit as a somewhat irreverent ex-Catholic, that perhaps those who head the hieararchy (primarily male--me and my irreverance speaking) and who enable the women to go into those places should discontinue.
Isn't that what women religious are being told, that they are answerable to what the hierarchy of the Popes and bishops want, that they must tow the line, and that if they want what the hierarchy doesn't think is good for them, they need to be quiet?
So if they are not insisting on going into those places, why is the hiearchy permitting it? And if they are insisting, why isn't the hierarchy stopping it?
You are right, birth control will only do so much and not prevent diseases.
Yet, I don't think the potential rapists who might find out will care one way or the other whether they are on birth control; if they are determined to attack, they will. The goal is the attack.
Of course, if they were attacked, their convent razed to the ground and then kidnapped (as happened to individual women during the genocides in Rwanda who were kidnapped and then taken to rape camps), they might not have access to their birth control and pregnancy might follow anyway.
ST, If you are going to put together a post about misandry you may want to check out girlwriteswhat on youtube. I've just begun delving into her stuff and have been greatly educated.
She did a radio interview that may be worth a listen if you have the time. http://www.gnosticmedia.com/karen-of-girlwriteswhat-interview-the-femanist-fallacy-146/
There was information in there that enlightened me about how long things have really been skewed, things that enraged me and things that just made me weep.
Just wanted to pass this on to you. Now I have to finish reading all the comments and see if my mind comes up with anything of value to add.
@PVW
First of all, thank you for visiting my blog! I've replied to your comment and look forward to your response. :)
Now I'd like to address a great point you've made here:
Nuns were sent there because they were believed to have special gifts for ministry that were useful and particularly feminine, ie., running orphanages, educating wives in being good Christian mothers, etc.
But criticizing the nuns for taking birth control without recognizing their corresponding vulnerability at the hands of men who would not respect their charism, good works and celibacy, is troubling.
I agree that there are certain charisms and vocations that are "particularly feminine." This is why what I find troubling is that the nuns who have discerned those charisms and vocations are taking steps to make their bodies less feminine.
Obviously, we can't build cloisters for them wherever they go--and even during the Middle Ages, cloisters were often violated. But let's not pretend that the birth control pill is a kind of cloister for their own protection. There is nothing about the pill that will prevent rape.
If anything, the pill hints that the real villains in this scenario are not the rapists, but the women's own bodies or even their own children.
@ST
contraception takes care of only one aspect of the danger to them
It is true that there are many other awful aspects to rape, but I want to reiterate what I just said to PVW that my problem is that contraception implies that the real enemy is not the rapist but the woman's own body or the child who might be conceived.
Inasmuch as the birth control pill "masculinizes" a woman's body, it implies that there is something wrong with her body.
And inasmuch as it is designed not to prevent rape but to prevent pregnancy, it implies that the real evil is not the violent crime but the innocent child.
Hi, Bellita, PVW here,
I will try to glance at your response on your blog.
I see the arguments you are making and I understand them. I see where we diverge.
In birth control for the nuns, you see an attempt to masculinize a woman's body and make it less feminine, as though there is something wrong with it, where the enemy is not the rapist but her body and the child she might conceive.
But here is the thing, the nuns, through their avocation, are already rejecting, through celibacy, their normal functioning as women; they don't want sex, they don't want marriage, they don't want children.
But the rapists' violence would force that upon them. Of course, nothing in the pill will prevent rape. Their very femaleness, foreigness and affiliation with a powerful institution, not to forget, being in the wrong place at the wrong time (a war zone) might be what attracts their sexual assault.
So is it more troubling that they are using birth control where they might be vulnerable? Not to me.
Where I diverge is that I am troubled by the rapists of the nuns using their body against them in a way it was not intended by their charism, and that using of their bodies makes them vulnerable in that way because they are uniquely feminine.
Their bodies are not an enemy,their potential child is not the enemy, but the men are treating their femininity and their potential to have children like an enemy to be destroyed.
So yes, it is nice and idealistic to think about whether a woman's body is masculinized and treated like an enemy through birth control, but the reality says that is the exact goal the rapists have, to treat their body as an enemy! So why enable them to get their victory?
An example, with respect to the genocides in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia, rape as a war crime mattered because the culture saw forcing the woman of an enemy to bear the child of her enemy's people as the ultimate in destabilization: kill the men, rape the woman, and force them to bear their enemy's child. She is pushed out of the community as she is tained, the mother of the hated enemy.
I saw an exhibit about this, pictures of women who were in that very situation, from Rwanda, some of them with AIDs or not, but raising these children in poverty; if they had been married, their husbands no longer wanted them. Their families abandoned them, if there were an relatives who survived.
Now the nuns might not experience the exact same thing as Western women, but it is part of the continuum of the purpose in the sexual assault: destabilization to the woman and her community (of women and of religious people). Will she leave the religious order, keep the child, or give it up for adoption and stay in the order, or pursue some mix of all of that?
I also realize there is another difference here regarding birth control which can't be bridged, traditionalist Catholicism. Yet, the church fathers were apparently willing to let go of their adamant proscription for a unique circumstance such as this. I'm just not troubled by it.
And as far as I know, the Majesterium speaks, and that is it.
Don't get me wrong, in hierarchical Protestantism, everyone is answerable to the bishops. There is just more leeway and room for one's individual conscience; that is the way I like it. If there was less room for individual conscience, through specific policies, I would leave or stay and deal with it.
Misogyny, to me, is the hatred of women, the feminine, females.
Misogyny, to society, is any criticism, complaint, anything negative said about any woman, or all women.
Misogyny, to feminists, is anything they say it is.
The Navy Corpsman
"Sodini's case was sad, yes. He was a good-looking man with a great job and life, other than the lack of a woman by his side. He should have hung in there."
Every one of these men claims they have suffered long-term humiliation and shaming. The Korean guy who killed those 32 people was a stalker. Anders Brevik didn't like women. Sodini claimed he had been rejected and humiliated for decades.
I've met a fair number of men who don't particularly like women, and in each case they've been he objects of abuse by them.
In fact, I've met women who think it's okay to abuse men, although they never think it's abuse. They think it's justice or fairness or who knows what.
In fact I'm sometimes amazed there aren't more men who despise women.
@PVW
the nuns, through their avocation, are already rejecting, through celibacy, their normal functioning as women; they don't want sex, they don't want marriage, they don't want children.
I'm surprised that you should believe something like this, PWV, when you once said that you were raised Catholic. It is simply inaccurate to say that a woman who makes a vow of celibacy is "rejecting her normal functioning as a woman" . . . because women "function" normally whether or not they are having sex. Or are you saying that women who believe sex is only for marriage and so save it for their husbands, also "rejecting their normal functioning as women"?
Remember that there will be no sex in Heaven. What celibates, both male and female, are doing now is anticipating, while still on earth, that heavenly state and witnessing to it with their own bodies. Given that we recognize our bodies are fallen now and will only be fully "normal" (if you will) in Heaven, then celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is actually as "normal" as rightly ordered marriage is.
The use of artificial birth control makes as much a mockery of religious celibacy as it does of marriage.
So why enable [the rapists] to get their victory?
I do not at all condone enabling the rapists to get "their victory"--which is why I am against sending women into areas where the risk of rape is that great. And not just one-time attacks, but as you've pointed out, also kidnappings and rape camps. While it is true that women are needed for the more feminine vocations, it is far-fetched to think that they could fulfill those vocations in rape camps. Again, if the possibility of such an end is that high, then there are more reasons against sending them there than there are for sending them there.
This post and thread is just an example of why I am so glad to have found this blog. Keep these thought provoking subjects coming ST.
I am the first to admit that when I first began reading around the Manosphere, the anger going on I took it personally and took offense. I knew there were men who were hurt, I read the unjust things going on, but I didn’t feel I fit in with the descriptions of those women. I kept looking up terms, acronyms and learned very quickly there were a lot of men who didn’t see women very positively. From what I was reading I couldn’t blame them, they weren’t treated very respectfully by the women in their lives.
I kept reading, learning, understanding. I could see my mother in many of those writings, probably just about all the women in my family reflected in the writings I read from angry men and I went through a time when I really hated the family I came from, women and myself. I felt embarrassed to be a woman for a short time because just about everything I read on the Manosphere described what I’d seen my mother do to my father, do to other men and even do to my own husband. These were the very things she’d tried to instill in me even well into my adult life. I felt from her disappointment that I wasn’t ‘getting it’.
A short time after finding the Manosphere my dad passed away and I got angry at the things I read; my emotions drove my anger at women.
I am thankful that the pendulum never stays to one side; it swung back to a middle ground. I can’t hate women. I can’t hate men. I believe there are injustices in the legal system that makes life more difficult for men and doesn’t hold women as responsible for their choices and actions as they should. The more I read, research and learn, I don’t know if I could say there was ever a hatred toward women or that women were ever oppressed by men.
Misogyny? I believe this is propaganda used by the feminist agenda to push their beliefs. Misandry? I can’t say all women hate men, but I believe that women keep from men what they need most—respect. I believe that women know this and keep it withheld for a reason—control. From young girls we are taught to treat men in a way that will make us feel superior. The education system teaches it in spades. It teaches boys that they are not as worthy of the things that girls are. Look at all the entitlements women have in society that men do not. How many rules are changed to accommodate women over men. I believe all this feeds our greed and we want more.
I don’t believe men on the Manosphere hate women. I understand where they write from. I read many posts that come from anger and frustration but underneath I read a man who would love to feel respect from a woman. Even some I’ve read that stated that they would never marry, I see posting elsewhere and the undercurrent is that they do desire to find a woman who is different that they could share life with; but the risks are too great. As a woman posting in this area of the net I have to let a lot roll off my back. I have to watch the words I use because I don’t know where a hot spot might be for a man that if I sound too much like a woman who caused him pain, I might get some of this anger. I understand that.
With my eyes open I hope that my writings do not show hate, but that the information I glean educates as I feel this is the only way I can help make any difference. If the Manosphere has done one major thing in my life it’s that it has helped me to see my husband for who he is and to give him the respect he that should be his from his woman. Each day I read is a reminder to me of how I need to conduct myself, take responsibility and hopefully be an example to those around me.
Okay, in my emotional outpour above I forgot to add something I wanted to say about the link I gave further up. I haven't looked around the site so I cannot endorse anything there other than the one radio program that I linked to.
With regards to the middle east and education:
I think education is good for women as long as the society is able to achieve balance in how it views and enables women to fulfill and find happiness in the roles they fill in society as mothers and caretakers.
If you look into the history of the middle east, they did this quiet well for centuries, where as western culture crashe and burned fairly quickly after letting women get educated.
They did this by making it very clear in laws and social expectations that a womans purpose was to raise a family and that any education was to further that goal. This was supported by the requirement of traditional garb as well as a social structure that strengthens mens leadership.
The current situation in the middle easts culture is them reacting to a very de-stabilizing westernization that has been forced on them by outside countries. You see moderates surrounded by fanatics on all sides with beliefs of how the country should best be run.
@Jacqui
Che Bello !!!
@Jacquie… re: your comments above at August 23, 2012 11:48AM…
Outstanding! Thank you!!!
“… I believe that women keep from men what they need most—respect …”
You nailed it 100% there.
“…With my eyes open I hope that my writings do not show hate…”
As a man I also take great pains to insure what I write on this subject does not show or incite hate. “Disagree without drawing blood” so to speak.
I’ve seen so many discussions fall apart because one party just couldn’t help but throw in a gratuitous insult at the other. Both genders do this. Then what started with the potential to be a great thought provoking discussion deteriorates into a mindless spat.
Intelligent conversation, done in an atmosphere of mutual respect, between parties with different viewpoints, is more powerful at effecting change than any emotionally charged rant.
Grasshopper
@PVW
the nuns, through their avocation, are already rejecting, through celibacy, their normal functioning as women; they don't want sex, they don't want marriage, they don't want children.
I'm surprised that you should believe something like this, PWV, when you once said that you were raised Catholic. It is simply inaccurate to say that a woman who makes a vow of celibacy is "rejecting her normal functioning as a woman" . . . because women "function" normally whether or not they are having sex. Or are you saying that women who believe sex is only for marriage and so save it for their husbands, also "rejecting their normal functioning as women"?
My reply:
When I say the normal functioning of women, I am speaking about what more women aspire to than not, in their lives on earth: marriage to men and children.
A woman who is a celibate religious is not open to that possibility, unless she were to give up her vows. Of course, women who are celibate and anticipating sex with their husbands exclusively are not rejecting their normal functioning as women because they anticipate in their life on this earth, eventual experience with sexuality through their husbands.
And yes, I'm with you in not sending women religious into those locations.
Have an example of a woman I had a conversation with about sexual harassment while in a foreign country. While not directly 'raped' or anything, I think it is likely a great example of some things to do, and MANY things not to do, when addressing someone facing these situations by choice.
It's the latter half of the post, not the start. Though you can obviously read and respond to that part as well if desired.
Things like this are definitely why I keep my "Leap of a Beta" tag. Freaking messed up a few times in these conversations. I'll get it sooner or later.
Forgot to link. For your ease and enjoyment.
http://stagedreality.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/facebook-examples/
@ Marellus ……Thank you.
@ Grasshopper
“ I’ve seen so many discussions fall apart because one party just couldn’t help but throw in a gratuitous insult at the other. Both genders do this. Then what started with the potential to be a great thought provoking discussion deteriorates into a mindless spat.
Intelligent conversation, done in an atmosphere of mutual respect, between parties with different viewpoints, is more powerful at effecting change than any emotionally charged rant.”
Exactly. And I have been guilty of getting emotionally charged. For almost two years it’s been a learning process for me to separate fact from emotion, to change the way I think things through and question what I am writing or saying before I respond. Especially once I began posting in these parts of the net. With my husband I get much more latitude than from those on the other side of my computer screen. The thrust of my message, especially for women, whenever I can work it in is, ‘Be respectful and responsible.’ I must be this way with my husband and live it out in every area of my own life; I believe it’s what has made the biggest difference in my marriage. And keeping it in mind while engaging with others online or off is just as important. I will not get it right every time, but that is where I need to show respect and responsibility the most, own up to my stuff and make it right to the best of my ability.
@Jacquie,
Thank you for recommending 'Girl Writes What'. I shall check her out more. I already saw a few of her videos as referenced by some Manosphere sites. She certainly has a lot to say, lol. Her long posts/videos remind me of someone else who shall remain nameless :P
Thank you also for the compliment regarding the post. I must say, the comments make the post. I never dreamed the direction of the discussion would take the interesting turns it has. I would never have guessed it from the OP itself!
So thank you everyone who has taken part.
So many great ideas to bounce off each other...
I second Grasshopper's thoughts on your comment of August 23 11:48 AM.
That should be one of my (lifelong) mantras. And it will be.
And Jacquie, you achieved the impossible: You managed to get Marellus to post a 'normal' comment!
;-)
@ Bellita,
"Remember that there will be no sex in Heaven."
Nooooooo! You should have told this to the terrorists who are expecting 70 virgins in the afterlife...
:-)
@ Bob,
"In fact I'm sometimes amazed there aren't more men who despise women."
Well Bob, I find myself agreeing with you there. Which saddens me. Big fail on the part of women as a whole.
Now you may wonder why I stop here.
The reason is, if anyone asks me: Why is the reverse scenario not also true?
And my reply to that would be:
If women are despising men, big fail on the part of women.
I know why I say this. It is very much part of a little-regarded double-standard.
But as no-one is challenging me on this (yet), I won't go there...(yet).
@ PVW,
Believe it or not, I 'teased' Bellita on this issue on her blog, in a half-jocular fashion.
But she soon put me right lol.
AS she explained, it is the intention that counts, not the result (which is of course the same in both cases).
A nun is a 'special case', and her 'rejection' of the normal functioning of her body may well be seen as 'weird' to some of us (I am not suggesting that you view it this way), but her 'Holy Orders' sacrament covers that in the eyes of God who created us all (does this make sense?). A single and celibate woman (for life) similarly has a certain vocation to the single life. A single and celibate woman (for the meantime untl she finds a suitable husband) you already covered in your reply, and I agree with what you say about her. A single and not celibate woman is doing something wrong, and is of course what Bellita is talking about. Of course we all understand the nature of human sexuality and how hard it is to stay celibate...
We don't judge...but we are allowed to opine, no? If a nun takes the Pill (even in reaction to an impending rape), she reduces her 'status' to just another woman wanting to prevent a new life. (Now, I happen to think that in the context of medical care following a rape, contraceptive care even for a nun is justified - am I contradicting myself somewhat here???) I think perhaps the 'prospective' as opposed to the retrospective aspet of this might be part of what Bellita is getting at. Please correct me if I am wrong, Bell. I want to understand this well.
If I am right about this, then what Bell is saying is that this single act of Pill-popping shifts the issue from 'rape-consequences-mitigating' to 'enemising the body of the woman'. (Um, I eneded up creating a new word here, lol. 'Enemising' in the sense of 'enemey-making' is the intent of course, rather than the 'enema' it sounds more like alluding to :P).
@ Leap,
I am still messing up big time on this issue. I need to keep stepping away from the platform and going 'back to the drawing board time and time again.' I need to incentivise all this, so that I can start to gain motivation to do it right for once!
Thanks for the link - I enjoyed reading it.
@ Jacquie again,
"The thrust of my message, especially for women, whenever I can work it in is, ‘Be respectful and responsible.’ "
Another gem from you, Jacquie.
Thank you. This is great advice that goes straight into my treasure cove (along with all of JV's gems :-)
@ST
And Jacquie, you achieved the impossible: You managed to get Marellus to post a 'normal' comment!
I’m glad he did here. He put one over on my blog that I’m still trying to figure out…and I’m a little afraid to ask for clarification; not sure what the answer will be. lol
@ Jacquie,
I see what you mean.
Hahahahahaha!
Good luck.
(And I have a feeling you will need it :-)
Hi, ST, PVW here.
Thanks for adding some extra context to what Bellita was describing about the nuns and birth control.
Something interesting happened this weekend that reminded me of what Jacquie wrote.
We were out of town visiting relatives who are still Catholic. Out of respect, we went to services with them.
Very interesting.
The 2nd reading from the New Testament, prior to the Gospel, was from Ephesians 5, source of the wifely "submission" language.
Most people who are dedicated to quoting the "submission" language seem to miss something that I saw in the reading.
What I found key was that even though I have joked about the husband and I pursuing "mutual submission" in practice without explicitly deciding to do so, the text prior to wifely submission states that the message is about mutual submission, while what follows explains how that is to be done.
Mutual submission means wives are to submit and respect; husbands as the head are to submit by living as Godly men who love their wives.
I remember joking that as a mainline Protestant heretic, our mutual submission results in seeing ourselves as equal heads--we are on one team as co-captains,so to speak, with different strengths, abilities and roles which we fulfill through love and respect for each other.
What I have found is that in the worst situations of unhappily married couples that I have known, wives lost seemed to lose respect for their husbands because there was something major going on.
I can think of husbands who pursued infidelity and had children outside of their marriages, resulting in girlfriends and children who then had legal claim to resources which should have gone to the wife and her children, or husbands were incredibly bad with finances and who thus jeopardized their family's financial stability.
The wives were better with finances, but the husbands refused to listen to their wives' counsel in trying to improve things--the sort of arrogance that rejects mutual submission, in my view.
Leap of Beta:
They did this by making it very clear in laws and social expectations that a womans purpose was to raise a family and that any education was to further that goal. This was supported by the requirement of traditional garb as well as a social structure that strengthens mens leadership.
My reply (PVW):
I've been reading Nancy Cott (women's historian): Bonds of Womanhood: "Woman's Sphere" in New England, 1780-1835, and that is exactly how evangelical Protestants in the period of the Second Great awakening could support women's education.
As long as women's education could support women's work in the "separate sphere" of the home, it was fine.
The "separate sphere" of the home got extended to participation in the public sphere (especially in the late 19th c.), insofar as certain types of reform movements (my current project is on reform movements among married women in the 19th c.) could be reconciled with women's traditional responsibilities in the home, ie., fighting against child labor, opposing vice, supporting married women's rights to their separate property, and supporting temperence.
@ PVW,
Thanks for a beautiful way of describing how it should be done.
Yes it goes both ways, and as you say, in different ways.
Spacetraveller said...
@ PVW,
Thanks for a beautiful way of describing how it should be done.
From PVW:
You're welcome! It certainly gave me lots of "food for thought" and fun biblical exegisis of the type from when I did my theological studies.
One, is this an indication of a very early cultural understanding about the different needs that men and women might have in relationships: women, to be loved, men, to be respected?
Should this rule hold today? For most couples today, the goal is mutual love and respect.
What would be the benefit or the danger of an older understanding of women going into marriage knowing they are not in love with their husbands?
There are women who do that today, of course, but the question then is whether they respect them enough to treat the men well in marriage and to stay around.
So Jacquie was getting at the manosphere complaint, that women marry men they don't respect and might not even love, ie., the former carousel rider who finds the "AFR" to marry her when she feels ready. So she has no qualms about leaving when something better comes along--someone she feels she can respect and love.
Then I thought about another social, cultural and historical context.
I imagined this was a time when more people might have had arranged marriages, and so, why the different requirements of men and women?
Could it have been that in arranged marriages, there was/should be a greater social imperative of respect from wife to husband; she doesn't know him, she might not love him, and might not have been expected to?
But she did owe him respect for the obligations he would undertake, to leave his parents' home (that is included in the biblical text as well) and start a new household with her.
But him, being in a more powerful position as a man, has a different obligation, "to love?" That might have been the case since she is a woman who is putting much faith and trust in a man whom she must respect to survive--she is moving into a stranger's home and undertaking lots of obligations, to live with him, take care of his home and have his children....
Post a Comment