Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Masculine, feminine and duality

Posted January 7th, 2011 by Kori Brus in opinion
In Reference to:
The Need for Men's Liberation

This is one of the most important lectures here, and I'm grateful to hear such a frank discussion of one of the least talked about problems in our society. Ken says in it that he's surprised at "this strange lack, or incapacity, of feminists to apply their own conclusions in a more evenhanded way, and across the board, and look at both sexes with the same eye of fairness and justice and balance. In the 1960s it was just kind of an interesting imbalance, by the year 2000 its become a moral outrage."

 
I have a particular bias in this type of issue. So for the sake of transparency - I'm a 6'6" white male, with above average intelligence, and most seem to say, above average good looks. By the books I should be part of the privileged, but its rarely if ever been the case. Primarily I've spent my life providing for myself, earning between 10% and 40% less than I should given my job, role and sector, with available objective opportunities far behind others in my life, both male and female. 
 
I'm bemoaning that, but its not my primary point. It leads to a couple of additions to Ken and Warren's discussion. First, as best I can tell a major reason for this is that I've mostly chosen to follow my heart rather than role. I've moved with my talents, which has led me to the non-profit sector in the communications field rather than something lucrative such as tech, engineering or finance - a risk factor Ken and Warren identify in this lecture. So be it. The point is that the so called advantages some accuse me of having have not translated success, and my own path (at this point) has closed off other opportunities to move into something more lucrative - affecting both material security and, quite frankly, dating desirability. Others have found the same, many others have stuck to accepted roles to avoid the problem. A major issue is the lack of value placed on other roles, or more openly, a lack of ability to value roles outside of material success on all sides of the spectrum.
 
The second thing is that while Ken notes the strange lack of capacity for feminists to apply conclusions more broadly, I don't find this surprising. No matter how well intentioned, principle usually doesn't win the day. Mostly, people are anchored and loyal to scripts and any successful script (story or role) requires an in-group and an out-group. Framing an in-group is one of the easiest methods to security, and any in-group required an out-group to define itself against. Feminism can offer an easy road to frame a female vs male in-group/out-group relationship, and that's a lot of seduction and ease of identity to turn away from for many people - both male and female. Or on the shadow side, it provides an absolutely terrific hook.
 
On a mild tangent, I see similar thing at my work in the environmental sector. As Ken has pointed out in various writing, environmentalists are often guilty of placing Gaia at the top of the value spectrum in a flatland "web of life". In addition to flatlanding values, this frames another easy in-group/out-group relationship that's very poisonous - the environment is the value, people are the problem. When that framing is done by people against other people ("environmentalists" against the so called "non-environmentalists", "capitalists" or others) it makes for very spooky shadow that's destructive to both the environmental cause and other people.  
 
Scripts are only a framing tool. They're always partial, and potentially destructive when they form a rigid dualism. And it's a problem of dualism - male vs female - that the main point of this lecture hinges on. 

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

good

Posted January 7th, 2011 by Ambo Suno

Kori, good stuff. Yes, what you say about the valuing and devaluing of roles sounds true. Good that you're pursuing your interests anyway.

"A major issue is the lack of value placed on other roles, or more openly, a lack of ability to value roles outside of material success on all sides of the spectrum." I suppose that from the survivalist roots of existence, the valuing of material, even in gradations from more essential and valuable to less, gets a foothold. Once we leave the immediate pressure of survival, the habits of valuing thusly may persist. Do you think that this is a part of it?

ambo

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

good stuff

Posted January 8th, 2011 by kbd2005

cool.  i agree.  sometimes i feel like i inherited karma from people i don't like, older men (sometimes dead men) who i never agreed with but somehow have to pay for their actions. 

 

anyway, don't know if this is what you meant by "i have to work dumb down jobs" or if that phrase was ever used.  just my interp.

best, stick around.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

As a true feminist

Posted February 3rd, 2012 by Leila Shogaei

As a true feminist, I like to say that we have gotten our wires crossed in the year 2000; the whole concept of the sexual revolution was to give women tools to compete with men in a world which was and generally still is heavily skewed.  Because one can never really take away the true rolls of men and women, so with the laws so heavily skewed in favor of women, men in the work force have begun to try and undermine women as much as possible professionally and personally.  This is chaos incarnate, also we have not really give women the tools to be equals, with these laws we are simply coddling them through their daily corporate lives.  We excuse their weaknesses instead of teaching them to be strong, productive individuals through life’s challenges, be it as a home maker or a CEO.  So we continue to create nonsensical rules to accommodate our inconsistent nature.  The same thing applies to environmetalists and capitalists.  We are always being silly in our endeavors in life, now I do not know much about environmentalism, but I am sure living out of a box is difficult for anyone.  All we can do as people is try to be good.  As for profitability and personal relationships, thoes are things that are very relative, and in this day and age anyone who is going to date based on the bottom line of a balancesheet is in big trouble, because that aint going to last.  Trust me, I have tried this roll of dice before.  Your success can only be judged by your self and how you feel about that will attract your potential mate.  Don't worry, be happy concept applies to every case here.  Environment has been here before us and it will be here after us and we do not get burried with money in our pockets.  That is my two $$ on this matter.