When I first began studying women's history and issues over forty years ago, I read about a study where a group of researchers asked college men what was the worst thing that could happen on a date. The men said she could laugh at me. When they asked college women the same question, the women said he could kill me. Huge difference and it appears little has changed.
I didn't watch the tiktok; it sounded too disturbing. I did read the linked Moira Donegan article; it was quite disturbing.
This seems to be building up to be a pivotal moment in history. When men resort to anger, and violence, it's because that's the only resource they have left. It's a sign not of strength but of weakness. Take note of Vladimir Putin, for example.
But, just like with Russia, a death spiral unleashes a lot of collateral destruction. It might not be avoidable. I'm not sure how we achieve the triumph, but I'm pretty sure we must be not afraid. Which is of course much easier to say than to do.
I like your analogy. Bullies are bullies whether the jerk guy at the gym or the leader of an invading country. They feel so entitled to get what they want that anger and retaliation are their go to response to losing. The normal toddler can be given time out when they fail to accept boundaries but what do you do with a grown up toddler?
It's a difficult problem. I'm just thinking that the only advantage they have is their willingness to use violence. Because in every other way they're showing they've already conceded the argument. I think we have to try to keep ourselves safe, while using our intellect and moral high ground to our advantage. It's scary right now because it seems like almost half the population (and not just in this country) wants to throw that death spiral tantrum. It does feel so much like it's coming to be a pivotal moment, which means both great opportunity and great danger.
It's normally difficult for me to keep calm :) but for some reason this was the response I came to, so I'll take the inspiration!
Yes, that’s how I feel. Pendulum swinging out of control. Yeats’ spiraling down, The Second Coming. The problem is that if we use violence we join them and then it is done.
If self defence requires violence but within your own boundary is that the acceptable consequence of the other’s attack? I can’t be a complete pacifist because unchecked attack is not only bad for the victim but also bad for the attacker. Uncontrolled violence leads to anarchy, the individual meltdown contributes to societal meltdown.
Oh, definitely. I'm not against it at all; it's just that in my calmer, rational moments, it occurs to me that violence is the only area in which the other side might have an advantage, so it may be smarter to fight fire with water than with fire. Figuring out what that means in practice is the trick.
I just go back to Silvia Federici’s Caliban and the Witch, where she makes it evident that terrorizing women was a crucial tool for setting up the capitalist patriarchy and was basically honed as a tool in empire building for the white male capitalist patriarchy later. It’s a bit like “follow the money.” Who is the fear of male rage performed for and who does it benefit?
I remember reading Edward Shorter's 'The making of the modern family' at uni and his idea that the nuclear family as we know it now was a construct developed in the Industrial Revolution. Factories needed workers that showed up on time, every day, and for these men to have wives (and children) at home was part of the strategy of turning them into wage slaves. This, of course, also chained women to the house as much as it chained men to the factories.
Having said that, I'd still say that terrorising women as a cultural-societal strategy is way older than capitalism or colonialism. The monotheistic desert tribes weaponised misogyny way, way earlier.
Monotheism is basically the root of capitalism so this strategy of terror may be older than capitalism has been evolving over a long time and I just want to point to moments where it was obviously more systematized and deployed broadly in ways history can point to.
And yeah I’m sure there are men who understand what a poison testosterone can be but they’re outnumbered by the ones who blame women, unfortunately.
It’s men who have to do something about themselves. Men, tell your friends they’re ruining the world.
They don't seem to be properly motivated, or, at least, not enough of us, yet. I wonder to what extent we need to think more about how to fix that. Far too many men are reacting badly to changes from traditional male roles. (And for that matter it's upset a significant minority of women too, who for whatever reason prefer the old ways.)
You are right, of course, both about the way monotheism & capitalism form a poisonous whole - and the fact that it is the criminal who is responsible for paying for his crimes and then rehabilitating himself, and not the victim who should be held responsible to make & kiss everything better.
(One of the more distasteful, sick-joke aspects of the patriarchy is just that: how it withholds all meaningful power from women but still demands that women 'keep things together.' So, no power to change civilisation but somehow blessed from above with men-civilising qualities.)
It makes sense, but to your point that it turns out to be much older, that's why I often wonder, or worry, how much of it is biological rather than cultural-societal. I'm a broken record on this (does anyone still use that idiom?) but I always say testosterone is a poison and males are dangerous, throughout the animal kingdom. Neutered males make great pets though. I'm not sure what that insight means for humanity.
VERY long response.... and nerdy... so feel very free to ignore.
With discussions about biological versus cultural-societal you soon get into chicken versus egg territory; and the two are so linked that it is not much practical use delving too deeply into them.
I agree testosterone is a problem, with its link to (sexual) violence - but it becomes a near unsurmountable problem, when the group with the testosterone has all the power. Contra-intuitively, that is an argument that the societal problems we have may be more human than male/female, since who's to say that if women had been physically dominant from the start, it would not have been some female 'attribute' that had caused human society's woes - and if you look at secluded girls' and women's groups (like certain types of schools and nunneries) you see that those communities are seldom peaceful*.
Anyway, none of the above matters in a practical sense, because we have developed one 'weapon' against the tyranny of personal impulse and that is civilisation. Most of human societies have been rule-based to some extent, with some near universal principles guiding them: 'Thou shalt not kill or steal from others (of the same tribe)' being the main ones. The longer a society is at peace (and has enough creature necessities & comforts) the more civilising rules there will be developed.
One caveat: civilisation is never a given. In Dutch the word for civilisation is 'beschaving' and 'schaven' means 'to plane', as in planing wood. So, civilisation is a form of planing & sanding; removing the destructive edges of the human animal - and this works but it is not a one time fix. For civilisations to survive we need to respect, maintain and know how to use these tools. The moment we start thinking our societies don't need that kind of constant upkeep, they start to die.
So, yes, it is extremely worrying to see how so many in the West are turning their back on even the principle of shared knowledge, on the intrinsic value of other individuals & groups, and on public spaces and communal responsibilities. All those are necessary for a civilisation to survive...
... so coming back to your original point about nature versus nurture (so to speak), you are right that some natural 'features' are important but I fear the breaking down of proper societal nurture more - since it's only the latter that can keep the former under some sort of control.
*Going further into rabbit hole territory, you can, not unreasonably, argue that these female groups copy the structures of the dominant social group, the way this can happen within enslaved groups of people... but I suspect it's humans as a species who don't play well together.
My concern would be that men have always been dominant in civilization. (Maybe anthropologists can point to some isolated groups where that's not the case but idk) So what we're trying is new territory for the species. And the question is just, can it be done, the same as it's been for every other human achievement. To the extent that conservatives have an 'argument', it's that it can't, because that's the natural order of things. I reject that - every progress has had naysayers - but I just wonder if we need new and better civilizational tools to keep men in line. Telling them to behave themselves doesn't seem to be working.
Well, I'm not optimistic but it can be done. I'm with an old-fashioned strand of feminism that stated that first you need to change the law and that hearts & minds follow in their own good time.
I have always agreed with that - and there is at least some proof that this works. If you look at something like gay marriage, that would have been unthinkable fifty years ago. Yet the laws changed and then attitudes changed.
Another example is drink driving. Changes in the law (combined with solid government campaigns) turned something that was considered normal into something you don't do (for most people anyway.)
So change, and big change is possible: look at things like the abolition of slavery, women's right to have & inherit property and the right to vote. Those things were once considered to be utterly unthinkable, and yet they happened.
I'm not saying the same will happen with sexual violence - we would first have to have better laws, then better law officers and better judges, and we would need parents to teach their sons that any kind of sexual violence/intimidation is as much beyond the pale as any other hate crime - but it could, if we (if enough people in power, i.e. men) want it...
... but we know how to do it: change the law and uphold the new law.
I don't disagree, but to give one example that really bothers me: in 1973, we changed the law in the U.S. with Roe v Wade. 49 years later, on current trend the situation in 2023 may be worse than it was in 1972. That shouldn't happen.
I was reading about psychological safety when I received this and I feel like a nit-picky bitch for wanting to point out that safe and psychologically safe are different. I'm glad she's safe, I'm glad lots of us escaped to physical safety. But oooh boy do I wish boys and men/the patriarchy allowed us more psychological safety.
There is an excellent book called "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker who is a security specialist to large corporations. It was given to me when I was in my twenties and working for a home care provider in the Bronx. It's an easy read that helps people recognize threats and methods of manipulation used by predators toward their victims. I agree that it's horrible to have to know this type of information but it's also essential that we use all the tools we can to protect ourselves. I highly recommend it for women of all ages.
Thank You. I will be sharing it with family and friends, particularly ones with children of both sexes. I'm adding a note asking, "How are we going to stop this?"
It is absolutely horrible but you're right. The world will not be a safe place for women, or girls, not in our lifetimes, quite possibly never.
That doesn't mean we should ever stop fighting for positive change, and at least for better government, and better laws, and more inclusive officers of the law... but it is also our sad duty to prepare children for the world that is, not the world we'd want it to be.
When I first began studying women's history and issues over forty years ago, I read about a study where a group of researchers asked college men what was the worst thing that could happen on a date. The men said she could laugh at me. When they asked college women the same question, the women said he could kill me. Huge difference and it appears little has changed.
I didn't watch the tiktok; it sounded too disturbing. I did read the linked Moira Donegan article; it was quite disturbing.
This seems to be building up to be a pivotal moment in history. When men resort to anger, and violence, it's because that's the only resource they have left. It's a sign not of strength but of weakness. Take note of Vladimir Putin, for example.
But, just like with Russia, a death spiral unleashes a lot of collateral destruction. It might not be avoidable. I'm not sure how we achieve the triumph, but I'm pretty sure we must be not afraid. Which is of course much easier to say than to do.
I like your analogy. Bullies are bullies whether the jerk guy at the gym or the leader of an invading country. They feel so entitled to get what they want that anger and retaliation are their go to response to losing. The normal toddler can be given time out when they fail to accept boundaries but what do you do with a grown up toddler?
It's a difficult problem. I'm just thinking that the only advantage they have is their willingness to use violence. Because in every other way they're showing they've already conceded the argument. I think we have to try to keep ourselves safe, while using our intellect and moral high ground to our advantage. It's scary right now because it seems like almost half the population (and not just in this country) wants to throw that death spiral tantrum. It does feel so much like it's coming to be a pivotal moment, which means both great opportunity and great danger.
It's normally difficult for me to keep calm :) but for some reason this was the response I came to, so I'll take the inspiration!
Yes, that’s how I feel. Pendulum swinging out of control. Yeats’ spiraling down, The Second Coming. The problem is that if we use violence we join them and then it is done.
Yes, that's the risk - defense without violence. It's difficult because the news the last six years makes me increasingly angry with them.
If self defence requires violence but within your own boundary is that the acceptable consequence of the other’s attack? I can’t be a complete pacifist because unchecked attack is not only bad for the victim but also bad for the attacker. Uncontrolled violence leads to anarchy, the individual meltdown contributes to societal meltdown.
Oh, definitely. I'm not against it at all; it's just that in my calmer, rational moments, it occurs to me that violence is the only area in which the other side might have an advantage, so it may be smarter to fight fire with water than with fire. Figuring out what that means in practice is the trick.
I just go back to Silvia Federici’s Caliban and the Witch, where she makes it evident that terrorizing women was a crucial tool for setting up the capitalist patriarchy and was basically honed as a tool in empire building for the white male capitalist patriarchy later. It’s a bit like “follow the money.” Who is the fear of male rage performed for and who does it benefit?
I remember reading Edward Shorter's 'The making of the modern family' at uni and his idea that the nuclear family as we know it now was a construct developed in the Industrial Revolution. Factories needed workers that showed up on time, every day, and for these men to have wives (and children) at home was part of the strategy of turning them into wage slaves. This, of course, also chained women to the house as much as it chained men to the factories.
Having said that, I'd still say that terrorising women as a cultural-societal strategy is way older than capitalism or colonialism. The monotheistic desert tribes weaponised misogyny way, way earlier.
Monotheism is basically the root of capitalism so this strategy of terror may be older than capitalism has been evolving over a long time and I just want to point to moments where it was obviously more systematized and deployed broadly in ways history can point to.
And yeah I’m sure there are men who understand what a poison testosterone can be but they’re outnumbered by the ones who blame women, unfortunately.
It’s men who have to do something about themselves. Men, tell your friends they’re ruining the world.
They don't seem to be properly motivated, or, at least, not enough of us, yet. I wonder to what extent we need to think more about how to fix that. Far too many men are reacting badly to changes from traditional male roles. (And for that matter it's upset a significant minority of women too, who for whatever reason prefer the old ways.)
You are right, of course, both about the way monotheism & capitalism form a poisonous whole - and the fact that it is the criminal who is responsible for paying for his crimes and then rehabilitating himself, and not the victim who should be held responsible to make & kiss everything better.
(One of the more distasteful, sick-joke aspects of the patriarchy is just that: how it withholds all meaningful power from women but still demands that women 'keep things together.' So, no power to change civilisation but somehow blessed from above with men-civilising qualities.)
It makes sense, but to your point that it turns out to be much older, that's why I often wonder, or worry, how much of it is biological rather than cultural-societal. I'm a broken record on this (does anyone still use that idiom?) but I always say testosterone is a poison and males are dangerous, throughout the animal kingdom. Neutered males make great pets though. I'm not sure what that insight means for humanity.
VERY long response.... and nerdy... so feel very free to ignore.
With discussions about biological versus cultural-societal you soon get into chicken versus egg territory; and the two are so linked that it is not much practical use delving too deeply into them.
I agree testosterone is a problem, with its link to (sexual) violence - but it becomes a near unsurmountable problem, when the group with the testosterone has all the power. Contra-intuitively, that is an argument that the societal problems we have may be more human than male/female, since who's to say that if women had been physically dominant from the start, it would not have been some female 'attribute' that had caused human society's woes - and if you look at secluded girls' and women's groups (like certain types of schools and nunneries) you see that those communities are seldom peaceful*.
Anyway, none of the above matters in a practical sense, because we have developed one 'weapon' against the tyranny of personal impulse and that is civilisation. Most of human societies have been rule-based to some extent, with some near universal principles guiding them: 'Thou shalt not kill or steal from others (of the same tribe)' being the main ones. The longer a society is at peace (and has enough creature necessities & comforts) the more civilising rules there will be developed.
One caveat: civilisation is never a given. In Dutch the word for civilisation is 'beschaving' and 'schaven' means 'to plane', as in planing wood. So, civilisation is a form of planing & sanding; removing the destructive edges of the human animal - and this works but it is not a one time fix. For civilisations to survive we need to respect, maintain and know how to use these tools. The moment we start thinking our societies don't need that kind of constant upkeep, they start to die.
So, yes, it is extremely worrying to see how so many in the West are turning their back on even the principle of shared knowledge, on the intrinsic value of other individuals & groups, and on public spaces and communal responsibilities. All those are necessary for a civilisation to survive...
... so coming back to your original point about nature versus nurture (so to speak), you are right that some natural 'features' are important but I fear the breaking down of proper societal nurture more - since it's only the latter that can keep the former under some sort of control.
*Going further into rabbit hole territory, you can, not unreasonably, argue that these female groups copy the structures of the dominant social group, the way this can happen within enslaved groups of people... but I suspect it's humans as a species who don't play well together.
My concern would be that men have always been dominant in civilization. (Maybe anthropologists can point to some isolated groups where that's not the case but idk) So what we're trying is new territory for the species. And the question is just, can it be done, the same as it's been for every other human achievement. To the extent that conservatives have an 'argument', it's that it can't, because that's the natural order of things. I reject that - every progress has had naysayers - but I just wonder if we need new and better civilizational tools to keep men in line. Telling them to behave themselves doesn't seem to be working.
Well, I'm not optimistic but it can be done. I'm with an old-fashioned strand of feminism that stated that first you need to change the law and that hearts & minds follow in their own good time.
I have always agreed with that - and there is at least some proof that this works. If you look at something like gay marriage, that would have been unthinkable fifty years ago. Yet the laws changed and then attitudes changed.
Another example is drink driving. Changes in the law (combined with solid government campaigns) turned something that was considered normal into something you don't do (for most people anyway.)
So change, and big change is possible: look at things like the abolition of slavery, women's right to have & inherit property and the right to vote. Those things were once considered to be utterly unthinkable, and yet they happened.
I'm not saying the same will happen with sexual violence - we would first have to have better laws, then better law officers and better judges, and we would need parents to teach their sons that any kind of sexual violence/intimidation is as much beyond the pale as any other hate crime - but it could, if we (if enough people in power, i.e. men) want it...
... but we know how to do it: change the law and uphold the new law.
I don't disagree, but to give one example that really bothers me: in 1973, we changed the law in the U.S. with Roe v Wade. 49 years later, on current trend the situation in 2023 may be worse than it was in 1972. That shouldn't happen.
I was reading about psychological safety when I received this and I feel like a nit-picky bitch for wanting to point out that safe and psychologically safe are different. I'm glad she's safe, I'm glad lots of us escaped to physical safety. But oooh boy do I wish boys and men/the patriarchy allowed us more psychological safety.
There is an excellent book called "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker who is a security specialist to large corporations. It was given to me when I was in my twenties and working for a home care provider in the Bronx. It's an easy read that helps people recognize threats and methods of manipulation used by predators toward their victims. I agree that it's horrible to have to know this type of information but it's also essential that we use all the tools we can to protect ourselves. I highly recommend it for women of all ages.
ugh, ain't it the truth.
Thank You. I will be sharing it with family and friends, particularly ones with children of both sexes. I'm adding a note asking, "How are we going to stop this?"
It is absolutely horrible but you're right. The world will not be a safe place for women, or girls, not in our lifetimes, quite possibly never.
That doesn't mean we should ever stop fighting for positive change, and at least for better government, and better laws, and more inclusive officers of the law... but it is also our sad duty to prepare children for the world that is, not the world we'd want it to be.