In the old days, we acknowledged this mismatch. For instance, we had separate dorms at college and a culture that supported marriage before sex. It was understood how men and women interacted and who had the advantage in which situation.
Once we threw that away, when we decided men and women were equal instead of complementary, vulnerable, insecure women became easy prey. They weren't supposed to be vulnerable and insecure, they were supposed to be strong and independent. If you weren't, you had to fake it because merely intimating you couldn't stand up to a man was an apostasy worthy of public ridicule.
In my experience, public ridicule is just about the worst thing in the world for most women.
So here we are, making political points out of a failure to acknowledge a simple equation. It's not that Roy Moore is a predatory, right-wing swine. He is. It's not that George Takei is a hypocritical, left-wing creep. He is. It's that we all decided to deny reality together and put women and little boys in this position, sneering at them as weaklings when they objected and said they couldn't be expected to stand up to the Weinsteins and Spaceys of the world.
 |
| It's perfectly normal for women to beat up men in close combat. Dealing with Harvey Weinstein should be no big deal. |
In the old days, we demanded that men channel their manhood into being gentlemen. Their strength, decisiveness, aggression and sexual instincts would be slightly redirected to the protection and veneration of women. That worked and could work again. This denial of biology is never going to work at all. You may stop some of the assaults, but you'll end up with emasculated wimps for men.
 |
| Whoops. We're already there. Protect and provide has changed into video games and porn. |
2 comments:
-- Once we threw that away, when we decided men and women were equal instead of complementary, vulnerable, insecure women became easy prey. --
To my mind, the very worst aspect of this -- ethically -- was the encouragement women received from men to believe themselves men's equals in all things. They most assuredly are not -- and their particular strengths can never, ever compensate for men's greater strength, focus, and propensity toward aggression in the mating dance between the sexes.
But of course, sane, morally well grounded men wouldn't do such a terrible thing just to get a little nookie...would we?
In my experience, public ridicule is just about the worst thing in the world for most women.
It's less a matter of Woman, and more a matter of In A Weak Position.
That's why female geeks-- the hard core geeks, not just "have a guilty pleasure" or "like superheroes" type-- tend to be fairly safe from it, although we've got the same vulnerability as geek guys to attacks on our intelligence/skills/whatever.
Most women, their ability with the social stuff is their strong point. It's like attacking a man's strength.
I've got to want your approval before a lack of it hurts-- and most women do want the approval of most people. (They're not helpless, they can deal with SOME folks being against them.) But if MOST people attack them? (or if they can be assured that most people are attacking them) -- then they fall apart, and are highly vulnerable. Exactly like any guy attacked by those he deems worthy of judgment on him. Or like a geek attacked by those he respects adn trusts.
I can't do it, but their weakness is the thing that strengthens culture in general. (I SUCK at social stuff, which is part of why I can sort of see it working-- I may be in the water, but I'm not a fish.) The whole...social back and forth, knotting everyone together thing, makes them EXTREMELY vulnerable to the ten minute hate.
******
Incidentally, I disagree on you with respect to Moore's guilt, but not really a good time or place to try to argue it out; given the lack of evidence, it's a matter of judgement.
Post a Comment