Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Rigidly Male-Dominated Societies Are Violent; The U.S. Is No Different

By Riane Eisler, The Wip. Posted July 11, 2008.


Until people (including progressives) stop thinking of "women's issues" secondary, the U.S. will continue on its path of poverty and war.
Advertisement

There's an invisible elephant in today's political debates: a major issue that's getting no attention. Sure, there's some recognition that behind many attacks on Hillary Clinton lie virulent traditions of sexism. But so devalued is anything stereotypically associated with women that crucial matters that directly impact our lives and our families aren't even mentioned.

Nothing, for example, has been said about the fact that poverty in this wealthy nation disproportionately affects women, so much so that, according to U.S. Census figures, women over the age of 65 are twice as likely to be poor as men over 65. Nor have we been told that, unlike the U.S., most industrialized countries have paid parental leave, stipends for caregivers, and even social security credit for the first years of home childcare -- measures that vastly improve the lives of women.

This relegation of "women's issues" to a secondary place is obviously terrible for half of America (actually the majority, since women are 52 percent). But it's also terrible for the political and family health of our entire nation.

Let's start with politics. For both the mullahs in Iran and the rightist-fundamentalist alliance in the United States, "getting women back into their traditional place" in a "traditional family" has been a top priority. There's a basic reason for this. Rigidly male-dominated societies are also authoritarian and violent. Along with the imposition of a brutal dictatorship by the Nazis, their mantra was returning women to their "traditional" roles in a male-dominated family. Nor is it coincidental that the 9-11 terrorists came from cultures where women are terrorized into submission. Or that regressive fundamentalists in the United States (who also believe in top-down rule and "holy wars") first organized as a powerful political block around a "women's issue": the defeat during the 1970s of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

By contrast, in Nordic nations such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland, the move toward gender equity (for example, women are 40 percent of national legislators and are frequently heads of state) has gone along with more political and economic democracy. Not only that -- and this takes us to how "women's issues" are also key family issues -- as the status of women rose so also did funding for activities stereotypically associated with women. These nations have far less stressed families because they support child care, health care, paid parental leave, and other family-friendly policies.

Yet in the United States, many people who consider themselves progressives still view anything to do with women as secondary. They fail to recognize what regressives do: that the ranking of male over female is a basic model children learn early on for equating difference with superiority or inferiority, with dominating or being dominated -- a model that can then easily be generalized to different races, religions, ethnicities, and nations.

In recent years, American regressives have vigorously promoted a family where fathers make the rules and harshly punish disobedience -- the kind of family that prepares people to defer to "strong" leaders who brook no dissent and use force to impose their will. Not coincidentally, over these same years aggressive wars were launched, gains for women and minorities were lost, and a "strong" executive branch held itself above the law.

Surely we can learn a lesson from this history: that progressives urgently need a political agenda that no longer relegates "women's issues" to a secondary -- indeed, invisible -- place. We need a politics of partnership that recognizes that questioning "traditional" gender roles and relations is foundational to the movement to more democratic and egalitarian relations across the board.

The equal valuing of the two halves of humanity -- women and men -- will obviously vastly improve girls' and women's quality of life. But it's also essential if we are to move to a more democratic, peaceful, and sustainable future for us all.

This is an election year. Let's join together and change the political conversation. Let's make "women's issues" integral to the progressive agenda.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war, violence, gender, women, patriarchy, health, gender and foreign policy

Riane Eisler is the author of The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics and The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future, and President of the Center for Partnership Studies.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This author sounds very VERY dumb
Posted by: Q30 on Jul 11, 2008 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
women over the age of 65 are twice as likely to be poor as men over 65.

No mention here that men over 65 are many times more likely to be DEAD at any age level than women over 65. Dead men don't earn paychecks, so obviously poverty can become a problem for the woman who's still alive.

Men dying earlier is only bad because it stops them from financially-supporting women. Only one who is unfamiliar with feminism could be surprised by such selective vision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This author sounds very VERY dumb Posted by: laura_rachelle
» Ha, Ha! Posted by: GuitarBill
» What it says about gender Posted by: ezilla
» Check the actual statistics Posted by: jayandrewallen
» No, only you look dumb. Posted by: Robba29
» RE: No, only you look dumb. Posted by: opalescentscales
» RE: No, only you look dumb. Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: No, only you look dumb. Posted by: chomsky
» Actually... Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
Violence and male-dominated societies: a primatology perspective
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 11, 2008 11:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love this article. Print it out and read it when you have time.

A Natural History of Peace by Robert Sapolsky

Sapolsky is a neuroendocrinologist and primatologist from Stanford.

Article Summary: Humans like to think that they are unique, but the study of other primates has called into question the exceptionalism of our species. So what does primatology have to say about war and peace? Contrary to what was believed just a few decades ago, humans are not "killer apes" destined for violent conflict, but can make their own history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I loved that article too, thanks! Posted by: stellabloo
Mixed Feelings
Posted by: obliu222 on Jul 11, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoyed this articles perspectives on psychological motivations for domination and insight into the role of family in fostering more peaceful interrelations.

I do question the phrase "male-dominated". In my experience the term "masculine" is preferred, as many women have internalized and consciously or unconsciously imitate the "categorical dominance" that is associated with the male gender. There are also men who exhibit a much more nurturing quality...

Finally I would like to add that the result of an increasing awareness and insistence on women's rights in Norway is indeed truly encouraging, but feminists should not forget to emphasize the strong association this movement has had with violence against women, which is or has been extremely high in Norway. Often it is need and expediency that motivate people, but as Americans we can also recognize that empowering women and, as important, perhaps, "femininity", we may be able to inhibit the growth of such problems as violence against women before they truly force us to.

No inequality can be tolerated indefinitely without a compromise with our ideals, even if such inequality claims to preserve them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mixed Feelings Posted by: synx
» Right on, synx! Posted by: Cathyc
Hmmm, a moment please...
Posted by: talkville on Jul 13, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA, traditionally, is conceived ideologically along the paradigm, the model, the schemata, of The Family, The Nuclear Family, The Holy Family. Papa, Mama and the Children. Mama is interesting. Her part is mysteriously always adapted here and there to fit particular exigencies and needs. But it's true: Papa Rules! Sometimes in a "good mood" sometimes not. Sometimes a bit indulgent, sometimes a tyrannical, narrow-minded, punitive, disciplinarian. But Papa nevertheless. When Papa's mad at the Children, you bet he'll be wielding the Stick - softly or downright in a rage; When mad at Mama, well he'll probably try various strategies and maneuvers of Seduction; but worse comes to worse, don't worry: he'll haul off and belt her one, 'get her with the Program' so to speak. When Papa's SO mad at his OWN circumstances, he'll even go Outside the House and look for somebody ELSE to wallop, pound and grind into the dust of the deserts, you bet he will.

And yet, come on, women, feminists, females! There is absolutely not a doubt or refutation to the fact that the female also can express some of the most vicious and violent aggressions herself. No, the female is not exempt; they too have instinctual, erotic and aggressive drives and motivations. It seems a bit simple to assume this absolute peaceful and innocent stance when discussing such things as violence. A bit of self-critique might be in order? The routes and byways may differ, but the violence is still there. And the Children? Well, developing in a society such as ours governed by deep biblical beliefs and mores as well as a system of capitalist and commercialist exploitation by some humans of other humans, what on earth is one to expect? Meek, docile, obedient, little lambs? Each infant will develop into adulthood and towards death in their own life-cycle. When such development is thwarted, malformed, twisted and contorted and coerced into molds no human being can fit into, what is to be expected?

As long as paradigms, models and schema persist such as the Family model to represent a constitutional government organized to meet and address the needs and development of all its members, little will change with regard to manifestations of violence other than superficially and depending on the existing conditions at the particular time in question. These are cycles. Like the 'business cycle'. They are reproduced from generation to generation to meet needs all right; but don't think its the needs of all the members; not for a moment. It fits the needs handily for a proportionally very small sector of the members. For the rest of us? What better system than the Pain-Pleasure dynamic? A little bit of stick (or a lot) and a little bit of 'pats on the back' and kudo's for a 'job well done'.

Women are not exempt. With respect to the analysis of violence and violent behavior, ALL of us are involved, intimately involved. One thing is for sure: 300 million people and a hierarchical order of privilege and rights with an Image of the Father hovering always in the back-ground, does not a 'happy' family make; never will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Milarky
Posted by: mcc99 on Jul 13, 2008 8:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually in societies dominated by males, it is particularly peacable as compared to when it is not. It's when women become the center of consideration and attention in socities are men likely to be raised and compelled to become violent against men of other nations/tribes/etc. in defense of the interests of the women they are subservient to. So the author has it backwards. If she can let the scales fall from her eyes she will note that societies that place women on pedestals and view men as providers, defenders of, and largely servants of women and their children, men therein are much more likely to be raised to be violent in service to women and their society as a whole, and to be compelled to be so when it suits the aims of women and of men who are in places of power and privilege (and remain so only on condition they continue to serve the interests of women).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Milarky Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Milarky Posted by: LeeAnnG
And what about Japan?
Posted by: jswanson on Jul 14, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This entire argument falls flat when you encompass more countries. By this logic, Japan should have astronomical rates of violence in comparison to the rest of the world. Japan has some of the most hardcore male dominance of any developed country, yet they have one of the lowest violent crime rates. There is no serious "womens rights" movement in Japan, there never was. And women are still largely portrayed as submissive. (consider an anime titled "He is my Master" - released to no controversy on public TV)

Overly simplistic and ignorant article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And what about Japan? Posted by: Berit
» RE: And what about Japan? Posted by: Shehova
» RE: And what about Japan? Posted by: boytokyo
Ya know......
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 14, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'd think that such a sexist article wouldn't be the sort of thing you'd find on a progressive site.

Shame.

What part of "equality is what we are striving for" do you not understand?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminists don't want to be on a pedestal
Posted by: Stell on Jul 15, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feminism seeks to create a society in which women, not just men, are assumed to have full personhood. Women = people.

Feminists do not want to be put on a pedestal. "The pedestal" is a misogynist smokescreen, a way for men to claim they are valuing women while actually cornering them, making them virgin pure, exceptionally moral, and, of course, objects of desire. Feminists don't want to be on anybody's pedestal. Feminists want a society in which all pedestals are knocked down. Feminists want to get their hands dirty, alongside men, doing the work that needs to be done (whether that be diaper changing or scientific research).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ok, call it a soapbox then... Posted by: MartianBachelor
Regressives
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 17, 2008 3:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like that term. It sounds more appropriate than "conservative", which today's regressives call themselves, even though they're not.

I agree with the point that we need to see things not in terms of women's issues, but in broader terms of equality across the board. Good luck with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Backward America?
Posted by: mn1234 on Jul 17, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I know, now, that America, of today, is a backward country. If you study Native American history, before white man, you'll find many tribes where men and women lived and worked on an equal footing. Maybe something modern white America can learn from? Though, I doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your "definition" of matriarchy... Posted by: photon's feather
» You are conflating your terms Posted by: photon's feather
» No thanks to pooping in the bushes. Posted by: ABetterFuture
When God Was A Woman
Posted by: makeadifference on Jul 17, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting read: "When God Was a Woman" by Merlin Stone. Women were the bearers of life and revered in ancient history. The rise of the church changed everything. It's a very interesting history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When God Was A Woman Posted by: kamcallen
» RE: When God Was A Woman Posted by: wal55
Male Dominanance? Try Christian Dominance.
Posted by: the baron on Jul 17, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that the author of this article notates advances in the political ideals of the "Nordic countries" only shows that this is really a (fanatical) religious versus secular beliefs issue, not a man versus woman issue.

When the "Nordic countries" were polytheistic (Norse mythology)women had a much stronger role in society beyond just stay at home get pregnant and raise the kids. Another example would be the Celtic Nations and their older polytheistic beliefs and the War/Death goddess The Morrigan.

Then comes Christianity, then the 1400's and the Nordic and Celtic Nations were "saved" from their polytheistic beliefs by the Christians by having their Druids, and Wiccas (male & female priests)set on fire as warlocks and witches.

Hmmm wow the Christians fearing a woman with power, not men fearing a woman with power.

Amazing really.....

Any religion whose belief system of redemption is based on the fact that their God had his only son executed because a woman ate a fruit 8,000 yrs earlier should be kept away from. Plus, if that is the standard of goodness how would they define evil?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Totally agree here Posted by: tlCampbell
Yawn...
Posted by: gnaw_bone on Jul 17, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Men bad. Women good." How incisive. What next? "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle?"

Did someone find this column in a stack of newspapers that has been sitting around since 1974?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Japan may be male-dominated but it cant get laid
Posted by: cyr3n on Jul 17, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone made the comment about Japan, and how it should have a lot of violence considering its male-dominated reputation.

Recently something went very wrong in the scheme of things for men. Women became educated (moreso than men) and found themselves getting fired from their careers quite bluntly because we're told we have a higher duty to the country to be bearing children. This marvelously short-sighted excuse fails to take into account whether the woman has any option to marry (ie: whether she even has a bf)! As a result, lots of educated women either left the country or started working for foreign companies. Meanwhile, a backlash developed. There are hardcore lesbian/feminist groups in artistic industries which only hire women. There are news channels which only hire women reporters over the age of 35. There are women, who hire younger men to be their non-sexual "pets". I'm not kidding.

All of this is fine and dandy but it doesnt solve the core issue... an educated successful woman is reluctant to marry someone under her league. so we come full circle to the male-dominated society thing. i dont think its a matter of male-dominance that makes a culture violent.. its the lack of men within its society (for whatever reason) to score a wife. Women shouldnt dump their dayjobs and go back to the kitchen (how can we with all the damn bills); MEN need to get their collective lazy asses back in school and make themselves somewhat appealing as life partners. Then everyone will get laid and life will be good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Male Dominated
Posted by: sunlakedude on Jul 17, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting perspective to say the least. But then we already knew that the U.S. is a socially backward nation. If 90% of women in the U.S. stood up and demanded change, it might come about. The problem is that we have too many regressive women, an extreme example would be the polygamist women in the news of late. How can women subjugate themselves like that? And how can women vote for politicians who don't have their best interest at heart?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Male Dominated Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Submissive people Posted by: Cathyc
Eisler's ideas make some good sense
Posted by: Earthian on Jul 17, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eisler's use of "regressives" to describe those who seek domination (so-called "conservatives") is a great way of framing our (progressive) identity and that of our adversaries.

Plus, her thesis that the US is a male-dominated society has substantial evidence to support it. We need look no further than the Senate where women have not ever had (to my knowledge) even 20 of 100 members as woman. The Senate can prevent any change to our Constitution quite easily; is responsible for Judicial appointments; is responsible for Cabinet appointments; and is responsible for treaty ratification. The Senate is dominated by men, something assured by the Constitution which gives disproportionate representation to small, conservative, rural states which are male-dominated, traditional, regressive societies.

In one survey about three years ago, the US ranked 78th in the world in terms of having women representative in our national legislature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Trick Posted by: pdxjoe
Don't forget Israel, China, and most Muslim nations and some Christian nations.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 17, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Far left or far right, this country has supported those rogue nations with our taxpayer dollars. However, it should be clear as to who's really benefitting from all this and it ain't the working class men or women in those countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women in power conform to male standards
Posted by: nfamous on Jul 17, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all I'd like to say this is a problem with white males, not all males. Violence and overaggression are their defining characteristics. If you look at the past few hundred years it is the story of white men killing each other or non-white people and taking things that don't belong to them.

Second women in positions of power get there by conforming to the white male standard of violence and overaggression. The same goes for nonwhite males like Obama. White men will simply not support anyone that doesn't support white male patriarchy and white supremacy....period. If women were not afraid to be themselves out of fear of appearing weak then they would never make it to the upper echelons of power. It's a catch-22 so we're screwed as long as white men in power control the weapons, the military, the police and everything else that can be used to quell dissent.

Of course we could just overwhelm them with our sheer numbers but everyday whites probably wouldn't help since they still believe in white supremacy and privilege and most Americans don't give a crap because they are just trying to get through the day. Not enough Americans can see the bigger picture of the forthcoming Third World disaster in this country. We just think life will continue in this perverted vein indefinitely. We are in for a rude awakening. Real women, not Hillary, could have prevented all of this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Third World America Posted by: Cathyc
Just when it seems OvaryNet couldn't get worse
Posted by: sweetlou on Jul 17, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This tripe shows up.

What's especially delicious though are the articles from yesterday about how tough women have it dieting for their weddings. Poor simple minded things - so unable to break free of the grip of advertisers and evil men. If only they had a brain. The best part was the article above it about weddings in Iraq being bombed.

Poor, feeble American women with their underdeveloped egos. Don't worry, those mean old men will fix all of your problems which, compared to a bombed bride, seem so important...

This site sucks...

You should be ashamed of yourselves for offloading responsibility onto men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just...odd. While I would never dissuade anyone from picking their niche issue...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 17, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...aren't national strategies for success more important than gender-specific fluff?

Don't get me wrong: you're entitled to vote your whim--everything from "best hair", "tallest", "whitest", "blackest" and including so-called "gender issues".

We have a Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. When our laws violate that guarantee, we have a problem, and it should be one that is immediately addressed...or, rather, as "immediate" as our judiciary/legislative systems function.

The hype and hoopla from gender-centrics may very well, however, distract from discussion regarding national direction, such as our extrication from Iraq, instituting better, early financial educational to help prevent another mortgage stupidity crisis and promote the wealth of all citizens, investing heavily in current and future energy resource development, and etc.

No doubt, though, these loud folks are entitled to their pet issues. Goodness knows that if we can tolerate asshats who shout against anything but traditional marriages, we can tolerate folks who want stuff based on the random assortment of their chromosomes.

But...is it productive? Outside a bubble or two?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deb
Posted by: debmcd on Jul 17, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been saying for years that women should be running the country. We wouldn't have the wars and things would get done. I look at other countries with women leaders and I don't see them posturing and starting wars all over the place. Men, starting from the time they are boys are taught to be aggresive and if they don't learn that lesson they are considered not real men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What about Condi? Posted by: Cathyc
Unfortunately, this article turns a blind eye to history
Posted by: GuitarBill on Jul 17, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women have a long and verifiable history as violent warriors--the Celts, for example.

Clearly, this article attempts top demonize men with cooked statistics, specious reasoning and lack of historical reference.

Wasn't it Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche who stated in his philosophical work, Twilight of the Idols, "Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have read Riane's books
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 17, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree in large part with her thesis but I think trying to lay that template over society as it is now after 5000 or more years of patriarchal sky god worship and its attendant militarism is a stretch. Both genders, espsecially those decending from peoples that spent centuries dealing with an ice age... (such a long time that it turned them white) have been assaulted by things being as they are for so long that either gender is capable of warring or oppression, look at Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, a hoard of European Queens, Condolesa Rice or for that matter Hillary Clinton's "We would obliterate them" remark about Iran. We need to declare women equal to men and back it up with removing all discrimminations in pay and privilege and get on with saving the only planet we have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Sporting Life
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Jul 17, 2008 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article reminded me of a Women and the Media class in college and for a semester we discussed how women are portrayed in various ways through a particular prism: through sports, politics, the workforce, journalism, etc.
Much of what the author says is true, because if we were to glean any paper or watch TV who usually gets the biggest share of coverage? Men. Read the sports page or read the Bible. And women's issues are left out in political debates only to be taken up in women's or alternative magazines like Utne Reader or Color Lines.
In our patriarchal society, women still are regarded as second class citizens. Heck, it took years for tennis to award equal prize money at the major tournaments. But that hasn't made for a more equal society. When will we ever change?
For some, women are treated as sport. At most times it's subliminal or blatant. Listen to a football broadcast and decipher the color commentary; or listen to a general speak on winning a war; and if you have a trained eye, look at the hidden messages in liquor ads and the goofy beer commercials. There's a reason why football players love "sacking" the quarterback. It's a lot like a "quickie" in sexspeak. A well-known defensive end remarked that sacking the QB was like having sex. The QB is the "hottie."
And football jargon is filled with allegories with sexual overtones: "up the middle", "penetration", "thrust", "hitting the hole", "going deep"-well you get the idea.
At any rate, language plays a part on defining the roles the sexes play as well. When a person is hired for a job, it's a fair assessment that a woman will earn less than her male counterpart, although she may be more qualified for the task at hand.
Who's to say if we had a woman as president (like in Germany or the Philippines), will things change for the better as far as affordable health care for women, longer maternity leave (it should be a year) and equal pay, but this is an ongoing saga without end.
One way to end this story is to ditch our machoness and our belief that man is allowed to dominate. If we don't change our way of thinking we'll continue down this worn-out path.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wondered that myself
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jul 17, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have often wondered that myself. This isn't to say that women can't be violent, but they are far less likely to use violence to get their way than men are. Anyone that says us males, in general, aren't far more agressive than females need to study the effects of testosterone. I see this even in children all the time.

The truth I see is that, while men and women are human, we have vastly different priorities. Issues that men rarely think about really are important to us as a species and a society and do not get as much attention as they should. Could that possibly be because men are more agrressive in going after what we want? Hmmm, could be!

It almost seems that we need to divide our societies priorities. Women are better at dealing with things that are good for our families and organizing. Us males seem to be better at pushing boundaries of all sorts, whether through violence or the innate desire to control our environment. They both have uses, both have weakness's. Only by women and men working togather do we seem to reach a balance, complementing both genders.

Maybe we are more male oriented in this society and that could explain a lot of our policies. The trick I believe is to get more women in office as we have a very low female/male ratio in government. Who knows how that would work? All I know is that without each other, men and women are far more likely to have problems and I believe a better balance could be achieved.

Different but equal, depending on the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Environmental influences Posted by: Cathyc
Reminds me of a film I saw a while back
Posted by: Blue Heron on Jul 17, 2008 2:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do agree with the author's point of view, and anyone else who does should see 'The House of the Spirits,' adapted from Isabel Allende's novel. Jeremy Irons plays a character we can all recognize, though few will be willing to concede that our world is run by such.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Violent World = Human's Exist
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Jul 17, 2008 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So how many wars would there be in a female dominated society? From a historical standpoint, exactly the same. Women, whom become leaders, do the same shit. There really is no difference between men and women...there really isn't.

So trying to sell the Feminist Romanticism of not being human and vaginas never do anything wrong is just as stupid as the happy clusterf**k power man thing we have now.

Here's a question for ya, should women ever break through the glass ceiling? Answer, NO. But it's a trick question. The rest of the answer is because everything above it is what is fucking up the world (MALE OR FEMALE). So don't try and sell me the Oprah Winfrey would save the fucking world line because it's bullshit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Eat Politicians Posted by: Cathyc
What has reduced the quality of the lives of women?
Posted by: blogbooks on Jul 17, 2008 4:04 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nature?

So your idea is to take money from men and give it to women in order to make up for natural differences between the sexes?

Sounds about as fair and balanced as faux