Writer Megan E. Holstein wrote a recent article, "The Two Ways Men Express Lust", that should be a must-read for everyone. While I do not always agree with everything this particular author writes in other articles, which can be occasionally problematic and even a little cringeworthy at times (who isn't, really?), this article is spot-on for the most part. She articulates very well the nuances of male lust in a way that does NOT throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, a perspective that is very much needed today.
In a nutshell, there is a world of difference between men who love sex with Women versus men who view sex with Women as a conquest (cf. Riane Eisler's "partnership" vs. "dominator" models). The former is natural and healthy, while the latter is downright toxic. I would go so far as to argue that the latter is, even when consensual, on the same spectrum as rape and sexual assault, and for such conquerors, slopes can be much slipperier than they appear. But we must not conflate mere sexual desire with the desire for conquest, lest we either end up vilifying male sexuality across the board (which can backfire mightily), promoting rape culture, or more likely a bit of both.
Very much worth a read, regardless of how you may feel about some of the other articles she writes.
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
The Three Biggest Casualties of (Gender) War
Every war has casualites, and the 7000 year long gender war (which we call "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer) is certainly no exception. There are many such casualties, and the three biggest ones are as follows:
- The first casualty is TRUTH. And that is not just a clichéd statement, but is practically axiomatic. If people really knew the truth, the continuity of the war will be called into question. So the truth is deliberately hidden and replaced with lies, half-truths, and omissions whenever possible. Eventually it leads to a "post-truth" society and world, in which the truth becomes essentially irrelevant in what passes for discourse.
- The second casualty is INNOCENCE. Not as a euphemism for ignorance (for which there is still plenty), but in the most general sense, which includes the capacity for trust. And that is a result of the first casualty, truth. Not to mention all of the actual and horrific atrocities of the war itself as well. This results in jadedness, bitterness, and cynicism, which in the case of the gender war seriously poisons the relationship between Women and men, and also vitiates what remains of the sisterhood between Women as well.
- The final casualty is LOVE. And not just in the romantic sense, but in the most general sense to include all forms of love, all the way down to and including friendship. In fact, friendship is probably the biggest casualty of all. When both primary genders regard the other as being inherently dangerous/evil and needing to be controlled, that kinda precludes all but the most superficial and/or authoritarian relationships between the two.
Thus, the gender war, like all wars, ultimately hurts everyone and thus needs to end yesterday. And the only way to end it (without the entire planet being killed) is for us fellas to, paraphrasing the late Emperor Hirohito, "accept the unacceptable" and surrender to Women. The sooner we finally cap the game, the better. So what are we waiting for?
Saturday, January 5, 2019
What "Liberated" Gets Right--And Wrong At The Same Time
The new documentary, Liberated: The New Sexual Revolution, is a textbook example of how one can be both very right and still very wrong at the same time, to the point where the latter utterly vitiates the former. The film, produced by the Christian anti-trafficking group Exodus Cry teaming up with Netflix, is a profoundly disturbing look at the intersection between "hookup culture", rape culture, and pop culture among young Millennials, particularly college students.
First, let's discuss the things they get right. There should be no doubt amymore that rape culture exists, and not only among college students or young people either. So much of it is exposed on display in this film, in ways that are both shocking and banal at the same time. And it is very pervasive indeed, infecting the general culture as well, while fueling and being fueled by pop culture in the process. That much is certainly true, no argument from me there.
That said, the film (and its commentaries) really starts to coast--scratch that, takes a nosedive--when the filmmakers' apparently conservative Christian and neo-Victorian biases rear their ugly heads in the following ways:
First, let's discuss the things they get right. There should be no doubt amymore that rape culture exists, and not only among college students or young people either. So much of it is exposed on display in this film, in ways that are both shocking and banal at the same time. And it is very pervasive indeed, infecting the general culture as well, while fueling and being fueled by pop culture in the process. That much is certainly true, no argument from me there.
That said, the film (and its commentaries) really starts to coast--scratch that, takes a nosedive--when the filmmakers' apparently conservative Christian and neo-Victorian biases rear their ugly heads in the following ways:
- This cherry-picked sample of a few groups of Spring Breakers in a rather notorious location is hardly a representative sample of an entire generation or culture.
- It is questionable whether "hookup culture" even exists, since Millennials are actually having LESS sex with fewer partners than the most recent previous generations (Baby Boomers and Gen X). That is true for both students and non-students as well.
- The idea that casual sex of any kind somehow must be inherently objectifying, exploitative, and otherwise linked to rape culture is fallacious, says a lot about the people saying it, and only goes to show that when one looks upon sexuality with evil eyes, that can artificially turn it into something evil. (This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by then blatantly misunderstanding and misusing sexual energy as a result of such beliefs.)
- The concept of consent is unfortunately effectively relegated to secondary at best in this film, which is both agency-denying and victim-blaming at the same time in its zeal to conflate rape culture with "hookup culture". Thus, it ends up being demeaning and infantilizing to Women as a result.
- If you torture the data enough, they will confess to anything. Especially when all you have is anecdotal evidence. The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".
- And finally, the idea that "hookup culture" somehow acts as a "gateway" to human trafficking is really, really reaching here, and reeks of a desperate attempt by Exodus Cry to link two unrelated agendas. Nevermind that during the actual Victorian era proper, human trafficking was rife despite (or perhaps because of) the priggish sexual mores then.
Of course, the biggest flaw of all is the most glaring omission: PATRIARCHY. That evil system is the real root of rape culture, human trafficking, and so many other social ills for thousands of years, yet the makers of this film seem to ignore its overarching role. Perhaps that is because they are steeped in, I dunno, a patriarchal religion?
What really exists within patriarchy--which still exists by the way--is not really a "hookup culture", but rather a persistent culture of negativity around sex and relationships generally, as Amanda Hess notes. And neither abstinence nor the protection racket of patriarchy is the solution. The only real solution here is respect. And the only solution to rape culture is the eradication of patriarchy, period.
What really exists within patriarchy--which still exists by the way--is not really a "hookup culture", but rather a persistent culture of negativity around sex and relationships generally, as Amanda Hess notes. And neither abstinence nor the protection racket of patriarchy is the solution. The only real solution here is respect. And the only solution to rape culture is the eradication of patriarchy, period.
For a better documentary about rape culture itself, I would recommend The Hunting Ground instead. Don't waste your time with this film though.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
The Robot Apocalypse Is Already Here
In case you missed it, the much-feared Robot Apocalypse is not something far off in the future--it is actually already here, hiding in plain sight. And as much damage it has wrought already in terms of technological unemployment and inequality, it is really only getting started. Future net job losses are already baked into the cake.
And men, who are becoming increasingly redundant, will be the biggest losers of all. The next recession will surely finish us us fellas off in terms of the power we once had. While that is good for Women in that it will make it that much easier to take over sooner--something that will make us all better off in the long run, in fact--it can also have some very bad short and medium-term consequences for everyone if the transition is not properly managed. We rise together and ultimately fall together as well. Look no further than the Rust Belt and Coal Country to see a taste of the not-too-distant future for the rest of the country that case.
In the shorter term, we could implement WPA-style jobs programs to take the edge off a bit. But eventually the Robot Apocalypse will upend those jobs as well, so a Job Guarantee (JG) program would really not be much of a guarantee in the long term, and even now would already have logistical problems and much of it would amount to make-work boondoggles as opposed to truly useful work.
Fortunately, there is a simple policy measure that can alleviate the worst aspects of both automation as well as the transition to Matriarchy. It's called Universal Basic Income (UBI). Every man, woman, and child would get free money from the federal government, with no strings attached. No means test, no discrimination, and no perverse incentives. One way to fund this would be to "tax the robots", of course, among other kinds of taxes, but given that our federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, they could literally just print the money and disburse it, just like the FERAL Reserve does to the big banks, without costing the taxpayers one penny. (State and local governments, however, are not Monetarily Sovereign, and thus would have to raise taxes quite high to implement their own versions, so it it is best left to the federal government to do.)
Combine this with the rest of Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's Ten Steps to Prosperity, most notably including single-payer Medicare For All and free college, and abolishing unnecessary federal taxes on the bottom 99% of Americans, and that would be even better still.
Furthermore, men can become very, very dangerous creatures when they are desperate for money--almost as dangerous as when men have too much power relative to Women, and in some cases even worse. Just look at the 1996 film Fargo to see it in action. Or look at some pilot projects in some poorer countries where only Women are given microloans or other payments while the men get nothing. Giving money to Women is of course a much better bang for the buck than giving it to men, but denying it to men at the same time breeds jealousy, resentment, and sometimes even violence against Women. So even if you absolutely loathe men with a passion, pragmatism dictates than men and women should get equal amounts of UBI to defuse this ticking time bomb, especially since money is literally no object for the federal government.
Without a hard social floor of some sort, what we have is an abyss, a bottomless pit from which no one is safe. It is long past time to put such a floor over this abyss, which will only widen and deepen in the future.
It's what the late, great Buckminster Fuller most likely have wanted. Ditto for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and so many other great minds of the past and present. It's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. So what are we waiting for?
And men, who are becoming increasingly redundant, will be the biggest losers of all. The next recession will surely finish us us fellas off in terms of the power we once had. While that is good for Women in that it will make it that much easier to take over sooner--something that will make us all better off in the long run, in fact--it can also have some very bad short and medium-term consequences for everyone if the transition is not properly managed. We rise together and ultimately fall together as well. Look no further than the Rust Belt and Coal Country to see a taste of the not-too-distant future for the rest of the country that case.
In the shorter term, we could implement WPA-style jobs programs to take the edge off a bit. But eventually the Robot Apocalypse will upend those jobs as well, so a Job Guarantee (JG) program would really not be much of a guarantee in the long term, and even now would already have logistical problems and much of it would amount to make-work boondoggles as opposed to truly useful work.
Fortunately, there is a simple policy measure that can alleviate the worst aspects of both automation as well as the transition to Matriarchy. It's called Universal Basic Income (UBI). Every man, woman, and child would get free money from the federal government, with no strings attached. No means test, no discrimination, and no perverse incentives. One way to fund this would be to "tax the robots", of course, among other kinds of taxes, but given that our federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, they could literally just print the money and disburse it, just like the FERAL Reserve does to the big banks, without costing the taxpayers one penny. (State and local governments, however, are not Monetarily Sovereign, and thus would have to raise taxes quite high to implement their own versions, so it it is best left to the federal government to do.)
Combine this with the rest of Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's Ten Steps to Prosperity, most notably including single-payer Medicare For All and free college, and abolishing unnecessary federal taxes on the bottom 99% of Americans, and that would be even better still.
Furthermore, men can become very, very dangerous creatures when they are desperate for money--almost as dangerous as when men have too much power relative to Women, and in some cases even worse. Just look at the 1996 film Fargo to see it in action. Or look at some pilot projects in some poorer countries where only Women are given microloans or other payments while the men get nothing. Giving money to Women is of course a much better bang for the buck than giving it to men, but denying it to men at the same time breeds jealousy, resentment, and sometimes even violence against Women. So even if you absolutely loathe men with a passion, pragmatism dictates than men and women should get equal amounts of UBI to defuse this ticking time bomb, especially since money is literally no object for the federal government.
Without a hard social floor of some sort, what we have is an abyss, a bottomless pit from which no one is safe. It is long past time to put such a floor over this abyss, which will only widen and deepen in the future.
It's what the late, great Buckminster Fuller most likely have wanted. Ditto for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and so many other great minds of the past and present. It's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. So what are we waiting for?
Friday, November 9, 2018
2018 Is the Year of the Woman
Well, it's official. Women, mostly progressives, won a record number of political offices nationwide at all levels of government in this year's midterm elections. Thus 2018 is the Year of the Woman, more than ever before.
Thus, this is the beginning of the end of not only the nefarious Trump regime, but also the patriarchy in general. It is only a matter of time. It seems that my initial prediction that Women will finally take over in 2030 in the USA and UK, and 2050 worldwide, may not be so farfetched after all. Perhaps America's dark night of the soul (in which one can now finally see the very first glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel) really did have a purpose all along--to effectively accelerate the transition to Matriarchy, Goddess willing.
VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!
Thus, this is the beginning of the end of not only the nefarious Trump regime, but also the patriarchy in general. It is only a matter of time. It seems that my initial prediction that Women will finally take over in 2030 in the USA and UK, and 2050 worldwide, may not be so farfetched after all. Perhaps America's dark night of the soul (in which one can now finally see the very first glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel) really did have a purpose all along--to effectively accelerate the transition to Matriarchy, Goddess willing.
VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Does Paid Family Leave Really Hurt Women?
Last year, an op-ed at CNN by Vanessa Brown Calder of the pro-corporate LOLbertarian Cato Institute claimed that paid family leave policies actually backfire on Women by making companies less likely to hire them as well as entrenching traditional gender roles. She seems to see it as s zero-sum game. And to this day, the article is still being linked to on other articles discussing this important topic.
First of all, except for a very few states, the USA is the only modern or even semi-modern country that does not offer any paid leave for Mothers, let alone fathers or anyone else for that matter. And even then, the few states that do are rather stingy compared to most other industrialized nations. The USA makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus by comparison in that regard. (So much for "Mothers and apple pie".)
Secondly, is there really any truth to the op-ed author's specious claim? According to the weight of research evidence over the past decade or two, not really. Except perhaps for poorly-designed programs that 1) force employers to pay for it, rather than via taxes (or money creation), 2) are limited only to mothers or are otherwise not gender neutral, and/or 3) have an unusually long duration--though that last one remains debatable, given the stunning success in the Nordic countries (whose durations of paid leave often exceed a year). In fact, the only robust downside--if one can even call it that--to long leave durations (i.e. longer than a year) is that they tend to discourage Mothers from returning to paid work compared with durations between nine months and a year. (A very subjective "downside" at that.)
Otherwise, the well-documented benefits to Women, children, society, and even men as well outweigh any supposed costs. Ultimately, everyone is better off as a result. It is a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.
Of course, once Women finally reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, this will no longer even be a debate anymore.
True, paid family leave is not an end goal, but merely a good starting point for a more equitable society overall. Other things need to happen as well, such as Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, shorter and more flexible workweeks for all workers, equal pay, affordable high-quality childcare, as well as longer-term cultural changes as well. And of course, the biggest elephant in the room--MEN--need to start pulling their weight for once. But in the meantime, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither. So what are we waiting for?
First of all, except for a very few states, the USA is the only modern or even semi-modern country that does not offer any paid leave for Mothers, let alone fathers or anyone else for that matter. And even then, the few states that do are rather stingy compared to most other industrialized nations. The USA makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus by comparison in that regard. (So much for "Mothers and apple pie".)
Secondly, is there really any truth to the op-ed author's specious claim? According to the weight of research evidence over the past decade or two, not really. Except perhaps for poorly-designed programs that 1) force employers to pay for it, rather than via taxes (or money creation), 2) are limited only to mothers or are otherwise not gender neutral, and/or 3) have an unusually long duration--though that last one remains debatable, given the stunning success in the Nordic countries (whose durations of paid leave often exceed a year). In fact, the only robust downside--if one can even call it that--to long leave durations (i.e. longer than a year) is that they tend to discourage Mothers from returning to paid work compared with durations between nine months and a year. (A very subjective "downside" at that.)
Otherwise, the well-documented benefits to Women, children, society, and even men as well outweigh any supposed costs. Ultimately, everyone is better off as a result. It is a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.
Of course, once Women finally reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, this will no longer even be a debate anymore.
True, paid family leave is not an end goal, but merely a good starting point for a more equitable society overall. Other things need to happen as well, such as Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, shorter and more flexible workweeks for all workers, equal pay, affordable high-quality childcare, as well as longer-term cultural changes as well. And of course, the biggest elephant in the room--MEN--need to start pulling their weight for once. But in the meantime, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither. So what are we waiting for?
Monday, October 15, 2018
THIS Is What A Real Anti-Rape Campaign Looks Like
Rape culture, or the attitudes and behaviors that promote rape and sexual assault, and/or blame, silence, or shift the onus onto victims, has been part and parcel of patriarchy for its entire 7000+ year history. So it is not surprising that, even in the #MeToo era, the tendency to victim-blame (to one degree or another) still persists even in some anti-rape campaigns. That is, the campaigns give Women the usual advice to not get themselves raped, as opposed to the "novel" idea of simply telling MEN not to rape in the first place.
Or, to put it as bluntly as possible, "make sure the other girl gets raped instead". Because, let's face it, that is the cold, hard reality. Predators will target the proverbial weakest antelope of the herd regardless of who it happens to be.
A notable exception to this persistent tendency, however, is Vancouver's "Don't Be That Guy" campaign that began in 2010 and was so successful that they brought it back just a few years later. The rate of sexual assault dropped by 10% in 2011, which is impressive considered that it had been rising in the several years leading up to it. And another big Canadian city, Edmonton, Alberta, has also decided to emulate such a successful program as well.
What makes "Don't Be That Guy" so different? Because it puts the onus on MEN where it really belongs, NOT on Women. And while many rapists, particularly serial rapists, may not be very receptive to such a message, the fence-sitters who can be swayed by cultural and social norms might. And the good men who are not rapists who see such messages over and over may be more likely to revoke the rapists' "social license to operate" by not tolerating such behaviors and intervening when they notice red flags in that regard. True, Vancouver also stepped up law enforcement and improved training for police officers during that time, so that likely had some effect as well, but it is almost certain that at least some of the 10% drop in the first year was due to the rape-culture-jamming messages of the campaign itself.
So remember, fellas: Don't Be That Guy. Seriously. And even if YOU are not "That Guy", you probably know him quite well.
Or, to put it as bluntly as possible, "make sure the other girl gets raped instead". Because, let's face it, that is the cold, hard reality. Predators will target the proverbial weakest antelope of the herd regardless of who it happens to be.
A notable exception to this persistent tendency, however, is Vancouver's "Don't Be That Guy" campaign that began in 2010 and was so successful that they brought it back just a few years later. The rate of sexual assault dropped by 10% in 2011, which is impressive considered that it had been rising in the several years leading up to it. And another big Canadian city, Edmonton, Alberta, has also decided to emulate such a successful program as well.
What makes "Don't Be That Guy" so different? Because it puts the onus on MEN where it really belongs, NOT on Women. And while many rapists, particularly serial rapists, may not be very receptive to such a message, the fence-sitters who can be swayed by cultural and social norms might. And the good men who are not rapists who see such messages over and over may be more likely to revoke the rapists' "social license to operate" by not tolerating such behaviors and intervening when they notice red flags in that regard. True, Vancouver also stepped up law enforcement and improved training for police officers during that time, so that likely had some effect as well, but it is almost certain that at least some of the 10% drop in the first year was due to the rape-culture-jamming messages of the campaign itself.
So remember, fellas: Don't Be That Guy. Seriously. And even if YOU are not "That Guy", you probably know him quite well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)