Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Fetch me my axe: Speculation on (another) possible root cause of misogyny:
But there's a particular twist to the man's expectation in this patriarchally normative set-up, in that the *other* dictates he's received are: You don't have emotional needs. You don't turn to other men for tenderness, and women (except, *maybe*, for That Special Someone, assuming you ever find her), are there primarily for service/combat. So essentially, you're putting an awful lot of expectations on one woman; and very likely you don't even know that you *have* those expectations. They get reified into concrete "shoulds" like "laugh at my jokes" and "have sex __ number of times per __" and so forth. (And of course it could also be that woman in this equation is going off her own reified expectations of what "caring" looks like from a "traditional," sexist perspective...which may include such things as buying presents and spending money, yes. Bottom line: no one's able to ask for what they actually need. cue bitterness all around). (emphasis mine)
go read what she wrote - she's smarter than me.
but this dovetails perfectly with a conversation I had last night with Our Friend. Friend brought to my attention the collected oeuvre of one David DeAngelo of "doubleyourdating.com". Apparently Mr. DeAngelo markets his surefire dating strategies (based on something he calls "C&F", or "Cocky and Funny" flirtation and teasing) to intelligent but assumedly nebbishy men who are unsuccessful at tagging those elusive hot chix everyone is assumed to desire. He espouses a sort of cheerful, feckless aloofness, all entirely based on an inauthentic caricature of masculinity, in order to attract (not to keep, just to attract) an inauthentic caricature of femininity. but, as Belledame so keenly observes, nobody asks for what they really need.
It's safe to assume that one of the hallmarks of intelligence is being able to see through the veils of obfuscation surrounding an idea and get at its true nature. So an intelligent man, in the world of dating, would be able to penetrate the inauthentic caricatures and get to asking for what he really needs - but it seems that in so doing, he's opening himself up for evisceration by women and men alike.
If I were a man, I'd be pissed too.
Thus spake Mr. DeAngelo: "I saw guys tease beautiful women and make jokesabout them to their faces... and then watchedthose women become "little girls" in response...unable to maintain their composure and thereforeunable to maintain their manipulative power..."
I don't think that Mr. DeAngelo is precisely a misogynist - I don't think he's thought it through all the way to woman-hating. I think he's stuck on woman-using, in the way that Belledame points out - for service/combat.
but to ask everyone's favorite question - who benefits from this sort of celebration-of-the-fake? What would happen if we all at once said "I'm lonely. I'm human. I need some love to protect me from the existential angst that preys on my soul every minute. " Would the patriarchy come tumbling down without the artificial scaffolding of "romance"? (and Belledame - would that kill eros?)
who profits from it? the handful of sociopathic con-artist gurus like Ross Jeffries, charging something like $900 a pop to hapless schmuckboyz, who may or may not be quite as dysfunctional as the guru himself, but for whatever reason are more willing out to shell out the bigbux for that sort of snake oil than for actual therapy...or even for a straightforward sex worker.
yeh, sure, "what does it profit a man," but people like that have already lost their souls, or never really developed one to begin with. so, money will do.
thing is, yes, it helps to be sensitive...but almost anyone is capable of being sensitive *to him/herself,* given the right excuse. witness even supposedly macho types like Bill O'Reilly: macho dictates the self-pity takes the form of aggresssive paranoia, but it's still an aromatic little whine for 'a that and 'a that. the key is, are they capable of ever extending that sensitivity toward anyone ELSE.
that subject is another and longer post, however.