It turns out that my
article about sexuality was not well-received. To some extent
this was expected. And I knew it would be criticized by those on all
sides with a position about sexuality. I was hoping it would also
spur some constructive dialogue, but this wasn't really the case.
Instead, the article was criticized for reasons I wouldn't have
expected. Both the proponents of “men's rights,” and one
apparent feminist, offered criticism that really didn't address the
underlying points I was trying to make in the article.
The
“men's rights” crowd did not like my use of the word
patriarchy. Although I think it's pretty basic concept which doesn't
actually condemn men or manhood, one comment suggested that:
“Patriarchy is a dog-whistle term feminists have used since the
incarnation of the second wave and any mention of it immediately
biases me against the user.” To some extent that may also be true,
but to deny the existence of patriarchy is to deny things like the
basic and widespread Judea-Christian values which teach that the man
is the master of the household and that wives should be obedient to
their husbands. It also denies the long-standing trend of
patriarchal lineage in terms of historically passing along the family
name and the wealth associated with that name. Sons have
historically been favored in these ways and have usually been the
recipients of family wealth after the passing of the parents. Even
to the extent this has changed it's undoubtedly been the historic
cause of certain subtle values being instilled in our society. And
the broader point regarding patriarchy is that it has proven
detrimental to both men and women.
Another issue with the “men's rights”
proponents had to do with my mention of the glass ceiling. Although
it was conflated with issues of race, I more often associate the
glass ceiling with gender – in terms of how much power women are
able to achieve in our society (most senators and Fortune 500 CEOs
are not women, for example) and also with limited earning potential
women have historically had in regard to getting paid less for doing
the same amount of work as their male counterparts. I believe this
is still largely the case, but even if it's changed, again... the
historical reality of this condition instills certain values in
society. If one must compare the issue to race, it's as if racism in
the United States disappeared after the end of slavery or as if the
election of Obama somehow proved America was a post-racial society.
But, obviously, that is not true. The long-standing historical
values and practices of a society still have an effect on the way
that society is composed even after some practices have changed on
the surface.
And then the article was also critiqued
for what I felt were very petty reasons. For example... someone took
issue with this line: “While not exactly common... if a woman
'cheats' on her husband, then, all-too-frequently, that amounts to a
death sentence – just like in any backwards 3rd world
fundamentalist nation. Our society is violent enough that even men
often suffer physical harm if they stray.” This was portrayed
as exaggerated fear-mongering and painting men out to be monsters.
But again, that was not my intention and I feel it was a leap to come
to that conclusion. To clarify... the point was that church and
state backed monogamous contracts between men and women lead to
violent overreactions when such contracts are broken. Again... this
creates a problem for both men and women.
Feminists didn't chime in much about
this article – although I did post it to a few overtly feminist
forums. One apparent feminist took issue on an anarchist forum about
my portrayal of Andrea Dworkin's feminism and then admitted to not
reading any further than that first paragraph because of my “men's
movement misogyny apologia.” I was also corrected because I
confused the name of Andrea Dworkin with another 3-syllable name that
starts with an “A” and ends with an “a”. That criticism was
more understandable and personally embarrassing – but I feel like
it was an easy mistake to make and didn't really effect the points I
was trying to make (especially since my point was that I'm not big on
Dworkin's particular school of feminist thought).
While a “men's rights” proponent
accused me of being a leftist (presumably from the position of a
right-winger), on
an anarchist forum I was essentially accused of the same thing –
with the reason being in the latter case that my position wasn't
radical or revolutionary enough. Ironically, the article was largely
about undermining Western consumeristic capitalism and ushering in a
new society by means of throwing off repressed sexual tendencies.
Another point of critique, from a more
personal source, was that mentioning these subjects, and the various
positions people have on them, only somehow reinforced their
existence and made them more accepted and entrenched in our society.
The argument was, as I understand it, that just mentioning these
things merely added to the spectacle and normalized their existence.
However, I don't feel that ignoring problems or social conditions
will help change them. And I believe that analysis of these issues
will help inform new cultural patterns and perhaps inspire a
methodology for opposing the typical old ways. Frankly, I thought
this argument smacked of anti-intellectualism.
As you can see... I took it from all
sides (no pun intended) in regard to this issue. But I must admit
that I was a little disappointed in the overall response and the lack
thereof. I felt the article was rather frank and that this isn't
something you often see from most people in regard to the very
sensitive subject of sexuality. The five pages I wrote on the
subject were some of the most tedious I've ever written. I tried to
be thorough, balanced, and honest about a very tricky subject –
which is almost taboo by it's very nature. If anyone agreed with the
position I put forward... they certainly weren't forthcoming with
statements of support. And, if I didn't know better, it almost seems
that those who might agree with me are actually somewhat repressed in
themselves. Or... maybe all the criticism leveled at me was
perfectly reasonable and justified?
But I don't think my positions
expressed were actually very controversial. Maybe that's why I
didn't receive much positive feedback? Maybe my article was more
trite, hackneyed, and commonly accepted than I believe? That seems
unlikely to me from where I stand, but maybe everyone is already
undertaking the first steps of a sexual revolution which will
undermine the sexually repressive and oppressive nature of modern
society? One can only hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment