is there a new cognitive dissonance thread?

[kickassangel]

if so, please link, i can't find it.

if not, i'd like to add some things

using personal experience to prove a point is not a great argument. we have to start with the bigger picture, then see personal experiences as a case study which exemplifies, but does not prove a point.

i'm not even sure that i view myself as a feminist. i view myself as someone who believes in equality (not just on male/female issues). the generalisations about feminism being a religion i find offensive, as they both ignore the patriarchal society we live in (and this assertion can be backed up by endless statistics & experiences), and assume that one particular viewpoint is religious.

is marxism a religion? what about other schools of thought?

feminism is a broad range of thought, and there will be changes and shifts within the arguments, just as there are in other sociological concepts. and there will be women who abuse, just as there are men who do so.

however, look at the structure of society, and it is impossible to say that it isn't patriarchal. just look at the possession of wealth, the media representation of people, the male/female ration in positions of power.

if it was as simple as some women 'not bothering' to push themselves forward, there would still be enough women to fill 50% of all key positions in society, and to hold 50% of the wealth, but that isn't what happens. so, it sin't due to a lack of women exerting themselves, it is due to the inherent sexism within society.

Pogleswood,

Are you really saying because men are CAPABLE of raping and a small percentage of men criminally abuse that physical capability, all men should take responsibility for it and we should try and change society? Would you bring male children up to believe that their sex was inherently flawed somehow? Because that is how I read what some people are trying to say.

What changes would you make to stop it happening? Even if 100% of parliament was females and they were in 80% of the top jobs, how would it address the problem?

It was a low shot Larry I must admit - you took it gracefully however.

Lemonmuffin have you read both cognitive dissonance threads in their entirety? Just asking because I think there is a fair bit of context and history to be taken on board here.

I find it a bit odd that you might be put off feminism because of one person on an internet forum. I find it hard to get my head around the idea of being 'put off' a political movement which wishes to attain equality for women TBH. That you might not agree with me (I'm a radical feminist) is one thing but there are different schools of thought in feminism.

Still, if you think I'm showing appalling attitude and responses feel free to jump in and tell me why.

Society does condone rape. If society didn't condone rape, men would be convicted of rape and go to prison for it.

Saying that men abhor rapists just as much as women do, but then not being able to give any concrete examples of things men have done to change the situation doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.

Quite the opposite happy :(

Sorry, I meant, quite the opposite to the govt trying to improve conviction rates etc.

"Are you really saying because men are CAPABLE of raping and a small percentage of men criminally abuse that physical capability, all men should take responsibility for it and we should try and change society?"

Well it would certainly be nice but I'm not holding my breath.

Women can't stop rapes from happening - that's the whole point. Only men can change male culture and influence each other to the point where rape is treated as the crime it is.

And at this point I recall larry's grotesque input on another thread of an MNer who had been through a horrible experience relating to these issues.

On the subject of rape I think society as a whole is much to blame for perpetuating rape myths (something women as well as men do).

It is a complex subject with many dimensions.

Honestly Larry I get the feeling that you have misunderstood feminist analysis of rape and are disagreeing with something that most sane people would disagree with.

It isn't about 'all men being rapists' or teaching little boys that they are flawed or potential dangers to society. Really it isn't.

It is about how society (and therefore the humans who make up that society) contribute to and perpetuate rape culture.

Elephants,

"Women can't stop rapes from happening - that's the whole point. Only men can change male culture and influence each other to the point where rape is treated as the crime it is."

Are you serious? And how would I (or any other man) do that? Do you think men stand around in a pub at night saying how great it is being a man because you can rape women?! Men can't stop rapes from happening either. Only rapists can do that and they are not going to as they are depraved criminals. Can you stop female thieves or con artists merely because you are female?

"And at this point I recall larry's grotesque input on another thread of an MNer who had been through a horrible experience relating to these issues."

I thought referring to other threads was a cardinal MN sin? Or is that just if someone you don't like does it?

larry, no one is saying that you personally are responsible for all rape. But can't you see that men as a group can do more to prevent rape and prosecute and imprison men who do rape. Men as a group can do more because they are 80% of our government and legislature, they make up most of our judiciary and lead our police force. If all these men wanted to take rape seriously, they really could do something about it.

Beachcomber.

I had a look at the link and it is way too simplistic.

I agree with the part about violent sex being glamourised. That is a terrible thing and a part of the over sexualisation of our culture as a whole. I tried to join one of the MN campaigns against it but it closed after I put my first post on it. It seems today that a lot of artists (men and women) and film producers think the only way to get taken seriously is to push the boundaries of decency in, frankly, a puerile (or puellarile (that is a neology) way. That definitely influences young people badly.

It is a very complex issue, as you say and I do not find the the lens of the "patriarchal" society a useful way in solving what is a very real problem. It also has led to children being taught that men are responsible for wars and rapes. I posted a Doris Lessing link illustrating that.

I think maybe I am ,Larry.I hadn't formulated that thought,but seeing it posted - yes,I think it's an abuse of male sexuality and power and men should be taking some responsibility for it.I don't think all men should feel personally responsible,but yes,trying to change society would be good.

I do think there is often a knee jerk anti man reaction here,and a lot of generalising,and I do get irritated,because the men I know and have lived with are not like that.And one of the reasons I hate this is that I do have a DS and I don't want him to grow up believing his sex is inherently flawed.There is a view of masculinity out there though which does not fit the men I know personally,but which I think is bad for society ,for men and women.I'm not sure how much women can alter that,but men can, in the same way that the women's movement has altered attitudes about femininity.

"I had a look at the link and it is way too simplistic.".

Really? Deconstruct it and all the links it contains then.

Pogleswood,

I appreciate your open and reasonable post but the line below is a contradiction in terms:

"yes,I think it's an abuse of male sexuality and power and men should be taking some responsibility for it.I don't think all men should feel personally responsible"

How can men take responsibility yet not feel personally responsible?

I think that there is currently a very grown up debate going on about men's and women's roles in society and a recognition that it is not good for men or women to demonise either sex. However, there are some bullies on this board who have no desire to move on from the militant feminism of the 60s/70s which was in itself a reaction to a very distorted society.

"Are you serious? And how would I (or any other man) do that? Do you think men stand around in a pub at night saying how great it is being a man because you can rape women?! Men can't stop rapes from happening either"

Of course not - but there is another thread running about offensive clothing,featuring a T shirt which said "I swear she was awake" on it.Men could easily stand around in pubs discussing whether that was an acceptable attitude to women..
After all,women are sitting around discussing whether how they do feminine is good for them,other women,society as a whole...

Pogleswood,

I would find that t shirt offensive and discuss it, I assure you. I suspect lots of other men would too.

Yes,that was a bit contradictory.What I meant,I think,was that I do not think "all men are rapists",or even that all men are capable of rape.But I do think all men are part of a masculine culture which affects how men view women,and part of that is a view of women which leads to attitudes which can lead onto rape.
So men do have a personal responsibility for their part in that culture.
Probably doesn't make any more sense than my last post,does it?

"It also has led to children being taught that men are responsible for wars and rapes."

I didn't see your Doris Lessing link (and I have no idea of etiquette WRT mentioning other threads btw) but I don't know where you think children are being taught this. I'm pretty sure they don't do it at school.

Unless you mean they're taught it by watching the news where sure enough you see NATO or the UN or other conferences of world leaders (and therefore those capable of declaring war), and they are nearly 100% men. Or they see crimewatch and hear about rape suspects who the police are hunting for, and they are nearly 100% men. It's not propaganda, it's just the truth about what's happening.

Can we just sort out once and for all the difference between these two statements:

"Men are the ones committing nearly all rapes" means that if you stood all rapists in a big big room, it would be nearly all men.

"All men are rapists" means that every man is out there raping.

I along with all other sane people believe the first statement (based on fact) but not the second because it is barking. You make a lot of claims about people believing or promoting the second idea, but they really don't - it is just a straw argument. I used to live in an all-male (bar me) shared house - would hardly have done that if I thought that all men were ravening sex pests. So can we just put that notion in a supboard and forget about it?

• or a cupboard even. Or a big iron chest and sink it to the bottom of the sea, whatever.

Stayfrosty,

I have duly posted on your thread.

Elephants, let me repost for your elucidation:

Lay off men, Lessing tells feministsNovelist condemns female culture that revels in humiliating other sex

Special report: Edinburgh books festival 2001
(18)
Fiachra Gibbons, arts correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 14 August 2001.

The novelist Doris Lessing yesterday claimed that men were the new silent victims in the sex war, "continually demeaned and insulted" by women without a whimper of protest.
Lessing, who became a feminist icon with the books The Grass is Singing and The Golden Notebook, said a "lazy and insidious" culture had taken hold within feminism that revelled in flailing men.

Young boys were being weighed down with guilt about the crimes of their sex, she told the Edinburgh book festival, while energy which could be used to get proper child care was being dissipated in the pointless humiliation of men.

"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," the 81-year-old Persian-born writer said yesterday.

"Great things have been achieved through feminism. We now have pretty much equality at least on the pay and opportunities front, though almost nothing has been done on child care, the real liberation.

"We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?

"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.

"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."

The difference between those two statements is clear and no-one can disagree. The question is whether men as a whole should take responsibility for the criminal element.

That is where I am having an interesting debate with Pogleswood.

ITA Elephants.

Also there are some very basic things that could be done to challenge current rape culture.

The reporting of rape needs to be made much much less traumatic.

Reports of rape need to be taken seriously. (For example one of the women attacked by taxi driver Worboys reported being laughed at by the police).

Judges need to stop talking misogynist bollocks and having the power to endorse gang rape.

The idea that there are things men who are not rapists themselves could do to make rape be treated as the serious crime it is, is not so very outlandish.

The notion that rape happens in societal isolation at the hands of psychopaths/depraved criminals is very dangerous to women in many many ways.

Thanks for re-posting.

I have a bit of a problem with the testimony of a novelist being used as prove that this is either a) actually happening or b) a widespread problem.

But even if this was happening in every classroom in the land, I doubt feminists would be supporting it. I certainly wouldn't because I think that "the reason for wars is the innately violent nature of men" is bollocks.

It's not the innately violent nature of men. However what contributes to wars is a big part of male culture e.g. competitiveness, status-seeking, trials of strength, worries about losing face etc.

It's actually feminists (mainly) who are saying that boys are not born to fight and kill and have stiff upper lips and no feelings. That genes and hormones don't make men into warmongering maniacs, just as they don't make women into cupcake-wielding submissive gigglers who can't do maths. Some people are like that, but it's not "innate", it's mainly learnt behaviour.

Exactly - I would like to requote the definition of patriarchy I gave on the other thread;

"Literally ?rule by the father? but more generally it refers to a social situation where men are dominant over women in wealth, status and power. Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a ?patriarchal ideology? that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women."

Feminism disagrees with the patriarchal notion that men are innately violent because this leads to the 'they can't help themselves' notion.

Feminists credit men with more intelligence and humanity than that. (Dworkin gave a stonking speech on this to a male audience, will try to find it. Twas about believing in the humanity of men despite evidence to the contrary.)

BEachcomber,

I actually agree most of what you are saying in your last few posts but it is really not in agreement with the bald statement:

"men are responsible for rape"

That statement leads to exactly the kind of teaching that Doris Lessing highlighted. It is undoubtedly literally true but is the equivalent of either "the Jews killed Jesus" (literally true as all monotheists at that time were Jewish) or that "Christians were responsible for the holocaust". Again literally true but not very helpful. It is where you go from the bald literal statements that is important.

The innate vs learnt is more complex than you suggest in your previous post. There is a type of behaviour which is encouraged by hormones in men and women. Women do become more aggressive and competitive if given regular testosterone injections. I think that is well documented in sport. However, learning and societal conditioning also have a role to play in how people behave and interact. Society has to acknowledge and deal with how boys and girls start out and then seek to influence the end products. We all do that with our children and I am not sure denying that inate differences exist is actually the right way to go.

Here it is.

www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html

"I came here today because I don't believe that rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence."