snowlessknitter:

so-discreetly-sympathetic:

so-discreetly-sympathetic:

One of the worst things I’ve ever seen during Christmas season was a giant billboard for the Christmas issue of a cooking magazine FOR MEN called BEEF! (and the exclamation point is in the title, I didn’t add that)

The cover story was “Back mit Hack!” and it had the tagline “Endlich Plätzchen aus Fleisch. Für Männer. Herzhaft und edel.” which translates as “Back with ground beef! finally, cookies made from meat. For men. Hearty and noble.” 

It’s basically my “Since that encounter my life hasn’t known peace” moment, bc I think that was two years ago and I still think about it and I can recite that tagline on the cover by heart.

And like… does that… honestly appeal to MEN!™? Ground beef cut into a star or christmas tree shape? Really?

😐

Well, if they were cookies made from ground beef, wouldn’t they just be fancy-shaped hamburger patties? Something weirds me out about eating a burger in the shape of a Christmas tree…

*scratches head* At least it’s an actual cooking magazine. Something tells me that stateside it would sound more like the title of a gay erotic magazine. Or an erotic magazine for straight women.

Better than a meat jello and mayonnaise glazed pineapple.

Don’t worry everyone, the Bad Recipe Challenge will begin the 1st of December

Regarding disliking feminism because men are harmed by patriarchy, and women also perpetuate patriarchy: both of those things are aspects acknowledged by feminist theory. The thing is that feminism is mainly concerned with who benefits most from the system, which is absolutely men. Are there downsides to patriarchy for men? Yeah, but even if you shoot yourself in the foot you’re still holding the gun. Similarly women policing each other still ultimately benefits men. It’s well acknowledged.

ranma-official:

jumpingjacktrash:

sosungalittleclodofclay:

jumpingjacktrash:

simonalkenmayer:

Thank you. Well said and a point I should have perhaps raised. Thank you.

i don’t really like the way this situation is commonly worded as ‘benefitting’ men. i think it would be more accurate to say that it benefits power-holders or the status quo.

i mean, it certainly enables men with behavior problems. but ultimately that’s not good for them.

this isn’t an argument against feminism. rather, it’s an argument that everyone needs feminism. i just can’t accept a view of the patriarchal social structure that assumes little boys benefit from getting the wire-mother treatment, you know? it’s a legitimately fuck-awful thing to do to a kid. of course they grow up to be pathological assholes.

the genuine benefits that accrue to all men under patriarchy are simply what ought to be the baseline of respect for every gender. everything else is either enabling or damaging.

to borrow the asker’s analogy, the solution isn’t for everyone to get guns and shoot it out, it’s for us to stop acting like it’s in any way ok to give little boys guns when they ask for hugs.

eh, yet much of feminist theory and feminist policy directly contradicts all that.

particularly radfems. They didn’t die off in the 80′s-90′s.
You can see it how they deny that women can be abusive (at all, to anyone -children, men, other women,) or are capable of rape. you can see it in policy like how there’s 1 abuse shelter for men in the US (2 in canada! 18 in the UK! and all are being protested/limited by…. you guessed it, radfems!) and a little under 3,000 for women, and what happens when men call into DV help lines . you can also witness their opposition to father’s rights/involvement, shared parenting, and the notion that men can experiance any kind of sexism what so ever.
and then there are SWERFS and TERFS, who, again, are very active as theorists and policy makers.
if you want to say ‘that’s not real feminism’ then, well, you gotta do something about the fact that your idea of feminism isn’t (well) represented in theory or policy.

i’m not sure why you want to let fringey assholes define the movement.

i choose not to.

Your so-called fringey assholes are the backbone of the movement and in absolute control of it. What OP espoused is in fact mainstream feminism. What did you do? Absolutely nothing. You had power to at least denounce. You did not do this. What you did is politely nod. All that evil needs to prevail is for good people to do nothing. You did not even do nothing: you are an enabler.

Excuse me. Rudeness is not permitted in any discussion on my blog. 

I will block you if you persist.

“Radfems” are called that because they were radical. and “Feminism” (capital F) is not the same as feminism. A set of philosophical principles continues to be confused for the dogmatic prescriptions of those who wanted the movement to have structure and a backbone, never realizing that that structure made it intractably inflexible and therefore useless.

And also inaccurate and enabling, as you said. 

Women can abuse, they can be terrible people, but that is not mutually exclusive to also being within and policing within a patriarchy. In many ways, when women abuse, or adopt radical ideology, it feeds into the patriarchy, because it aligns with the notion that women are irrational.

Regarding disliking feminism because men are harmed by patriarchy, and women also perpetuate patriarchy: both of those things are aspects acknowledged by feminist theory. The thing is that feminism is mainly concerned with who benefits most from the system, which is absolutely men. Are there downsides to patriarchy for men? Yeah, but even if you shoot yourself in the foot you’re still holding the gun. Similarly women policing each other still ultimately benefits men. It’s well acknowledged.

canadianwheatpirates:

jumpingjacktrash:

i don’t really like the way this situation is commonly worded as ‘benefitting’ men. i think it would be more accurate to say that it benefits power-holders or the status quo.

i mean, it certainly enables men with behavior problems. but ultimately that’s not good for them.

this isn’t an argument against feminism. rather, it’s an argument that everyone needs feminism. i just can’t accept a view of the patriarchal social structure that assumes little boys benefit from getting the wire-mother treatment, you know? it’s a legitimately fuck-awful thing to do to a kid. of course they grow up to be pathological assholes.

the genuine benefits that accrue to all men under patriarchy are simply what ought to be the baseline of respect for every gender. everything else is either enabling or damaging.

to borrow the asker’s analogy, the solution isn’t for everyone to get guns and shoot it out, it’s for us to stop acting like it’s in any way ok to give little boys guns when they ask for hugs.

I mean, I said it was benefitting men because in a patriarchal system men are the power-holders. Even men who don’t behave poorly often passively benefit from the bar being really low (an example being how a husband who doesn’t do his share of the housework is still lauded for being “better than” an abusive one). The way we treat men and boys absolutely messes them up, but it’s one aspect of a system that overwhelmingly grants them advantages. Perhaps a better wording would have been “benefits them over women” or “confers unearned power on men”? Both men and women are harmed by patriarchy, but the difference is that men get something out of it (often material benefit such as higher wages).

It’s true that in many cases, the “privileges” that men are given are simply basic human decency. You frame the other cases – the allowance and enabling of bad behaviour – as not privileges? Which I disagree with, I think. They’re certainly not beneficial to society (or often to the mental health of the individual) but having the right to trample others and get away with it is still an aspect of privilege.

There are essentially two kinds of privilege; those that should be extended to all, and those that nobody should be allowed to have. Patriarchy allows men to have both and denies women either. To quote from White Privilege: Unpacking The Invisible Backpack (written by Peggy McIntosh as an extension of feminist analysis of gender privilege to the concept of white privilege):

simonalkenmayer:

Thank you. Well said and a point I should have perhaps raised. Thank you.

I now think that we need a more finely differentiated taxonomy of
privilege, for some of these varieties are only what one would want for everyone in a just
society, and others give license to be ignorant, oblivious, arrogant, and destructive. 

[…]

We might at least start by distinguishing between positive advantages, which we can
work to spread, and negative types of advantage, which unless rejected will always
reinforce our present hierarchies. 

I definitely didn’t intend to imply that we should aim to extend destructive privilege to more people – the proverbial shootout – but having society turn a blind eye to your poor behaviour in a way it doesn’t for others is still a privilege, even if it’s bad for you.

I agree. As you say very succinctly, In a patriarchy, ONLY men can become power holders, and only men determine what is basic treatment. So in that framework, even men who are mistreated benefit in small ways from the patriarchy. They have rights and freedoms that women do not. And “benefit” is used in an intrinsically economic sense of the word, not the emotional sense. 

No one benefits from abuse, but if they look like the abuser and the abuser is the law, then they will eventually gain from it.

Humans are backward.

mysharona1987:

Like, you want janitors and McDonald fast food workers and cleaners.

You just don’t want them to make a liveable wage and have healthcare and be treated like proper human beings.  

Indeed. This has been a pervasive “norm” for a long while in America, and it all ties back to racism. If you’ll allow me to rant and ramble a bit, i think I can make it clear.

You see, even before the end of the Civil War, whites who were in extreme poverty were placid in it, because they were always socially superior to the enslaved blacks or the uprooted and murdered Native peoples. They had the potential freedom to move around and cast a vote, but not the financial freedom to do so, which of course is how they were pacified. They had no time to waste on higher ideas, always scraping by, controlled by their own egos and their sense of superiority to blacks. Rich whites could keep them in one place, working, their noses down, yet always ready to fight, if a cry of “lynch him” went up.

Then the war happened, and I think it’s no shock that poor whites turned out to keep slavery en masse. Of course they did. It was their self-esteem. It had nothing whatever to do with state’s rights, but with some man in the wealthier or “more educated” north telling them they weren’t allowed to feel superior. Southern land owners perpetuated the stereotypes of the “richer than us” “more educated than us” Yankee, who had no idea about a good days work. This lain side by side with the propaganda of “medical evidence” dehumanizing blacks, and the Northern “treason” of freeing slaves (or as the Southerners saw it “stealing property”) and I think you can see that poor whites were easily mobilized to fight what actually amounted to an economic war.

But now we’ve reached the time after the war, the Reconstruction, and this is where the mindset begins. Suddenly, the market was flooded by a newly created workforce, that of the freed slaves. Men could no longer enslave them by law, so what did they do? Well, it’s really quite simple. They used magnanimity and generosity to enslave. 

“What does that mean?” you ask me. 

It means that a mine owner or a construction company rebuilding the damaged country would offer a newly freed black man a job. But to do the job, he had to have skills and tools. The owner offers to teach the man skills and give him tools on loan. With interest. “I will hand you a livelihood, under the contractual obligation that you pay me back…or work until you have.” Often the first time a freed slave ever signed his name, it was too one of these companies.

These conditions meant, of course, no salary. That man was again, a slave. He was given his training, his tools, his food from the company store. He worked and worked, without safety regulations, until his debt was paid and only the company owner could say when that was. This was true of most industries and trades, and was the way that the racial superiority complex was codified into the structure of capitalism.

The Gilded Age, that of Western expansion – Freed slaves and their children had taken up the cause. They’d become activists, political movers, they fought for their rights. They fought to have the vote. All while western expansion and the stock exchange came up. Men were making billions off the mines in the west, and immigrants who were not citizens followed it. Rules of debt and indenture were being overturned, because the labor force was changing color. What do I mean? The lure of territory and wealth drew in thousands of white European immigrants, all of whom had training and skills they brought with them. White Europeans are not going to tolerate racism, nor be subjected to it. They became wise to the notion of “unionizing”. In the west, everyone was a wanderer, and so racial disparities between whites weren’t as important as they had previously been. The newly formed mines offered instantaneous wealth, and everyone was a gambler

But let’s not forget the racism. The Chinese built the most difficult portion of the transcontinental, that of the several hundred miles between San Francisco and Promontory, scaling the Sierras and pioneering how tunneling was done, but once their labor force was set free in the States…where did it go? For a while, it followed the railroad expansion, south in both California and Nevada, some in Utah, but when that work ended, they were left largely destitute. White men, white European immigrants who were fighting for their own jobs and right to strike it rich, rallied yet again, beneath the psychologically tantalizing banner of racism. They demanded that laws be passed forbidding Chinese or other minorities from mining. Mining was segregated into a white activity to protect the “skilled labor” of those European immigrants – German, Irish, Dutch, Polish, Scottish, and so forth.

So what do we now have? Freed slaves who take odd jobs, perform menial labor, run cattle, shine shoes. Chinese immigrants lured here by industry and then denied any sort of worthwhile work, who become cooks and launderers and bathhouse owners because their culture overlapped the American culture and found a niche. Natives who have been either killed off or uprooted to conveniently distant reservations, kept from all avenues of legal representation or education. And poor, white labor, uprooted from their cultures, trying to scrounge out a living by moving out into the prairies, doing whatever work they could get their hands on, offered by extremely rich men who have the same skin color as them, and who then underhandedly create laws to keep all these people in all these places.

Blacks segregated into slums and denied education. Chinese forbidden from occupations that use their engineering skills. Irish who are worked half to death and herded into the pen of racial intolerance so that they can be controlled.

All by men who are accumulating wealth even as they work out the rules for how to aggregate wealth. From the development of the stock exchange to Union busting, to monopolies, to government contracts negotiated before the government had regulations over how these things were done. Wealthy white men built a system that equated the lowest, most difficult jobs with “unsavory” sorts, meaning of course, they turned manual labor into a racial stockpiling. Once this was accomplished, the other, poorer white men were again kept from uprising in a legal system that benefited their whiteness and allowed them to vote. Poor whites were told all the time that immigrants or freed slaves or natives were going to steal their jobs. If that didn’t work, money was thrown at the problem. The late 1800′s saw billions of dollars in the hands of a few men, and they ran the country like a fiefdom, always using racial and economic talking points to rally those poor whites who were enfranchised. 

Look familiar?

Now we enter the World Wars and the economic and ideological upheaval they caused. Just like the Black Death, whole populations were wiped out, mass migration occurred, the military industrial complex was created, and the surveillance state was born. Rich white men in this country used to back the Nazis in the beginning. Then they silently stepped into the shadows when it was revealed what Germany had done. But racial hatred was still a rallying cry. The Japanese immigrants forced into internment camps weren’t returned their property. They were herded into pens to give rich white men the soldiers they needed to fight the war, and it was done on every news reel, done to pacify whites who were afraid and to assure the “real Americans” that something was being done. Those men and women returned to their homes to find them destroyed. But here’s the trouble when you have a large war, a good many of the soldiers die.

Those soldiers were poor to middle class white men. A vacuum was again created.

With fewer white men, the smaller group was more easily pacified with things like the cultural oppression of women, segregation, economic growth in their tax bracket. This turbulence and sudden population shift fed into the Civil Rights movement. People traditionally funneled into menial labor by racism begin fighting for equality, aided by displaced Europeans who came face to face with racial hatred in their own lands. The Civil Rights movement had television, it had mass media, it had white supporters, and it had a tinier uneducated white male population than had previously existed. it had everything it needed to make the issue of racial propaganda clear and precisely the right leaders to vocalize dissent.

But, to paraphrase Richard Pryer, white people “be fuckin’”. Baby boomers create hordes of tiny people and the economy shifts out of the post war boom and into the Cold War. Those who have learned how to stockpile wealth, take it back up again, and the increasingly complicated tax code assists. Reaganism was ingenious in its way, because it elevated those who had money to godlike status with their supposed powers to stimulate growth. All that trickle down economic poppycock did was ruin the economy and erase what little gain the middle class had gained. The New Deal and all the social welfare programs that had been used initially to benefit poor whites were now being vilified as propping up poor minorities. Economic downturns funnel more poor whites, often students and younger people, into those jobs that were once the legally mandated position of the racially segregated…

And voila. You have the culture that demeans manual labor even as it relies upon it, scrimps a penny with the worthless folk in order to buy one more latte. It is important to see this not just for a control mechanism now – that damages your self-esteem and teaches others to bully you. See it for what it actually is – an extension of a historically codified system of legal racism and capitalistic strong-arming. It is a form of thievery, but it is done with ideas and not with guns. It is rape and enslavement, that pits one group against another so that a stable work force can be achieved. 

Rich white men are racists. They gain from the system that is founded on it, structured to support it, and is constantly being refined to further propagate it. See it, not as one isolated decade amongst dozens, but as a cycle that has risen and fallen since the beginning of this country.

I apologize for going on for so long and for stating things with sweeping generalizations. Often this kind of “epic” discussion can only be brief if it is executed with generalization.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑