I saw today a chap had written that if women really were paid less solely on the basis of being women, businesses would not employ any men, because they'd be more expensive.
I have also just read that fever is associated with a 7-13% rise in energy consumption per degree (centigrade) increase in body temperature, which is estimated to be roughly equivalent to a 70kg person walking 45km (Hotamisligil and Erbay, 2008).
No wonder being ill is so tiring!
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Feminism
I was directed recently to a website started by a postgraduate student in order to lay out her beliefs. Her slogan was 'hungry for change', and she was attempting to garner publicity for her 60-day fast (during daytime hours). She claimed to be a moderate feminist who was appalled at the sexism she saw all around her, including these points ('the icing on the cake'):
'-At dinner, a student brings up “gang rape” among ducks, to prove a point. When quietly informed that he has gone too far, he only becomes defensive and continues the topic.
-An entire research institute devoted to violent conflict has no past or present research whatsoever on gendered dimensions of conflict.
-A local newspaper reports rape as ‘sex’.
-A female student points out something sexist on TV. A male student insists it is only a coincidence and that she is reading too much into it.
-A group of students proclaim that because gender doesn’t matter to them, they see no reason to be concerned about women’s 7% representation in ministerial cabinet positions worldwide. (Ahah, then I must be the sexist one!)
-A male student corners a female student into a discussion about abortion, at a Halloween party. The man does not understand why pregnant rape victims do not ‘simply’ carry the foetus to term and then find it an adoptive family. I repeat: at a Halloween party.'
Talking about gang rape is hardly oppressive in itself. Supporting it and doing it would be bad, but surely feminists would welcome attention to what might well be an under-recognised crime? If she thinks that even mentioning rape might offend people, because it's an offensive thing, I wonder how she might justify why feminists like to raise public awareness of discrimination against women. That could certainly be an offensive thing, and yet talking about it is suddenly fine by them. She could also read my post on offence.
That this point is a stupid one is supported further by an observation I made whilst staying with my sister. She and her flatmate were idly watching television, and the comedian happened to start talking about how silly it is for people to think that natural is good, such as in the organic food industry, when giving birth or when claiming (against all evidence) that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Amongst the various amusing comments that he made one really caught my attention: he mentioned that mallards typically mate through a process of gang-rape, and that according to the nature-is-good crowd we should therefore allow gang-rape. I have now found this fact about mallards quoted in other reputable sources.
So it appears that, far from being sexist, the man being quoted by my feminist might well have been arguing about something else entirely, a point which went right over this woman's head.
As for conflict, I'd have thought that feminists would be pleased about this. If women are not involved in the conflict, it could be taken to show how superior women are because they don't fight, or it could be used to show that in the conflict women are oppressed because they have no major roles to play. The assumption that somehow women are playing a different role in the conflict and that this is vitally important and stands independently of any other research area is itself sexist. Not everything revolves around women, and nor should an institution have research departments into irrelevant fields. Conflict and women (or 'gendered dimensions') are not so closely related that this is amazing. It is akin to expecting a physics department to have a group investigating paranormal abilities. Paranormal abilities will certainly need a physical explanation, but are not central to physics.
A local newspaper might report rape as sex because the trial and conviction has not yet happened, and thus rape is only an allegation. This could well be perfectly normal legal practice. Furthermore, given how offensive it is to mention rape (as we saw with the poor boy and his gang-raping ducks), perhaps the newspaper was just avoiding giving offence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
We have two conflicting opinions about what's on television and we are expected to assume that the woman is right and that the man is being sexist. That assumption is sexist in itself. We need more information, and not giving it but expecting what is written to be enough is the most sexist thing that we have yet seen in her writing.
Sex doesn't matter to me when it comes to my country's cabinet, and it appears not to matter to the country either. If sexism is more rife in other parts of the world, that's a problem, but not one that campaigns within this country can solve. Furthermore, when we start considering raw statistics such as this one, we need to be careful to consider other factors, such as the proportions of men and women actually trying to make a serious career in politics, and whether women tend to prioritise families over careers. It's not sexism if it's due to personal choices.
As for the Halloween party, this seems more like an example of religious fanaticism than plain sexism. The question of abortion in many people's minds has nothing to do with sexism, but about murder. Were it a sexist issue, people would allow abortion of one sex but not another.
This particular feminazi, as she describes herself (with regret) might not be representative, but some of her arguments are. I frequently hear from those of my female friends to whom it matters that such an action is discriminatory, or that this particular thing is sexist.
It is very easy to become sensitive to these things. Not every action in which a certain group of people suffer is specifically designed to harm that group. Not every system in which a certain group of people experience unequal outcomes is unfairly biased against them. The whole idea of institutional racism is an unnerving and dangerous one.
Would anyone agree with me if I said that people between the ages of 20 and 25 were unfairly discriminated against because they occupy 0% of all professorships in the department, 0% of cabinet posts (probably worldwide) and have extraordinarily high car insurance premiums?
Maybe they would for the last one. But the point is that discrimination (of the illegal sort which we do not want to exist) only exists if it occurs on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. If women happen to be under-represented in certain professions, it could be because they themselves choose not to apply. It could be because women tend not to excel at those things, whether by choice or biological tendency (for example, women tend not to be as strong and hence make worse manual labourers).
Women tend to take time out of their careers for family life. If 30% of women drop out for families, and another 50% take time out for families, then it will be no surprise when women are under-represented in top jobs, which take time to reach. Those percentages were mere guesses, by the way.
Men die early, commit much more suicide, suffer more prostate cancer (amazingly) and so on. Yet men are happy to admit that these have reasonable explanations and are not directly dependent solely on a person's manhood. It is these underlying causes that should be considered, and if necessary addressed. Why can feminists not follow the same line of reasoning?
It is the same line of reasoning that says that we should address poverty, not racial discrimination, because by far the biggest cause of racial inequality in this country is the economic status of black children, not active discrimination.
This country has given women equal status, and did so a long time ago. Maybe some of these changes are still filtering through to the top levels of professions, which take time to reach, but there is no reason to change anything further, except to benefit women unfairly. Feminists should focus on individuals or other societies, because their battle here is won.
Having said all this, I still have some gripes. Firstly, feminism nowadays justifies itself as being a campaign for equal rights for everyone. As I say, this has been achieved for women. So why is the name now feminism, except as further campaign material to continue enhancing the rights and attitudes of women? We have an equal rights movement and we have a wonderful organisation called Liberty who campaign about civil rights. There is no need for anything else.
Secondly, I am unsure why breast cancer is the most famous cancer in the country. Can it really be the biggest killer when it (almost entirely) can affect only half of the population? Why is a woman-only cancer so special?
Thirdly, the argument that society is based on male principles is a stupid one. Some feminists don't even believe in male and female traits. But if we take the traditional dichotomy of rational intelligence and cold, hard logic versus emotions and desires, we will find that rationality is far more appropriate for dealing with physical actions and systems, which follow cold hard rules. Objective considerations, almost by definition, are only things that unite great masses of individuals into coherent societies. We are forced into objectivity by having society and a physical world, and so it is hardly sensible to complain that this masculine. If, indeed, women are better at manipulating relationships and men at phsyical and objective concerns then it is simply a biological fact that society must necessarily be masculine. It does not preclude women from dominating in the endless network of individual social relationships that actually make society work.
'-At dinner, a student brings up “gang rape” among ducks, to prove a point. When quietly informed that he has gone too far, he only becomes defensive and continues the topic.
-An entire research institute devoted to violent conflict has no past or present research whatsoever on gendered dimensions of conflict.
-A local newspaper reports rape as ‘sex’.
-A female student points out something sexist on TV. A male student insists it is only a coincidence and that she is reading too much into it.
-A group of students proclaim that because gender doesn’t matter to them, they see no reason to be concerned about women’s 7% representation in ministerial cabinet positions worldwide. (Ahah, then I must be the sexist one!)
-A male student corners a female student into a discussion about abortion, at a Halloween party. The man does not understand why pregnant rape victims do not ‘simply’ carry the foetus to term and then find it an adoptive family. I repeat: at a Halloween party.'
Talking about gang rape is hardly oppressive in itself. Supporting it and doing it would be bad, but surely feminists would welcome attention to what might well be an under-recognised crime? If she thinks that even mentioning rape might offend people, because it's an offensive thing, I wonder how she might justify why feminists like to raise public awareness of discrimination against women. That could certainly be an offensive thing, and yet talking about it is suddenly fine by them. She could also read my post on offence.
That this point is a stupid one is supported further by an observation I made whilst staying with my sister. She and her flatmate were idly watching television, and the comedian happened to start talking about how silly it is for people to think that natural is good, such as in the organic food industry, when giving birth or when claiming (against all evidence) that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Amongst the various amusing comments that he made one really caught my attention: he mentioned that mallards typically mate through a process of gang-rape, and that according to the nature-is-good crowd we should therefore allow gang-rape. I have now found this fact about mallards quoted in other reputable sources.
So it appears that, far from being sexist, the man being quoted by my feminist might well have been arguing about something else entirely, a point which went right over this woman's head.
As for conflict, I'd have thought that feminists would be pleased about this. If women are not involved in the conflict, it could be taken to show how superior women are because they don't fight, or it could be used to show that in the conflict women are oppressed because they have no major roles to play. The assumption that somehow women are playing a different role in the conflict and that this is vitally important and stands independently of any other research area is itself sexist. Not everything revolves around women, and nor should an institution have research departments into irrelevant fields. Conflict and women (or 'gendered dimensions') are not so closely related that this is amazing. It is akin to expecting a physics department to have a group investigating paranormal abilities. Paranormal abilities will certainly need a physical explanation, but are not central to physics.
A local newspaper might report rape as sex because the trial and conviction has not yet happened, and thus rape is only an allegation. This could well be perfectly normal legal practice. Furthermore, given how offensive it is to mention rape (as we saw with the poor boy and his gang-raping ducks), perhaps the newspaper was just avoiding giving offence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
We have two conflicting opinions about what's on television and we are expected to assume that the woman is right and that the man is being sexist. That assumption is sexist in itself. We need more information, and not giving it but expecting what is written to be enough is the most sexist thing that we have yet seen in her writing.
Sex doesn't matter to me when it comes to my country's cabinet, and it appears not to matter to the country either. If sexism is more rife in other parts of the world, that's a problem, but not one that campaigns within this country can solve. Furthermore, when we start considering raw statistics such as this one, we need to be careful to consider other factors, such as the proportions of men and women actually trying to make a serious career in politics, and whether women tend to prioritise families over careers. It's not sexism if it's due to personal choices.
As for the Halloween party, this seems more like an example of religious fanaticism than plain sexism. The question of abortion in many people's minds has nothing to do with sexism, but about murder. Were it a sexist issue, people would allow abortion of one sex but not another.
This particular feminazi, as she describes herself (with regret) might not be representative, but some of her arguments are. I frequently hear from those of my female friends to whom it matters that such an action is discriminatory, or that this particular thing is sexist.
It is very easy to become sensitive to these things. Not every action in which a certain group of people suffer is specifically designed to harm that group. Not every system in which a certain group of people experience unequal outcomes is unfairly biased against them. The whole idea of institutional racism is an unnerving and dangerous one.
Would anyone agree with me if I said that people between the ages of 20 and 25 were unfairly discriminated against because they occupy 0% of all professorships in the department, 0% of cabinet posts (probably worldwide) and have extraordinarily high car insurance premiums?
Maybe they would for the last one. But the point is that discrimination (of the illegal sort which we do not want to exist) only exists if it occurs on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. If women happen to be under-represented in certain professions, it could be because they themselves choose not to apply. It could be because women tend not to excel at those things, whether by choice or biological tendency (for example, women tend not to be as strong and hence make worse manual labourers).
Women tend to take time out of their careers for family life. If 30% of women drop out for families, and another 50% take time out for families, then it will be no surprise when women are under-represented in top jobs, which take time to reach. Those percentages were mere guesses, by the way.
Men die early, commit much more suicide, suffer more prostate cancer (amazingly) and so on. Yet men are happy to admit that these have reasonable explanations and are not directly dependent solely on a person's manhood. It is these underlying causes that should be considered, and if necessary addressed. Why can feminists not follow the same line of reasoning?
It is the same line of reasoning that says that we should address poverty, not racial discrimination, because by far the biggest cause of racial inequality in this country is the economic status of black children, not active discrimination.
This country has given women equal status, and did so a long time ago. Maybe some of these changes are still filtering through to the top levels of professions, which take time to reach, but there is no reason to change anything further, except to benefit women unfairly. Feminists should focus on individuals or other societies, because their battle here is won.
Having said all this, I still have some gripes. Firstly, feminism nowadays justifies itself as being a campaign for equal rights for everyone. As I say, this has been achieved for women. So why is the name now feminism, except as further campaign material to continue enhancing the rights and attitudes of women? We have an equal rights movement and we have a wonderful organisation called Liberty who campaign about civil rights. There is no need for anything else.
Secondly, I am unsure why breast cancer is the most famous cancer in the country. Can it really be the biggest killer when it (almost entirely) can affect only half of the population? Why is a woman-only cancer so special?
Thirdly, the argument that society is based on male principles is a stupid one. Some feminists don't even believe in male and female traits. But if we take the traditional dichotomy of rational intelligence and cold, hard logic versus emotions and desires, we will find that rationality is far more appropriate for dealing with physical actions and systems, which follow cold hard rules. Objective considerations, almost by definition, are only things that unite great masses of individuals into coherent societies. We are forced into objectivity by having society and a physical world, and so it is hardly sensible to complain that this masculine. If, indeed, women are better at manipulating relationships and men at phsyical and objective concerns then it is simply a biological fact that society must necessarily be masculine. It does not preclude women from dominating in the endless network of individual social relationships that actually make society work.
Follow-up to 'The role of violence'
In that post I started by considering the case of the old woman who had been 'counter-protesting' at a rally for gay rights. I stated that she had been attacked, as I had been led to believe by the Fox News story to which I linked.
I have subsequently seen the video of the event, and she was not touched. The giant foam cross that she was waving in the protesters' faces was knocked out of her hands and stamped on. The news story said things such as 'the violence shocked me' and 'she is now considering whether to pursue assault charges', which cunningly implied a physical attack without ever telling a direct lie.
This was my first encounter with Fox News, and I was both shocked and impressed. This sort of deliberate deception is a way to ensure that the truth is hidden, and yet it is merely hiding the truth. There was not a single untruth in the whole article; it is a perfect example of the sort of deception that I use much of the time in everyday speech, both for (everyone's) amusement and when I actually do not want to reveal something.
When it's not expected, this is extraordinarily effective. The power of brainwashing is alive even in the western world.
I have subsequently seen the video of the event, and she was not touched. The giant foam cross that she was waving in the protesters' faces was knocked out of her hands and stamped on. The news story said things such as 'the violence shocked me' and 'she is now considering whether to pursue assault charges', which cunningly implied a physical attack without ever telling a direct lie.
This was my first encounter with Fox News, and I was both shocked and impressed. This sort of deliberate deception is a way to ensure that the truth is hidden, and yet it is merely hiding the truth. There was not a single untruth in the whole article; it is a perfect example of the sort of deception that I use much of the time in everyday speech, both for (everyone's) amusement and when I actually do not want to reveal something.
When it's not expected, this is extraordinarily effective. The power of brainwashing is alive even in the western world.
Monday, 13 April 2009
Offence
Over the last few days I have been told a number of times that I shouldn't say things because I'll offend the person. Once was on being asked about someone who has been coming to the gym with me when I said that she was a poor runner. Another occasion was describing someone as fat. On neither occasion was the person present.
It was explained to me that these people might find out about my opinion and be offended, that my listeners would hear my 'harsh' judgements and worry what I thought of them, and that I might speak of them similarly. In essence, I am expected not to tell the truth, even when asked of me, and even when the person who might not like the truth is not present. I must defer to others' arbitrary decisions of what is offensive, defer to their sensibilities and constantly attempt to guess the insecurities of everyone in the room in order to avoid speaking of the subject at all.
This is lunacy, and I said so, and am saying so here. I do not care if 'every girl is sensitive about her weight'. A fat person is fat and if others are concerned about this or themselves then perhaps their worry about the subject would be better expressed in exercise to lose the weight, rather than offence when someone talks about being overweight.
I could just as easily claim to be offended by the use of the word 'the'. But if I started explaining to people that they were being rude in everyday speech they would rightly ignore me, and possibly suggest that I see a doctor for my illness. I can't expect to change the language based on my personal problems, and nor can I expect others to live around me as if I were the centre of the universe. One's sensibilities and insecurities are one's own business, and I'm quite glad. I would rather that others did not even try to guess my insecurities, rather than feeling actively obliged to do so.
I was told that when it comes to offence I should accept other people's judgements. But I don't see why offence is special when compared to religion, philosophy, morality, tastes or desires. We allow other people to hold their own opinions on all these things but we do not, generally, expect others to agree with our own opinions in these matters. It would be a strange person who truly thought it outrageous that not everyone else also enjoyed apples more than oranges, and expected others always to express a preference for apples in his presence.
Yet when it comes to offence I am told that I must obey other people's opinions. This is the offensive ideal, if anything that I have mentioned is. The thoughtless belief that your feelings trump mine, and trump objective communication, is implying that I am objectively less important, not equal, and that I should subsume my desires to yours. Since the whole justification of why I should be careful of what I say is to avoid offending others, there appears to be some considerable hypocrisy.
One might respond by claiming that my desire to say what I think is simply a desire that another person must obey and that I, in turn, am expecting others to conform to my opinions. But even a cursory examination of the two situations will reveal the difference. Whereas in the first (the one people have tried to impose) my actions are being limited and controlled by arbitrary, irrational desires of other people, in the second I am not controlling anyone's actions by expressing myself. If a person has an emotional response to normal conversation, the emotional response is entirely internal and is not under my control.
At school, when I was much younger, I experienced insults, bullying, theft, vandalism, tactlessness, bluntness and foolishness, as many people do to varying extents. It is very easy to tell when someone is being intentionally insulting; those who want to insult me have always made this clear, because otherwise the point of the insult is lost. If someone means offence, I am happy to read offence into their statement. However, the taking of unintentional offence is something I cannot understand in most situations. If in my culture a man always stands to greet a new arrival and a male host does not do so for me then I might be offended. But as soon as it is explained that he has never encountered such a custom, and certainly not been trained in it, I will no longer be offended.
With such an obvious example, scenes from television and films make it seem as though the population will agree with me. Yet when it comes to conversation about being a bad runner it is apparently offensive, even though it is an objective assessment (as far as I can make one on this) with the person not even in the room (or city), and certainly not intended to be offensive.
When it comes to offence, I believe that intent is everything. As children know, and parents have forgotten, even the most harmless of statements can be meant maliciously, and as many people know, insulting names can be used affectionately. When one of my old school friends calls me by the nickname I had there I don't fly off the handle, and no-one else takes offence on my behalf.
Similarly, the person in question who is a bad runner is the first to admit it. It is possible to be a bad runner and have improved, just as it is possible to be fat and have beautiful hair. I see no need to focus only on positive traits. Bad things exist and it's a sign of maturity and intelligence to have realised this and accept that other people might also have noticed it.
It was explained to me that these people might find out about my opinion and be offended, that my listeners would hear my 'harsh' judgements and worry what I thought of them, and that I might speak of them similarly. In essence, I am expected not to tell the truth, even when asked of me, and even when the person who might not like the truth is not present. I must defer to others' arbitrary decisions of what is offensive, defer to their sensibilities and constantly attempt to guess the insecurities of everyone in the room in order to avoid speaking of the subject at all.
This is lunacy, and I said so, and am saying so here. I do not care if 'every girl is sensitive about her weight'. A fat person is fat and if others are concerned about this or themselves then perhaps their worry about the subject would be better expressed in exercise to lose the weight, rather than offence when someone talks about being overweight.
I could just as easily claim to be offended by the use of the word 'the'. But if I started explaining to people that they were being rude in everyday speech they would rightly ignore me, and possibly suggest that I see a doctor for my illness. I can't expect to change the language based on my personal problems, and nor can I expect others to live around me as if I were the centre of the universe. One's sensibilities and insecurities are one's own business, and I'm quite glad. I would rather that others did not even try to guess my insecurities, rather than feeling actively obliged to do so.
I was told that when it comes to offence I should accept other people's judgements. But I don't see why offence is special when compared to religion, philosophy, morality, tastes or desires. We allow other people to hold their own opinions on all these things but we do not, generally, expect others to agree with our own opinions in these matters. It would be a strange person who truly thought it outrageous that not everyone else also enjoyed apples more than oranges, and expected others always to express a preference for apples in his presence.
Yet when it comes to offence I am told that I must obey other people's opinions. This is the offensive ideal, if anything that I have mentioned is. The thoughtless belief that your feelings trump mine, and trump objective communication, is implying that I am objectively less important, not equal, and that I should subsume my desires to yours. Since the whole justification of why I should be careful of what I say is to avoid offending others, there appears to be some considerable hypocrisy.
One might respond by claiming that my desire to say what I think is simply a desire that another person must obey and that I, in turn, am expecting others to conform to my opinions. But even a cursory examination of the two situations will reveal the difference. Whereas in the first (the one people have tried to impose) my actions are being limited and controlled by arbitrary, irrational desires of other people, in the second I am not controlling anyone's actions by expressing myself. If a person has an emotional response to normal conversation, the emotional response is entirely internal and is not under my control.
At school, when I was much younger, I experienced insults, bullying, theft, vandalism, tactlessness, bluntness and foolishness, as many people do to varying extents. It is very easy to tell when someone is being intentionally insulting; those who want to insult me have always made this clear, because otherwise the point of the insult is lost. If someone means offence, I am happy to read offence into their statement. However, the taking of unintentional offence is something I cannot understand in most situations. If in my culture a man always stands to greet a new arrival and a male host does not do so for me then I might be offended. But as soon as it is explained that he has never encountered such a custom, and certainly not been trained in it, I will no longer be offended.
With such an obvious example, scenes from television and films make it seem as though the population will agree with me. Yet when it comes to conversation about being a bad runner it is apparently offensive, even though it is an objective assessment (as far as I can make one on this) with the person not even in the room (or city), and certainly not intended to be offensive.
When it comes to offence, I believe that intent is everything. As children know, and parents have forgotten, even the most harmless of statements can be meant maliciously, and as many people know, insulting names can be used affectionately. When one of my old school friends calls me by the nickname I had there I don't fly off the handle, and no-one else takes offence on my behalf.
Similarly, the person in question who is a bad runner is the first to admit it. It is possible to be a bad runner and have improved, just as it is possible to be fat and have beautiful hair. I see no need to focus only on positive traits. Bad things exist and it's a sign of maturity and intelligence to have realised this and accept that other people might also have noticed it.
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Oh dear
In conversation today I was told something like 'You haven't taken every opportunity to hook up with every sleazy girl you could have, and that's why I like you'.
It scares me for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I already knew that this girl is too enamoured of me. This takes it a step further, interpreting my life and actions as supportive of her own personal biases, despite my avowed opinions.
Secondly, it suggests that there have been opportunities that I have missed.
I'm not the sort of person who is looking to settle down with one partner. I'm not 'into' lovey nesting, nor do I understand the attitude that makes faithfulness a virtue and lifelong commitment desirable.
It's not that I recognise these as ideals and give into temptation, but that I really don't see why these are ideals, or the alternative is pejoratively labelled temptation. I have for some time now thought of myself as 'miswired'; I have a screw loose or am missing a marble. I like to think that I can understand things easily, but when it comes to this particular desire that is manifest in the vast majority of the human population (that I have met or heard about) I can only understand that it exists, not why.
It would be nice to tell myself that it's a basic emotional response that has no rational explanation, but that's not certain to me. Is it culturally ingrained in people, rather than being natural?
Our whole culture is arranged around the concept of the two-parent family, marriage and one-on-one relationships. Most women I meet who have considered the issue tell me that this is because of patriarchal oppression, a line thought up, I guess, by radical 'counter-culture' feminists. But I can't understand why this would be true. Men fight: they're born competitive (yes, I'm talking about statistical tendencies, not individuals) and aggressive. They don't share naturally.
If society were organised a man's way there would be one man who ruled, and he'd have as many women as he could. Others with power would also have women, and a great many men would have nothing. Men, as I understand their biological desires, would never arrange only to have one women, so that (roughly) every man could have one. That's a sharing system, and it appears very feminine to me.
Of course, some people will be angry at the use of the word feminine, or about the acknowledgement of intrinsic biological sex differences in character and attitude. These people can take their attempts to deny the truth, or to rewrite the dictionaries, elsewhere.
The explanation is that marriage makes women property, and ties a woman to a man so that she can't escape: it relies on the assumption of man's insecurity. But a chieftan can own many women just as easily as he can own one. If he were insecure and wanted to bind a woman to himself, if he were designing our cultural institutions from scratch (or many chieftans all contributed a little over the generations) he could easily make marriage something that one could have with many women, but retain the features of ownership and male domination that feminists rightly dislike.
In my experience of the human population it is the women who, like my interlocutor earlier today, seem particularly keen to devote themselves to one person. In fact, we have a stereotype of the man fooling around and the woman becoming over-committed. I have phrased this carefully, because it is not men who fool around: again, in my experience, most men agree with women on this: that settling down with one fine women would be a wonderful thing. It is the man with whom women become overcommitted who fools around.
There are some women who, like me, and like this mythical man (who is fortunate enough to have this stream of relationships: he and I only share an attitude, not a life history) are not hunting for marriage, but I would contend that the vast majority of women are, whereas a significant number of men are not. I have met women who say that they are not looking for long-term relationships, but when I get to know them better negate such assertions by their actions and even in direct speech.
There's a myth that I hear all the time of people getting jilted: of callous lovers who show no respect of decency. It's a jungle out there. I agree that the world of relationships is a dangerous one in which one is likely to be distressed, but from my point of view it's even worse.
I'm not looking for the perfect relationship, and mostly having to dump uninspiring boys because I don't love them enough. I'm looking for lots of wonderful relationships (and I have been fortunate enough to know inspiring girls in those relationships that I have had) of a different sort. But people assume that I want to be faithful, and want them to be faithful; they assume that a relationship is a precursor to marriage, even if they have the wisdom to recognise that it might well not go that far because of unforseen problems. This is the best that I have coaxed out of a girl apon explaining my desires and hopes: a recognition that things might not go as far. Another girl, I am told, secretly thinks that one day I will 'see the light' and realise that my attitude is just young and foolish. I will be converted by the 'right woman'.
This is scary too. It's one thing to have personal talks with women explaining that commitment is not an option, and sharing the disappointment when our desires do not mesh, but it's another to have someone decide to act as though she likes my way of life, but actually be infiltrating it in the hopes of changing it. That's as dishonest and deceptive as a man declaring love that he does not feel, although in my case much less painful. It's the poor girl who will suffer if in such a situation she eventually realises that I like my life, that my attitude is what makes me me, and that it cannot be changed by her work.
I am not a lost soul to be saved in the name of marriage and devotion, just as atheists do not regard themselves as lost souls to be saved in the name of God. Most atheists, I think, do not mind others having religion as long as it does not interfere with important decisions or with the atheists themselves. They do object to constant intrusion in their lives, as anyone does, and as part of this they also detest the idea of a theocracy. Many God(s)-fearing people agree that a theocracy is undesirable: they agree that professing a religion when not given the choice is meaningless, and that therefore openness is desirable.
Yet when it comes to relationships our society and culture, and those of most places in the world, operate on the unquestioned assumption of faithfulness: of searching for one partner and marrying that partner.
It scares me for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I already knew that this girl is too enamoured of me. This takes it a step further, interpreting my life and actions as supportive of her own personal biases, despite my avowed opinions.
Secondly, it suggests that there have been opportunities that I have missed.
I'm not the sort of person who is looking to settle down with one partner. I'm not 'into' lovey nesting, nor do I understand the attitude that makes faithfulness a virtue and lifelong commitment desirable.
It's not that I recognise these as ideals and give into temptation, but that I really don't see why these are ideals, or the alternative is pejoratively labelled temptation. I have for some time now thought of myself as 'miswired'; I have a screw loose or am missing a marble. I like to think that I can understand things easily, but when it comes to this particular desire that is manifest in the vast majority of the human population (that I have met or heard about) I can only understand that it exists, not why.
It would be nice to tell myself that it's a basic emotional response that has no rational explanation, but that's not certain to me. Is it culturally ingrained in people, rather than being natural?
Our whole culture is arranged around the concept of the two-parent family, marriage and one-on-one relationships. Most women I meet who have considered the issue tell me that this is because of patriarchal oppression, a line thought up, I guess, by radical 'counter-culture' feminists. But I can't understand why this would be true. Men fight: they're born competitive (yes, I'm talking about statistical tendencies, not individuals) and aggressive. They don't share naturally.
If society were organised a man's way there would be one man who ruled, and he'd have as many women as he could. Others with power would also have women, and a great many men would have nothing. Men, as I understand their biological desires, would never arrange only to have one women, so that (roughly) every man could have one. That's a sharing system, and it appears very feminine to me.
Of course, some people will be angry at the use of the word feminine, or about the acknowledgement of intrinsic biological sex differences in character and attitude. These people can take their attempts to deny the truth, or to rewrite the dictionaries, elsewhere.
The explanation is that marriage makes women property, and ties a woman to a man so that she can't escape: it relies on the assumption of man's insecurity. But a chieftan can own many women just as easily as he can own one. If he were insecure and wanted to bind a woman to himself, if he were designing our cultural institutions from scratch (or many chieftans all contributed a little over the generations) he could easily make marriage something that one could have with many women, but retain the features of ownership and male domination that feminists rightly dislike.
In my experience of the human population it is the women who, like my interlocutor earlier today, seem particularly keen to devote themselves to one person. In fact, we have a stereotype of the man fooling around and the woman becoming over-committed. I have phrased this carefully, because it is not men who fool around: again, in my experience, most men agree with women on this: that settling down with one fine women would be a wonderful thing. It is the man with whom women become overcommitted who fools around.
There are some women who, like me, and like this mythical man (who is fortunate enough to have this stream of relationships: he and I only share an attitude, not a life history) are not hunting for marriage, but I would contend that the vast majority of women are, whereas a significant number of men are not. I have met women who say that they are not looking for long-term relationships, but when I get to know them better negate such assertions by their actions and even in direct speech.
There's a myth that I hear all the time of people getting jilted: of callous lovers who show no respect of decency. It's a jungle out there. I agree that the world of relationships is a dangerous one in which one is likely to be distressed, but from my point of view it's even worse.
I'm not looking for the perfect relationship, and mostly having to dump uninspiring boys because I don't love them enough. I'm looking for lots of wonderful relationships (and I have been fortunate enough to know inspiring girls in those relationships that I have had) of a different sort. But people assume that I want to be faithful, and want them to be faithful; they assume that a relationship is a precursor to marriage, even if they have the wisdom to recognise that it might well not go that far because of unforseen problems. This is the best that I have coaxed out of a girl apon explaining my desires and hopes: a recognition that things might not go as far. Another girl, I am told, secretly thinks that one day I will 'see the light' and realise that my attitude is just young and foolish. I will be converted by the 'right woman'.
This is scary too. It's one thing to have personal talks with women explaining that commitment is not an option, and sharing the disappointment when our desires do not mesh, but it's another to have someone decide to act as though she likes my way of life, but actually be infiltrating it in the hopes of changing it. That's as dishonest and deceptive as a man declaring love that he does not feel, although in my case much less painful. It's the poor girl who will suffer if in such a situation she eventually realises that I like my life, that my attitude is what makes me me, and that it cannot be changed by her work.
I am not a lost soul to be saved in the name of marriage and devotion, just as atheists do not regard themselves as lost souls to be saved in the name of God. Most atheists, I think, do not mind others having religion as long as it does not interfere with important decisions or with the atheists themselves. They do object to constant intrusion in their lives, as anyone does, and as part of this they also detest the idea of a theocracy. Many God(s)-fearing people agree that a theocracy is undesirable: they agree that professing a religion when not given the choice is meaningless, and that therefore openness is desirable.
Yet when it comes to relationships our society and culture, and those of most places in the world, operate on the unquestioned assumption of faithfulness: of searching for one partner and marrying that partner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)