Sunday Open Thread — December 2, 2007

10 Responses to Sunday Open Thread — December 2, 2007

1. joan says:

   December 3, 2007 at 08:36

   Dave, the framing of the question of the week is really offensive. Would you ask the following question: what is it about the Jewish psyche that so many of them were willing to sacrifice themselves just to please the Nazis? I know that’s a bit extreme, but do you see my point? Women do NOT have the power, men do. Here’s an alternate question of the week: what is it about the male psyche that so many men are happy to see women sacrifice themselves just to please their own selfish arrogance and thoughtlessness?
2. beth says:

   December 3, 2007 at 12:52

   Wow! Joan ~ Are you suggesting that we, as women, no longer have free will? Dave did not say ALL women are willing to sacrifice themselves, but there is an alarming majority of women who have such a “pleasing nature” that they focus on everyone else except themselves thus sacrificing their own potential. Does the average male take advantage of this? Yes. I’m not saying they are completely blamelss, but the problem still originates within each individual female. I speak as a women who fit the profile Dave painted for many years until I decided to stand on my own two feet and start becoming the woman I know I am capable of being.
3. joan says:

   December 3, 2007 at 15:47

   yes, of course we have free will, Beth, but in a society where patriarchy rules, men have the most power. we women have been raised to have a “pleasing nature” by a society that acknowledges men have the power and consequently we have to please those with the power in order to survive. Dave’s question, to me, smacked of blaming the victim. I just wanted to reverse it to look at men and why it is that they allow themselves to take advantage when they should know that it’s not an ethical thing to do. men who are truly dedicated to equality have to be willing to give up some of their power – it makes sense if you think of a balance (a set of scales, that is). and yes, it sucks for men that they have to lose some of that power but it’s time that they stepped up and took responsibility for the harm they do by keeping the power where it is. for what it’s worth, i agree with Dave that love is the answer. but i didn’t hear much love in the question the way it was asked.
4. Dave Pollard says:

   December 3, 2007 at 16:01

   Thank you both so much! Joan, you’re right, it was worded insensitively. I’d just been talking with three women who were miserable as a result of letting really obnoxious guys run their lives. They just couldn’t see it, they were so blinded by love and the indoctrination of having to accommodate that love by becoming something they were really not. Perhaps I should have appended to my question: “And what is it about the male psyche that so many men think nothing of exploiting that undue generosity in ways that border on psychological abuse?” It really is all about power, and men do have most of that power. An analogy: ‘Consumers’ put up with the crap that our industrial economy foists upon them, when if we as citizens refused to be abused and took back the power we have ceded as consumers, we could quickly reform our economy. I wonder whether likewise women could, if they worked together, take power from men and create a much healthier, more balanced society, even one with a tendency to matriarchy? I think the world would be much better if that could happen.
5. Paul says:

   December 4, 2007 at 00:20

   Can we really discuss and understand exploitation in one dimension (women vs. men) without understanding other dimensions (e.g., workers vs. owners, consumer-citizens vs. rulers, non-white vs. white, immigrants vs. earlier citizens, global south vs. north, colonized vs. imperialists, etc.)? Gender power relationships don’t exist apart from other important social relations. I appreciate the approach of Derrick Jensen, who points out the parallels among many power relationships, including those in which women are victims. He (quite appropriately, I think) raises questions about psychology, anthropology, economics, politics, ecology, media, education, language, etc.–what a range, filling large books!I don’t really think it’s insensitive of Dave to suggest that there may be a psychological explanation (“female psyche”) to what we agree are unfortunate/harmful sacrifices that many women make, benefitting many men. Doesn’t “having power” have a psychological dimension to it, as well (of course) as institutional supports of many sorts? I don’t think that’s blaming the victim, but it probably involves understanding how the victim has a role in reproducing the exploitative relationship. Are these victims exercising “free will” to make the best of a bad situation they lack the power to control, or are they “blinded by love” so they cannot see their way out? Do exploited women and exploiting men really need something else, for which they are substituting this strange sort of “love”?What does it mean to “take power from men”? Is it similar to colonialized taking power from colonizers in Africa and Asia, after which they are free set up their own systems of exploitation? Is it possible to make power structures irrelevant (“walking away from the existing” structures) rather than taking power?So many questions, my head is spinning. Good night!
6. Janene says:

   December 4, 2007 at 09:26

   Hey –I took the question very differently… less from the extreme “exploitive” model, and more the general personality tendencies of men and women.Looking at it that way, I think women tend to be more aware, more sensitive, more *nurturing* and as a result are more likely than men to give whatever is necessary, because we tend to feel, see, be aware of the long term needs of a relationship. This could be re-framed as women tend to invest more and differently in developing relationships. Unfortunately, I think we are also prone to get caught up in this as a pattern of behavior, even once we *should* see that those investments are not paying off. So we continue to give, to compromise, to self-edit, long after it is valid to call it a reasonable investment… And, to tie this back to recent discussions, I think our culture of monogamy (especially pure monogamy rather than serial monogamy as ideal) enforces this tendency to fall into such patterns… the ‘make it work’ mentality.Janene
7. joan says:

   December 4, 2007 at 09:51

   Dave: thanks so much for appending the question about male psyche. i disagree about women taking the power, however. we’ve been trying to do that for a long time now and something more is needed. i still think it’s time that men stepped up to the plate and learned how to give.there is a fascinating discussion about masculinity here:http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/11/30/an-end-to-masculinity-an-end-to-men/#more-6381i’d like to produce just a small quote here (the “he” they are talking about is Robert Jensen writing on pornography):When he talks about eradicating
8. Janene says:

   December 4, 2007 at 18:21

   Joan –Okay… I disagree, however. I tend to be a fifty percenter in the nature vs nurture debate. IE, it’s both, always, every time. As a result, while most things that WE consider mascualine and feminine may be cultural, I do believe that there are certain traits that are more common in women, because they serve the needs of motherhood, while other traits are more common in men because they serve the needs of protector. That does not mean that ANY trait only exists in one or the other, only that the bell curve is slightly different between the genders.Janene
9. Paul says:

   December 5, 2007 at 00:23

   Joan, thanks for your summary of Robert Jensen’s ideas–or your ideas, too? I don’t know which, but it’s a good, concise description of the problem of masculinity. I think it applies in similar ways in many (not all) civilizations. I suspect the masculine ideology is necessary in order to justify patriarchy; after all, whatever essential differences (“from nature”) may generally exist between the genders cannot by themselves justify patriarchy.I don’t feel I’m sacrificing anything by renouncing (and denouncing) the masculine ideal. I’m much more interested in loving than in dominating, and love is so easily hampered by ideals constructed to serve some social purpose, such as ensuring the ongoing subjugation of part of the population. Love demands a complete respect for the other person; it must not be selling one’s attributes (including “masculine” or “feminine” characteristics) in exchange for their services (as sexual object, or protector, or bearer and carer of children, or lifelong companion, etc.).I know other men who are also more interested in giving than in taking–though I think such non-traditional thinking is still very much in the minority. But I also know many women who feel confused about what they should expect or demand of men, or are afraid they will demand too much and thereby become undesirable. It appears that men’s and women’s growth in confidence in rejecting the cultural norms, and thus eventually shifting those norms, will be slow and gradual–I suspect at least as much due to cultural momentum as to our genetic inheritance.
10. Martin-Eric says:

    December 5, 2007 at 15:36

    You could also ask yourself, what is it about the male psyche that make so many men sacrifice it all just for a night with thoughtless, selfish arrogant women?

Comments are closed.