Monday, March 08, 2010

Greer: feminist revolution yet to begin

Want to hear the latest from Australian feminist icon, Germaine Greer?

Well, she's written a column for the Melbourne Age. It starts off predictably enough. She celebrates the decline of the traditional family, calling it "the most important change in the last 40 years".

She then throws in a bit of liberal autonomy theory. She wants women to be careerists because this makes them more independent of men. In support of this position, she argues that from the 1960s men could no longer afford to support a wife on a single wage anyway, given all the new gadgetry such as fridges and vacuums that had to be paid for.

That's all standard feminism. But then she ups the ante. She gets very nasty toward women who don't do as feminists want them to do:

Working for your living is part of an honourable grown-up existence. Nobody wants to be a parasite.

Greer thinks that women who stay home to bring up children and care for their families are parasites. So much for the idea that feminism is just about choice and letting women do what they want.

And there's more. Greer interprets the high divorce rate as a progressive thing, as women exercising their independence to ditch cruel and abusive men:

As women's economic independence increased, their tolerance of infidelity, cruelty, neglect and emotional and physical abuse on the part of their spouses dwindled steadily. Divorce rates throughout the developed world rose in unison.

The Australian rate plateaued at the current rate of about 40 per cent of marriages ending in divorce.

She then interprets the rise of cohabitation rather than marriage as another progressive development, as it allows relationships to be "negotiated" (i.e. something we can self-determine or self-direct in line with autonomy theory):

Many such couples have children, and will refer to a cohabiting relationship of many years as an engagement. One way of interpreting this trend is to see it as keeping the relationship in a state of constant negotiation, in which nothing can be taken for granted and both partners are equally involved in decisions affecting family life.

Then she goes back to divorce. She claims she didn't expect divorce rates to be so high. She thinks that women have it much tougher than men after divorce, so much so that if a woman opts for divorce,

she faces 15 or 20 years of poverty and unremitting hard work, both inside and outside the home.

But Greer thinks that women are to be praised for choosing divorce as it means preferring an honourable life over a servile one:

Women who face this fate with equanimity have my unstinting admiration. They are choosing a tough but honourable life over a servile and dishonourable one.

I do know a woman who divorced because of her husband's infidelity. And I do admire her efforts to raise her children in difficult circumstances. But Greer here is praising divorce in a general sense as a pathway to an honourable life over a servile one. I can't help but feel that once again what she is admiring is the act of autonomy itself, a woman's willingness to act for herself even if it makes her life more difficult, over the goal of family stability.

Greer didn't always follow the line of "divorce is great". Back in 1991, perhaps when she still felt more keenly her own failure to marry or have children, she took a very different line. She wrote that "Most societies have arranged matters so that a family surrounds and protects mother and child" and complained of "our families having withered away" with relationships becoming "less durable every year".

Finally, Greer lets us know that the massive transformations in family life and relationships over the past 40 years count for hardly anything compared to what must come in the future:

The feminist revolution has not failed. It has yet to begin. Its ground troops are fast developing the skills and muscle that will be necessary if we are to vanquish corporate power and rescue our small planet for humanity.

What an absolute fantasy world Greer inhabits. She has some kind of unreal idea of transformative revolution in her mind.

And she believes that feminism will help to vanquish corporate power. What a joke. She herself wants women to place themselves increasingly at the service of the corporate world. To the point that she calls women who want to devote their energies elsewhere "parasites".

Greer was catapulted into fame and fortune after writing The Female Eunuch because her views fitted those of the liberal establishment. She is an establishment intellectual and not the iconoclast she imagines herself to be.

43 comments:

  1. "Want to hear the latest from Australian feminist icon, Germaine Greer?"

    No thanks, she's never been sensible before why would she start now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Its ground troops are fast developing the skills and muscle that will be necessary if we are to vanquish corporate power and rescue our small planet for humanity."

    Total rubbish. She started out as women's advocate, when that doesn't work out she becomes a planetary advocate?

    Greer also said I believe that "men and women dislike each other today more than ever". Which is understandable when you consider that one side is pushing the guys are bad idea and the other is generally doing its best to keep women happy.

    I'm inclined to agree with the proposition put forward by mens movement blokes that a feminist movement requires the creation of a men's movement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Feminists have never been very good at consistency. Am I, as a stay-at-home mother, a parasite or a slave? At least, when labelled a slave (albeit incorrectly), my work is acknowledged. How someone who works so hard they often don't get more than four hours of sleep in a row can be labelled a parasite is simply beyond me!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Working for your living is part of an honourable grown-up existence. Nobody wants to be a parasite.

    Raising children is part of an honourable grown-up existence. Women who raise children are not parasites or servile.

    What a disgusting, evil creature she is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I'm inclined to agree with the proposition put forward by mens movement blokes that a feminist movement requires the creation of a men's movement."

    But, doesn't that tend to confer some lustre of legitimacy on "the women's movement?"

    Wouldn't it be better if men *refuse* to accede to any of the sticks … or carrots … "the women's movement?"

    As it is, far too many men are willing to be lead into life-long slavery … by their dicks. Understand, I am not likening *real* marriage to slavery.

    Wouldn't it be better -- for the individual men themselves, and ultimately for society -- for men to *refuse* to by enslaved by their sexuality? Is “getting some” *really* worth making yourself a figurative eunuch for the rest of your life?

    ReplyDelete
  6. she faces 15 or 20 years of poverty and unremitting hard work, both inside and outside the home.

    An unwitting admission that women are better off married. Odd coming from somebody celebrating divorce.

    If a woman faces such hard work after divorce, one must then ask if it would have been any different if she had never married at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ""She herself wants women to place themselves increasingly at the service of the corporate world. To the point that she calls women who want to devote their energies elsewhere "parasites".""

    I always laugh my head off when the local marxists come around proclaiming that feminism is anti-capitalist.

    I bet those corporate boards were really upset when all those women entered the workforce, doubling their potential employee pool and helping to create a highly consumerised society.

    Women working full time on careers from the corporate perspective is a great thing, and women competing with men for middle management roles is even better, you get twice as much talent to choose from at a lower cost because of competition between prospective employees.

    Plus with everyone putting off getting hitched until 30 there are suddenly a hell of a lot more swinging 20-somethings out thewre looking to party with their pockets full of cash.

    You can certainly see why the corporate elite have done so much over the last 30 years to kick those women back to the kitchen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Llion said:

    "Wouldn't it be better -- for the individual men themselves, and ultimately for society -- for men to *refuse* to by enslaved by their sexuality?"

    Its an interesting question. But sex aside women are great and a very civilising influence for men. As has been said many times we still have to get together to raise children.

    I think an acknowledgment of a Men's movement would be of great benefit to men. On a day to day basis I think we feel irritable and set upon. We have responsibilities at home and responsibilities at work. These we face largely on our own. Whenever I'm with "the lads" doing army I come home feeling better and happier. There's more to life than hanging around guys but I enjoy/appreciate it, which in turns make me feel happier, more confident and a better bloke for myself and with women.

    Its crucial that guys are on the front foot in society and feel stable and well balanced. If they're not I think corners will be cut and we suffer. Also its important that they/we can say to women "yes that's reasonable" or "no I don't agree with that" without feeling henpecked or that they're likely to explode.

    Without “giving in” to feminists I think it would make for a better society.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jesse_7: "Llion said:"

    He did not! ILÍON did; I don't even know who this LLION fellow is! ;)

    Jesse_7: "But sex aside women are great and a very civilising influence for men."

    I know that's commonly said and believed. I'm not so sure it's true ... in fact, I'm fairly convinced that it's not true, but is rather some foolish late Victorian Era sentimentality.

    It seems to me that what civilizes men is primarily their own desire to be fathers, and secondarily their experience of receiving the love and guidance of a father. In other words, I think that the very existence of civilization itself and of a civilizating influence on men is a masculine, rather than a feminine, fact of life -- that is, that patriarchy, not matriarchy, is the basis of civilization.


    Jesse_7: "As has been said many times we still have to get together to raise children."

    Men and women (if I may so mis-use those terms) may be "getting together" and conceiving children -- and even at that mere level, not in the numbers that most Western societies need to sustain their mere numbers. However, fewer men and women are coming together to raise children, which is a very different thing, and what we need if our societies are to have a future.


    Jesse_7: "These we face largely on our own. Whenever I'm with "the lads" doing army I come home feeling better and happier. There's more to life than hanging around guys but I enjoy/appreciate it, which in turns make me feel happier, more confident and a better bloke for myself and with women."

    (Most) Men need male friends, just as (most) women need female friends.

    But, a "men's movement" is politics, is it not, rather than friendship?


    Jesse_7: "Its crucial that guys are on the front foot in society and feel stable and well balanced. If they're not I think corners will be cut and we suffer. Also its important that they/we can say to women "yes that's reasonable" or "no I don't agree with that" without feeling henpecked or that they're likely to explode."

    It seems to me that the main reason most men are feeling put-upon and hen-pecked is because they have (each individually, and socially en masse) chosen to be pussy-whipped -- as immature men, they have fallen for the falsehood that their worth as a man depends upon and follows from "getting a piece," and consequently, few become mature men.

    And thus feminism, which demands the further feminization of males, such that it becomes even more difficult for males to become mature men. And thus, matriarchy replaces patriarchy. And thus, civilization crumbles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. llion said:

    "And thus, matriarchy replaces patriarchy. And thus, civilization crumbles."

    I don't know what the plan to restore patriarchy is. Demoralise women until they surrender? Respecting women is nothing but Victorian sentimentality?

    "I think that the very existence of civilization itself and of a civilizsting influence on men is a masculine, rather than a feminine, fact of life"

    This I think is largely true, especially for the raising of men. You can’t however say that barbarian societies are especially feminised.

    "However, fewer men and women are coming together to raise children, which is a very different thing, and what we need if our societies are to have a future."

    This is important. Men shouldn't be feminised nor should the sexes engage in the selfish abnegation of children. Don’t forget a lot of men are feminised though because fathers spend a lot of time behind the paper while the mothers are more active.

    "But, a "men's movement" is politics, is it not, rather than friendship?"

    Its a bit more than this. A feminist woman would say men don't need a men's movement because EVERYTHING that isn't female oriented is male oriented. This plainly isn't the case. Men have work to do in our society but they're as much obligated to it as they are in charge of it.

    Historically women were much more "helpers" of men. Today I believe more is expected of men (this is obviously debatable, however, as technology has progressed society has become easier) and less help is given. Today as we've seen a lot of men are whimping out. Its easier for men to whimp out if they don't think the fulfillment of their role is doable.

    "But, a "men's movement" is politics, is it not, rather than friendship?"

    Its a bit more than that. If men feel they're in endless competition with each other, their friendships will be limited and they in turn will look much more for women. If they're happier and more confident they'll be better partners, fathers and generally more effective. This is not an unimportant thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "And thus feminism, which demands the further feminization of males, such that it becomes even more difficult for males to become mature men."

    Its not clear what feminism wants. They say they want feminised men but then they aren't happy with that.

    "It seems to me that the main reason most men are feeling put-upon and hen-pecked is because they have (each individually, and socially en masse) chosen to be pussy-whipped -- as immature men, they have fallen for the falsehood that their worth as a man depends upon and follows from "getting a piece," and consequently, few become mature men."

    This is largely true. Its an easy cop out for a guy to say "I have a woman therefore I'm a man". I think men though know better than that and realise it quickly enough.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ex aside women are great and a very civilising influence for men.

    Exactly backwards. Men are a very great civilizing influence on women. See here:

    "The institution of marriage serves but one purpose: to civilize the savage and wild nature of the human female, for without the social scaffolding of civilization to convince her otherwise, the female urge will run riot and destroy everything. Ancient wisdom informs us that the feminine is a violent and uncontrolled animal that, unless restrained and redirected by the rules and controls of civilization, immediately indulges in the feral behavioral patterns characteristic of the stone age. Today, the strictures of civilization have frayed, and the effects of decaying civilization are plainly observable with the proliferation of choice mommy families, rotating polyandry, coupling with thugs and bad boys, abortion on demand, rising crime, lower educational achievement, lower life expectancies, and poorer health. All are traceable to the decomposition of the civilized patriarchal family into the model of the African savannah, of the hunter-gatherer society, where men and women held egalitarian roles but whose lives were often nasty, brutish, and short.

    Were Greenberg not busy drinking the Victorian chick-pedestalizing kool-aid, he may just have grasped that what he is mistaking what he sees as the civilizing influence of marriage upon men is actually the domestication of those men into marriage and the harnessing of their excess labors toward socially productive ends.

    The difference between civilizing and domestication is subtle, yet crucial. The technology of marriage bestows a franchise upon men, and in doing so, it converts him into a stakeholder in society as a whole. Permanent marriage guarantees a man access to his children in exchange for a piece of his labors. It causes the man to use his excess energies and labors productively for the benefit of his children and for his wife and not squander them for his own personal selfish amusement."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anyone who calls women at home raising their children "parasites" is deeply disordered. Greer is quick with the "parasite", she is probably projecting her own deadness.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The whole gender warfare seems to be rather modern and linked to wealth and the luxury of too much free time. Once life becomes more about basic survival, both sides will lay down their weapons or humans will simply die out except for a few traditionalists. Men and women are not natural competitors.

    Men do not civilize women nor do women civilize men. Feedback loops with steppe nomads civilize agrarians. http://cliodynamics.info/PDF/Steppe_JGH_reprint.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Exactly backwards. Men are a very great civilizing influence on women.

    "The institution of marriage serves but one purpose: to civilize the savage and wild nature of the human female,""

    Oh come on that's ridiculous. Men in the company of women are far more polite and considered.

    "The difference between civilizing and domestication is subtle, yet crucial."

    I would agree with this.

    "It causes the man to use his excess energies and labors productively for the benefit of his children and for his wife and not squander them for his own personal selfish amusement."

    I would agree with this on a macro level. In practice no fault divorce will affect the birth rate. However, squandering your resources on yourself is WRONG. If people have internal compasses not only won't they do that but they'll see how pointless it is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. llion wrote: that is, that patriarchy, not matriarchy, is the basis of civilization.

    Coincidentally there is a civilised discussion on patriarchy at the Thinking Housewife

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/03/on-kingship/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry I should have added, Anonymous said 2:51.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Liesel wrote: The whole gender warfare seems to be rather modern and linked to wealth and the luxury of too much free time. Once life becomes more about basic survival, both sides will lay down their weapons or humans will simply die out except for a few traditionalists. Men and women are not natural competitors.

    I think you are right. there is far too much abstracting and philosophising, when it is simply that our individual survival is not threatened at the moment.

    If times get tough, and they will sooner or later, then the traditional form of family will become popular again.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Liesel said:

    "Once life becomes more about basic survival, both sides will lay down their weapons or humans will simply die out"

    This is true. One of the points made in the blog is that women may come to this realisation too late in the day to have kids.

    I think this is true for everything though, once survival kicks in we become different. But survival also means many civilisational advances are forsaken. Should we have a more survival based culture and do away with many of the social "luxuries"? Well if the luxuries become self destructive yes, but If this was fully implemented I think a lot of good stuff would go too.

    Either way we do live in a "civilised" society and most people I believe appreciate that and would seek to live that way rather than at a more subsistence level.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I know this is off topic, but I would suggest Mr. Richardson to look into the new “Alice and Wonderland” movie like he did with Avatar. The ending is very revealing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh come on that's ridiculous. Men in the company of women are far more polite and considered.

    That is not the civilized behavior that women impose on men. That is the civilized behavior that men impose on themselves.

    In the state of nature (no civilization, barbarism prevails), men will fight each other in front of women, not least because many of those fights are fights for women that are instigated and cheered on by women. (Don't tell me you've never seen this happen in a bar.) The biggest, baddest, toughest guy gets all the women, the lesser men get no women, until one of them is able to knock the top guy off his perch. Women in the state of nature (no civilization) are not naturally monogamous; they all want to mate with the top guy, and will gladly share the top guy, and will be just as happy with the new top guy when the old one gets knocked off.

    What you perceive as the "civilizing function of women" is an artifact of the civilization men created in part to reduce the need to fight among themselves over women. Civilization tames the base instincts of women as much as it does of men, and to ascribe the achievement of civilization to the supposed inherent goodness of women is absurd and illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  23. """But sex aside women are great and a very civilising influence for men"""

    lol, Solid Gold bro

    Conservatives/Feminists - two sides of the same coin.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Conservatives/Feminists - two sides of the same coin."

    Haha, you'll have to expand on that point.

    On another thing I was just watching Judge Judy and there was a domestic incident between a man and a woman. They'd just broken up the day before but were till living together. The woman started the argument/altercation by bursting in on him in the shower (after looking for evidence of an affair in his car) and running off with his mobile phone.

    They argued, he broke her stuff, she broke his and she was taking him to Jude Judy's court alleging assault. The assault was in the order of a "pulled arm" during the argument and she'd managed to get a restraining order allready on that basis.

    Judge Judy said that the woman acted provocatively (by looking through his car and running off with his mobile phone) and that she instigated the argument and also that there was no assault. The man had allready paid damages as well as and been arrested for vandalism, for the stuff of her's he broke and Judge Judy ordered that the woman should pay for what she damaged.

    In the course of the hearing the woman tried to say "learned helplessness" when asked why if she was afraid of this man why she didn't leave or stop the argument. Indeed why would she provoke the argument in the first place. Judge Judy laughed the answer of "learned helplessness" off as ridiculous, as did the audience.

    Ok so what happened. 1. They had a difficult breakup and everyone was emotional 2. He was then arrested for vandalism for the equipment he broke, while she who also broke equipment, was not. 2. A restraining order was then brought against him by her and granted. 3. She then took him to Judge Judy's court alleging assault, which she obviously expected to win. As part of her claim she stated, "why would a restraining order be issued if there was no assault?" Jude Judy replied "Because its often easier in such a situation to just give the woman what she wants, and that the issuance of a restraining order doesn't indicate that an assault actually took place".

    The couple were not gap tooth hillbillies. She was a middle class office worker, he was possibly a tradie. She gave as good as she got in the argument and subsequent altercation, as well as instigating it in the first place. She then had the confidence to successfully utilise the court system to her benefit and then go to court alleging "learned helplessness" because she's a woman.

    All I can do is shake my head and say thank goodness it was thrown out.

    ReplyDelete
  25. On the other side I just saw on the 7.30 report tonight that a woman in Victoria, who was repeatedly seriously beaten up (to the extent of having a broken arm on two separate occasions) and tied up by her defacto (the crimes being conceded by the perpetrator), was arrested and sentenced to 2 years for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This was because while her defacto was in prison prior to hearing she was "persuaded" by the defacto and a friend of the defacto, via personal visits (another very big bloke), to withdraw her claims against him and plead for his release. Terrifying and utterly ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous,

    Sorry I missed seeing your post earlier.

    "What you perceive as the "civilizing function of women" is an artifact of the civilization men created in part to reduce the need to fight among themselves over women."

    This is partly true. Men in the presence of women will "behave themselves" to limit the conflict between other men but also, and I think more importantly, to win the good opinion of women. A guy who comes off as too crude or aggressive is usually shunned by women, men know this and so they’re far more considerate. In such an environment good manners (being able to pull them off that is) is considered strength. In the absence of women consideration can often be seen as weakness by other men. The "civilising affect" of women in practice is the "permission" given to men to be considerate without being considered feminine.

    If you want to see an uncivilised environment just look in prison. There men beat and rape each other daily. Now you can say that that's because they're criminal men, which is true, but its also because there are only men together and the only currency around is dominance. If all that matters is dominance, any behavior can then be justified, and that I believe can be put forward as a definition of barbarism.

    Whatever the cause of civilised behavior is, it’s certainly far more pleasant to live under for all concerned.

    On the point about women all I hear is how devastated a women is if her man cheats on her. How then is that compatible with women being in favor or polygamy? It may be true that some women would be willing to share a high status guy, and I realise that the point has been made before on the blog, but where is the evidence for it?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  27. "If you want to see an uncivilised environment just look in prison."

    Anonymous didn't say that men-in-groups is sufficient to institute a civilizing effect -- any more than I said that the existence of a patriarchal society is sufficient to institute a civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Firstly I'm sorry I got the Ilion thing wrong.

    I'm saying that women's presence provides a "civilising effect", which I stand by. I wouldn't be surprised that if women were put in prisons with men it would have a very calming effect on everyone rather than the opposite. It would become much more like highschool, who's getting on with who etc, rather than I think open warfare for the "prize" of women. (Ok it would provide a distraction from any work that needed to be done but there's not much work in prison). Being merely in the presence of women can really calm men down and I think the absence of them makes men more aggressive. Having said that I'm not saying that women should be brought into prisons because its supposed to be punishment not camp.

    Its not just sexual access that men want from women, its also company, conversation, good regard etc. Therefore I think the mere presence of women is enough to calm men down.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Also I think that women are less inclined to be aggressive (although this might not hold true for prison) which in turn provides a calming effect.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Men in the presence of women will "behave themselves" to limit the conflict between other men but also, and I think more importantly, to win the good opinion of women.

    Still you are missing the basic point: what is it that earns the good opinion of women? In a civilized society, "behaving yourself" (being a good boy) earns the good opinion of women. In an uncivilized society, being a bad boy earns the good opinion of women.

    A guy who comes off as too crude or aggressive is usually shunned by women, men know this and so they’re far more considerate

    That is only true in a civilized society. It is not true in an uncivilized society. So you are mistaking cause and effect. Civilization results in women wanting men to behave well; women wanting men to behave well does not result in civilization.

    If you want to see an uncivilised environment just look in prison. There men beat and rape each other daily. Now you can say that that's because they're criminal men, which is true, but its also because there are only men together and the only currency around is dominance. If all that matters is dominance, any behavior can then be justified, and that I believe can be put forward as a definition of barbarism.

    There are "women" in prison - the weaker men. That's what the men are fighting about. If you put female prisoners in the cellblock with them, they would not moderate their behavior, they would behave in exactly the same way and for the same reasons. In a barbaric environment, the most badass guy gets the women (or "women"), the lesser men get nothing.

    On the point about women all I hear is how devastated a women is if her man cheats on her. How then is that compatible with women being in favor or polygamy?

    Not polygamy, but hypergamy. All the women are seeking the highest-status male. Who is this male is can change over time. To quote F. Roger Devlin: "Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime."

    Incidentally I think it is much more devastating for a woman to cheat on a man than for a man to cheat on a woman. The "it's so horrible for a man to cheat" theme is a product of feminism not reality.

    Just look at the number of women who are willing to date celebrity actors / politicians with the full knowledge he has other mistresses as well as a wife.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm saying that women's presence provides a "civilising effect", which I stand by. I wouldn't be surprised that if women were put in prisons with men it would have a very calming effect on everyone rather than the opposite.

    I disagree completely.

    Being merely in the presence of women can really calm men down and I think the absence of them makes men more aggressive.

    I disagree completely. Without women, what is there to fight about?

    And again, you are mistaking cause and effect. This rule only applies, to the extent that it applies at all, in civilized societies, but it is not what causes societies to be civilized.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous,

    "There are "women" in prison - the weaker men. That's what the men are fighting about."

    I would have thought sex in prison was not just about sex, but showing you're top dog. If you can really humiliate a guy you've got to be it, and what's more humiliating than brutal rape. If it was merely about sex I'm sure you'd have far more "gay" coupling, ie marriage like affairs of some sort, more consideration for the other party would be shown etc, not "this guys my bitch haha".

    "I disagree completely. Without women, what is there to fight about?"

    Everything under the sun. Who goes first, who gets the biggest share, who gets the most choice, on and on and on. I'm in the Infantry which is a male only Corp, other Corps are mixed sex. They have a far more "civilised" atmosphere, friendly, polite etc. I don't really appreciate that because the Army is a fighting service and all the "civilisiation" is a distraction and makes it far less effective in my view.

    I'll say again that I'm not stating that a "civilising effect" is the cause of civilisation, only that it is a calming or moderating effect, which in turn makes civilisation easier. Civilisation involves the abnegation of personal desires, the willingness to forgo or limit violence, law over force etc. Many personal compromises are required before civilisation can take effect and that's easier if people aren't excessively aggressive. It’s being willing to say “I’ve got the Counch”, rather than “Kill the pig, spill his guts”.

    I take your point on hypergamy and I appreciate the definition,

    "Just look at the number of women who are willing to date celebrity actors / politicians with the full knowledge he has other mistresses as well as a wife."

    Women are willing to "go" for a high status guys but if they were the wife I'm sure they'd be quite unwilling to share. If you're in doubt of this you could ask your girlfriend or spouse, you might want to have an escape route planned first ;) and I don't think that that reaction would be limited to feminist women.

    ""A guy who comes off as too crude or aggressive is usually shunned by women, men know this and so they’re far more considerate"

    "That is only true in a civilized society. It is not true in an uncivilized society.""

    Possibly but women need social rules to feel safe, as we all do, and more so because they are the weaker sex. They have a vested interest in not seeing men act not too aggressively towards them.

    "Still you are missing the basic point: what is it that earns the good opinion of women? In a civilized society, "behaving yourself" (being a good boy) earns the good opinion of women. In an uncivilized society, being a bad boy earns the good opinion of women."

    I'm not sure that being a rapist (lets say of nearby/similar women) earns the good opinion of women. I take your point on the difference of behavior within civilised or uncivilised societies. In an uncivilised society brute force will be valued higher by women.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jesse_7: "I would have thought sex in prison was not just about sex, but showing you're top dog. If you can really humiliate a guy you've got to be it, and what's more humiliating than brutal rape. If it was merely about sex I'm sure you'd have far more "gay" coupling, ie marriage like affairs of some sort, more consideration for the other party would be shown etc, not "this guys my bitch haha"."

    True enough.

    But, more and more, isn't that attitude what we're seeing between males and females (I'm intentionally not using the words 'men' and 'women') in the wider society as our society and civilization is becoming more matriarchal -- and falling apart?


    [Also, the persons in prison are by definition abnormal with respect to the wider society, so the society in a prison is going to be abnormal with respect to the wider socity.]

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jesse_7: "I'm in the Infantry which is a male only Corp, other Corps are mixed sex. They have a far more "civilised" atmosphere, friendly, polite etc. I don't really appreciate that because the Army is a fighting service and all the "civilisiation" is a distraction and makes it far less effective in my view."

    Women don't belong in the *actual* military, no matter which Corps -- their presence must inevitably distract fron, to the point of failure, the mission.

    I was never in the military ... but I have worked in mixed-sex offices; I've even had a female boss. Now, I like women, and I liked working with many of the women with whom I worked directly (and that former boss, now long retired, is a good friend). But, I also know, having experienced it multiple times, that the more "feminized" the work-environment (the greater the proportion of women and feminized men), the less conductive to getting the job done the work-place becomes.

    This is because most women cannot step outside their constant personal competition with one another so as to join together as a team/society working for a common good -- mind you, I hate the phrase “team player,” and especially as it’s so frequently used/misused in business/offices. But the fact remains that men naturally join together as teams … and women do not. A functional society (which rules out the destructive pseudo-societies in prisons) is a male team writ large.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ilion Said:

    "But, more and more, isn't that attitude what we're seeing between males and females (I'm intentionally not using the words 'men' and 'women') in the wider society as our society and civilization is becoming more matriarchal -- and falling apart?"

    Yes it is a bit more crude today. I think we're somewhere between a matriarchy and patriarchy, ie a point of change which increases the likelihood of conflicts.

    ReplyDelete
  36. the more "feminized" the work-environment (the greater the proportion of women and feminized men), the less conductive to getting the job done the work-place becomes.

    Exactly! This is because making everybody feel good is more important than getting the job done. Men understand that you gotta get the job done, and if people's feelings get hurt in the process, tough titty.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I would have thought sex in prison was not just about sex, but showing you're top dog.

    You need to go one step farther. Why do you want to be top dog? So you are the one doing the f-ing rather than getting f-ed.

    Everything under the sun. Who goes first, who gets the biggest share, who gets the most choice, on and on and on.

    Nah. Everything they might fight about other than directly fighting about women comes down to acquiring resources and status in order to get women. Why do they want the biggest share and the most choice? Because the guy with the biggest share and the most choice gets more and better women.

    I'm in the Infantry which is a male only Corp, other Corps are mixed sex. They have a far more "civilised" atmosphere, friendly, polite etc.

    The more civilized corps are not really about fighting, so it is acceptable for them to be feminized (friendly, polite etc.).

    Plus, this doesn't really mean much, since the "civilized" atmosphere is forced on everyone through the threat of punishment. It is not the presence of women that's causing men to behave in a "civilized" way but the male fear of penalties for "harassing" the females.

    only that it is a calming or moderating effect, which in turn makes civilisation easier.

    That women exert such an effect is the product, not the cause, of civilization. In barbaric conditions, women actively provoke conflict.

    Women are willing to "go" for a high status guys but if they were the wife I'm sure they'd be quite unwilling to share.

    Heh, there are lots of wives who know about and overlook the affairs of their high-status husbands.

    If you're in doubt of this you could ask your girlfriend or spouse

    That would only confirm my low status. I'm not famous or rich, so she doesn't have to put up with it.

    women need social rules to feel safe,

    A woman who is the consort of the alpha male in a pack of thugs "feels safe" - because her man kicks ass - but this does not mean that a civilized environment prevails.

    I'm not sure that being a rapist (lets say of nearby/similar women) earns the good opinion of women.

    You'd be surprised. Read about the Soviet Army in Germany in 1945. Soviet women troops approved of, and laughed at, the way Soviet men treated German women.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mark, your comments here are telling:

    Greer didn't always follow the line of "divorce is great". Back in 1991, perhaps when she still felt more keenly her own failure to marry or have children, she took a very different line. She wrote that "Most societies have arranged matters so that a family surrounds and protects mother and child" and complained of "our families having withered away" with relationships becoming "less durable every year".

    She is a bitter old harridan, who regrets the rotten feminist fruit of sexual "liberation". Her attempts at trying to conceive, at an age when she was past the peak of her fertility, were documented in a BBC 4 radio programme, about fifteen years ago. She told Dr. Anthony Clare, an eminent and now deceased psychiatrist, about her many attempts to conceive a child using IVF. At the time, I thought it was ironic, as her young self had categorically rejected maternity and motherhood. Now I think it sad.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Even the conventional Australian Left has given up on Greer now, not before time. Louis Nowra has a cover story in THE MONTHLY's latest issue on the topic of Greer's increasing irrelevance. The full piece is unfortunately unavailable online except to subscribers, but it cooks Greer's goose nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jesse_7: "But sex aside women are great and a very civilising influence for men."

    Dude...you must have smoken a pipe before typing this. A woman can never have "civilizing" effect on men. She is too emotional,too fickle, too dramatic for that. The success of PUA's at gaming so many women, married or unmarried, is a good testament to their rather "strong" brains.

    A strong male, either father or husband, are pretty much needed to discipline a woman, and protect her from her fickle and unstable urges.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "A strong male, either father or husband, are pretty much needed to discipline a woman, and protect her from her fickle and unstable urges."

    I would agree that this is often the case but its not clear whether this is because women are unused to doing this for themselves or because they’re incapable. I think you'd find that women in motherhood role are generally uncommonly clear headed, stable and responsible.

    The point was that women provide a positive influence on men. I think that this is largely the case and there is plenty of evidence to show men's improved behavior in the company of women.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The point was that women provide a positive influence on men. I think that this is largely the case and there is plenty of evidence to show men's improved behavior in the company of women.

    You're still not thinking hard enough about this issue, but I don't think I'm going to change your mind.

    By the way, I thought about you when I read this the other day:

    "What is it with conservatives and their willful blindness to the true nature of women? Pedestalization of the Other (and its many permutations, c.f. “noble savage”, “gaiaism”, “diversity”, and “na’vi”) is a sickening act of self-abasement; a desperate denial that one could possibly be right when one has been so badly wronged, or that a wrongdoer could possibly be as bad as the facts attest. Perhaps those who engage in this sort of faith-based pedestalization of women are deathly afraid to confront the reality of female nature because it would impose on their tidy worldview. Perhaps they need a savior, in the form of women, like of god, to compartmentalize the darkness and symbolize something to aspire to. After all, if women are just as bad as men, where does that leave the sensitive man? Stuck now with double the responsibility to guard oneself against predation by both sexes, and to discard to the ash heap cherished notions of the fairer sex. Does this sound familiar? If you thought “beta”, you’d be right.

    Where conservatives sanctify women, liberals demonize men. Not all conservatives and not all liberals, but enough of them that a valid generalization can be made. Whether sanctifying women or demonizing men, the end result is the same: laws, policies, and cultural beliefs that are anti-male, and which we in the West are soaking in today."

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous,

    That's interesting. I would say that liberals also idealise women but in a different way. Its definitely true that feminism has benefited from ideological support from both the left and right.

    Right support takes the form of putting women on a pedestal which is a way of respecting and protecting the female virtues and recognising the concept of gender difference. Its also something that guys generally like to do because by complimenting or giving concessions to women they feel chivalrous and powerful. (Sometimes by doing that its not helpful). The flip side of the conservative pedestal is the harsh view sometimes of women as whores or idiots.

    The liberal version focuses on women as victims, who are therefore close to blameless. Arguably both forms can be "patronising" to women and some women don't like the door opened for them or the assumption of victim status.

    How does this play out in practice? Well we all know that if a young (preferably attractive) woman were to go missing that would be a reasonable news story and there’d be a great deal of public interest and sympathy. Should a guy go missing the attitude would be much more, "Well he was probably doing something stupid, it probably serves him right" or alternatively not a great amount of interest. Conservatives set high standards for guys and aren't hugely sympathetic to their stuff ups. Men are supposed to be competent, productive, protective of women and also there’s an expectation that men will put their lives on the line which makes them more personally more expendable. If you watch the current Lara Bingle thing you'll see a pampered girl throwing a tantrum and acting self indulgently. A guy couldn't act that way and maintain any public sympathy.

    All of these differences occur because of gender differences. Should we do away with them all? Should we turn men into women and make plenty of excuses for them? With the consequential lowering of male competence? Should we expect women to be like men? Hard, tough, totally responsible, less emotive, unattractive? Or alternatively just have women viewed more critically, keeping all the conservative flip side views but none of the positive?

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.