men hate women? As in, nearly ALL men? One of the articles quoted on this blog says that men DO hate women. With few exceptions - if any.

I don't hate women, and I KNOW it. I am often ambivalent in my relationships with women, because I find women desirable both as friends and as women. That is not a divide that is easily bridged.

No, that's not exactly what I mean. I mean that loving women as friends and loving women as women are almost inseparable for me. That is one of the best things about the net, at least for me. I can appreciate a woman's intellect or insight or passion without being confused by all the physical repercussions.

Ok, maybe I shared too much.

The main thing is, I don't hate women.

Jake

Sorry, but the lengthy analyses of "male terrorists" who have sex out of pure hatred remind me of some fucking Bill Whittle essay that purports to really gets inside our moonbat minds and explain why we hate America. There's certainly a lot of assholes out there, but convincing yourself that anyone is somehow subhuman solves nothing.

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

and i certainly don't agree with everything written there, that wasn't really my point. but i do find it interesting- uberfeminist voices aren't common in mainstream discourse, and even on blogs there aren't that many women who speak so severely of the patriarchy as heart.

as to the question 'do all men hate women,' i wouldn't phrase it that way. i will say that i think all men have a little place inside them that harbors, let's call them "negative," emotions about women and that it never completely goes away. i think it was germaine greer who said "women have no idea how much men hate them," and that's the spirit i think heart and others are trying to capture. a secret place inside them where fear and jealousy and doubt war with the rational mind. i would say the same thing about women, because i think the relationships between the sexes must be understood as forever contradictory and complex.

none of this is to say that the negative emotions people have for the opposite sex are always crippling. obviously, there are a lot of really great men who read this blog, who aren't patriarchs or abusers, and who work actively against those who are. whatever it is that one feels about the opposite sex that is negative, it's not impossible to overcome it. Heart's experiences were with men who had no interest in that, and i completely understand, as an abuse survivor, why it is hard for her to be more moderate in her analysis.

I like the take Hecate has on this matter. Hell, the subtitle of her blog is "Undermining the Patriarchy Every Chance I Get -- And I Get a Lot of Chances."

One point we've been trying to make ever since, oh, say, the overthrow of the Great Goddess by the male deities is that patriarchy hurts men as much as it does women. Well, nearly as much anyway.

Haven't actually looked at the site yet mind you, just expressing my overall opinion on the subject. Midweek gets a little crunched for time...and in fact I am not here right now, and I need you all to back me up on this should anybody happen to ask.

although i suspect you're much more daring and attractive than the navigator who made those words famous.

This:

i will say that i think all men have a little place inside them that harbors, let’s call them “negative,” emotions about women and that it never completely goes away.

And the converse is not true?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

i did say right after that, that i would say the same is true for women.

the only clarification i would make is that i suspect the fear women feel stems from concern for physical safety, where as the fear of women men have stems for the fear of the unknown and possibly unknowable.

But let's not get into that. You're right, a knee, or possibly another organ, reacted.

I dunno about the unknowable idea, though, unless put under the aegis that nobody really knows anybody (not even in the longest marriage, etc.)

But it's probably best I don't get into this now. This has not been a good week for me, for reasons entirely unrelated to this blog, but/and which bear upon this theme.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

as i'm having my monthly friend, and with both of us in a bad mood, things could get ugly.

by "unknowable" i'm referring to the 'miracle' of birth. some narratives speak of the male frustration and jealousy of it. i'm not saying i believe that, but i understand why some writers have argued along those lines.

Thought I'd throw a curveball by quoting LeGuin ;-)

And now what you say makes perfect sense. It just never occurred to me. Not sure if that's significant, or just a cigar.

Anyhow, death makes me think of birth, and it seems to me that a loving God wouldn't let us leave the earth the way that we must, and only a very odd-minded God would have us enter the world the way that we do. So, farewell last shreds of religion!

I need to bone up on my Deleuze and Guattari in my copious free time, ha ha, even though they are so 1970s. The notion of desiring machines, reproducing themselves in and through us, has a lot of resonance for me. And they don't care about our narratives at all. Power reproduces itself in such deep spaces, possibly asexually.

If I'm not careful I'm going to turn into an anarchist.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

I am not pissed off at Heart or her site. I am appalled at some of the material, but appropriately appalled, as Heart intended.

I am also saddened. Her anger is all but palpable, and it must infect the rest of her life. All men are not as she imagines them.

I don't believe I have even a small place inside me that harbors negative emotions about women - or at least not specifically women. Yes, I am slightly jealous of other people's good fortune, whether it be wealth or good looks or brains or even just good luck. Yes, I think the fact that women can bear children is something to envy - but it is an envy little different from envy of NBA basketball players, or great musicians, or, and most especially, great writers. None of that envy prevents me from loving anyone with all my heart.

You know what I envy most about women? Their friendships.

So to the extent I am a man, not all men are Heart's enemies, judges, juries or executioners.

Nor am I the enemy of any other woman, just because she is a woman. Even including that tall, skinny, white girl; I forget her name, but she hates us liberals.

Jake

Well, Freud sure as Fuck had it.

Yes, I'm hopping back on this soapbox again. There is some male envy, all right. It's easy enough to rationalize trading long life in order to forgo the pains of childbirth and of a three-day long kick in the balls once a month, not to mention the pay is better. But I argue that - for at least one particular breed of misogynist - all that resentment stems from one fundamental injustice that they feel powerless to resolve: every woman on earth has better orgasms than they do. Stuff like this really stings. Keeps them up at night! In their defense, it's really not so much a jealousy issue as feeling that they will never really know life's richest experiences.

And what's sad is that a lot of them are right. George Bush, for example: never had an orgasm in his life. Neither, as Mark Ames so eloquently wrote, have most of his followers.

Why? Well, there's a whole heap of things wrong, from a Western emphasis on religion over spirituality, to the rather delayed onset of testosterone production, to the simple regard for male sexuality as so simple and prosaic that there's simply nothing to figure out, to, well, the bust-a-nut-on/in-a-slut emphasis in every depiction of sex you will ever see. Female readers may think I'm exaggerating, but we would have fucking world peace if every man on the planet learned how to have a real orgasm. It's a spiritual awakening that no amount of glossolalia and snake-handling can touch. How to bring about a Second Sexual Revolution, though? The Penis Monologues?

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

tantric practice teaches them how. it's a shame that such skills aren't taught in schools, i know, i'm a crazy dreamer for even suggesting such. but i grok your point bigtime, scar.

indeed, although not entirely a gay/str8 thing, i believe that there are two classes of people when it comes to sex. there are those for whom the pinnacle is the male/clitoral orgasm, and those for whom it is the female/full body orgasm. here's the tricky part- men can have 'female' orgasms, and women can fail to have female orgasms and believe that the male form is all they can reach.

...i better stop here, because as much as i want to further explain what i mean, i don't want to make this a pr0n post. but i'll say this: men, your prostate gland is your friend, and everyone should know that women have more than on "g" spot.

Not sure what to say, this being a subject that progressive men in public life are best advised to say meaningless platitudes on, nod their heads sagely, and wander on, if they say anything at all (and the truly wise will say nothing unless forced to.)

However, never having had such sense I will note a few things:

1) Women and men are different. They quite literally see, hear and smell the world differently, and swim in different chemical cocktails. As most transgendered persons who have been on hormones will tell you, it matters. I have no time for people who say it doesn't.

2) Feminists of the variety on that blog, in my opinion (one they would almost certainly not grant me the right to have, though I will grant them their right to their misandry) are consumed by hatred and fear. It defines who they are. I understand the hatred and fear; male treatment of women is often abominable, and the history of male treatment of women is beyond abominable. But once you let yourself go to the point where you are consumed by hatred and fear, you've lost and they've won, you've been destroyed.

3) Never really understood the fear of women as such. I think it is a proxy for a number of fears, the most significant of which are fears of intimacy, vulnerability and desire. (I sure as hell looked scared of women as a teenager and in my early twenties, but it would be more accurate to say I was scared of my reaction to women I found desirable or attractive. That defintion may seem overly subtle, I would argue that it is very important.)

4) We are all different, and we are all alone. I don't really understand other men either(what's with the need to form pack hierarchies anyway?) The bridge between men and women may be slightly larger than the bridge between members of the same gender, but it's just a rounding error on the void that seperates all of us from everyone, and the answer for those who want to bridge that gap is the same for men and women - empathy and love and an ability to get over yourself.

5) The distinction between male and female, man and women, is the root of the problem. We see others as members of classes first, and humans like us, second. They are women or men, they are black or white, they are muslim or Christian, they are progressive or conservative. They are members of a classification, they are defined by words, they are not people. If you can see someone as a person first, and a member of a class second, as Fred or Emma, not as a man, or a woman - when you see them that way, a lot of sexism goes away. And while you can't see large numbers as individuals (though you should sure as hell try) seeing them as a member of a group inclusive with you first (humans) rather than as others (women/men/muslims/jews/blacks/whites), is the primary step to ending the isms, whether race or sex or based on religion.

unless the purpose of wisdom is to keep it all to yourself and wait for everyone else to have the chance/luxury/opportunity to learn it themselves. some lessons are best learned anew in each person, but teaching and sharing have value too.

so i'm glad you responded.

the only quibble i have with what you say is that while these women are obviously filled with strong emotion and a lot of that is directed at men, perhaps even those who don't deserve it, the value of the site to me is that it gives men a rare glimpse into a world some/most women live in all the time. that is, a semi-patriarchy. it's a kind of slavery, and indeed, heart was a slave for many years...to her husband. one thing that is not often discussed when we speak of the oppressed is of how angry they are. we recognize it in the iraqis, and we say things like "we understand why they are fighting back and killing, we would be angered to kill if our families had been bombed." but we don't often see women's anger, particularly women in this country.

what would make a woman like that angry? well, perhaps the notion that semi-patriarchy is perfectly acceptable- held by liberals and progressives. that is, while we may mock or fight against religious fundamentalism in the public sphere, we continue to grant it the right to flourish, right next to us. most progressives would be perfectly OK with fundamentalists if they 'kept to themselves,' and indeed one can look at many not-politically-active fundamentalists in or near progressive communities for an example of that tolerance. yet inside the homes of those quiet fundamentalists, a kind of slavery goes on, and quiverfull women guarantee that there will be plenty of women in the next generation to suffer those conditions. progressive do little to stop it.

it's a radical idea, but it's one i can get behind- it's not enough to work to prevent religious ideology in government. my atheist views are clear and widespread on this blog, and there is a part of me that wants to take it to the next level, and begin to active oppose the patriarchy in its home, where real women and girls are really suffering from it every day. but that makes me "too angry" and "too extreme" for most progressives, who gave me a hard time for getting pissed at obama for saying that the left needs to be even more tolerant of religious fundamentalists.

the oppression of women is religion's single greatest evil, and if some women see it that way and speak and act accordingly, men shouldn't be surprised.

I like the site. I only skimmed it, but I can partially understand her anger--though I'll never TRULY understand it because I'm (1) not her and (2) not female and in fact a very, very privileged white male.

I have definitely noticed that even in the progressive blogosphere, the biggest and most popular blogs tend to be run by white males and that these blogs are much too willing to throw women, gays, transgenders, and non-whites under the bus. Not always explicitly, but it happens often enough to disturb me. And when it's pointed out, most of the offending parties pretend that they did nothing wrong or offensive and that the women (or other group) are just being overly sensitive or "can't take a joke."

I think Ian's point about the truly wise saying nothing has to do with this dynamic. This is obviously my own interpretation of his statement, but misogyny--whatever level it is practiced on--is so pervasive that many men, when trying to "help" or not be condescending, do just that. And when women (or other groups) tell them that they're being jerks and not actually helping at all, the men recoil, get angry, and decide that saying nothing next time is the best option.

For example, I've seen many instances where a woman's physical appearance is criticized in the media while a man's is not. Feminist blogs will condemn the media/patriarchy for generating and reinforcing the standard that a woman's appearance is most important. Men will chime in on the comments saying various supportive things that often include: "Besides, she looks very pretty/sexy. She has nothing to be ashamed about." At which point all the women on the blog smack themselves on the forehead and wonder if that guy (or guys) are actually on the same page as them and, if so, why they insist on completely missing the point and feeding into the same stereotypes that the media is being criticized for perpetuating.

Once again, I think this behavior, among men, is so ingrained that most of us do it reflexively--even if we consider ourselves feminists. Another example, this time by analogy and rather personal: I'm anti-racist and will verbally lash out at anyone I hear using racist terms or see being racist (though I'm still working up the steam to do this to some family members). Heck, I'd possibly tip over into physical violence in some situations--never, ever gotten near that point though. But, due to my upbringing--which was not overtly racist but only subtly--whenever I envision criminals in my head, the people who pop into it have dark skin. Black or brown. If I could take a drill to my head and excise that part of my brain that does that, I would. As it is, I have to cope with it and I think I do a very good job. But there's still that little piece of my mind that automatically vilifies non-whites.

I'm not sure if I have a little place that does the same thing with women. I'd like to think not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were there. Then again, I've been friends with and have had contact with a lot of women whereas I have not been friends with or lived around many non-whites (other than asian-descended people). That could be part of the reason that particular problem persists for race but is not as apparent to me regarding gender.

Please note that the above statements do not concern all men, all women, or all of any group. But they are general trends and problems that I've personally seen. However many exceptions there may be, the prevailing trend in our culture is one of misogyny. Maybe it's not as bad as other cultures, but it's still there and it still hurts.

... isn't just about sharing what you know, it's also knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Which is part of the long list of reasons why I'm not wise. ;)

(I've put a version of this over at the Agonist, since it got so long it turned into an essay.)

Moving onto religious patriarchy and fundamentalism. Yeah, it's bad. Yes, the goal should not be tolerance for it. But I don't think patriarchy is caused by religion per se. For example, a lot of the religious rules used to hem in women in Islamic culture are not original to the Prophet himself, who treated women in a remarkably egalitarian fashion, but were added in generations after his death. The few that are there were mostly put in for the Prophet's wives only and he added others not being able to see them or touch them because they were being endangered by his enemies and he wanted to protect them. Those rules were not intended to be extended to all Muslim women. In fact Mohammed was, for his time and place, extremely egalitarian, and many of his first followers were women, because he gave them a respect and a place they had nowhere else in society.

I think the roots of misogyny lie deeper than religion and have a great deal to do with the fact that people like to have someone to shove around. As far as I can tell human nature likes feeling superior to others, likes being dominant (Sub/Dem fetishists wouldn't like the real thing without "safe" words) and like having others serve them. When a society's mode of production and/or mode of conflict resolution becomes one that marginalizes women, their position also goes down the tube.

The most egalitarian societies in history were mostly hunter-gatherer bands. Women provided the majority of the food (one might ask then why they weren't matriarchies, which is an interesting question.) Horticultural societies were somewhat patriarchal, but women's position was still often very good. It's in agricultural societies that women's status goes through the floor because of the introduction both of the heavy iron plow and because of the styles of warfare employed. Without power to protect themselves, without control over the means of production, patriarchy takes over.

Axial age religions all somehow wind up pretty misogynistic, even if their founders, like Mohammed and Jesus, were very enlightened for their time (and the early Church, likewise, had female Bishops, etc...)

So I don't tend to think the core problem is religion. I tend to think it has to do with other factors and that religion is used to justify subjecting women to male domination. I think that if the door of interpretation were open in Islam, for example, that it would be quite easy to justify fairly radical female emancipation using Mohammed's own words and acts. I think that if you consider the New Testament primary over the Old Testament (something Christian's really should do) you can easily argue for fairly readical egalitarianism.

This is best illustrated by the fact that fundamentalists don't give two shits about the poor, but they do care about abortion and homosexuality. Any fair reading of the Bible would have to come to the conclusion that almost nothing was more important to Jesus than caring for the poor, yet Fundamentalists ignore that. They may be Christians in some sense, but I feel very safe in saying that if Jesus really is God's son, he won't have much time for them when they die. After all, what you do for the poor, the prisoners, the weak and so on is what you did to Jesus. What they've done is spit in his face.

Religion is a justification for their prejudices, whether about putting women in their "place", about their fear and hatred of homosexuals, or about their love of authoritarianims. Remove Christianity, and they will still be homophobic, misogynistic bastards who spit on the poor and love authoritarians bullies.

Is this slicing it overly fine? I don't think so. I think the key to undermining their power, and effectively emancipating women is to increase their options in life - to put more of the means of production in their hands. In practical terms this means policies like abortion on demand, universal free tertiary education, universal healthcare, a proper welfare system with education built in which allows them to leave abusive families and not wind up on the street, and so on.

Give women more options, which you do by giving everyone more options, and they will gain more power. And as they gain more power, more real equality with men, the power of religious fundamentalists, or any other type of patriarchy, will be reduced.

Will it ever go away entirely? Not as long as physical strength is the immediate arbiter of violence, no. Even when women produced most of the food in hunter/gatherer bands they were only equal, not matriarchial. (There are also some questions about the effects of body chemistry on ambition which a fuller treatment would discuss.)

Is this fair? No, it's not. But we're still pretty far from being as egalitarian as we can be, because we're still pretty far from a society where women really have equal power.

Religion is the symptom and is used as a justification. It's not the core cause of patriarchy, and if the core causes were to fade, as they did I suspect more people would discover that Mohammed was egalitarian, or that Jesus's 14th disciple, and one of his closest, was a woman.

Ideology is not a one way street. This isn't simple Marxism where ideology is just superstructure and doesn't really matter. But ideology does tend to flow, a lot, from how we organize our societies on the most basic level. And as such, I see emphasizing religion as the cause of patriarchy to be a mistake.

I recommend a perusal of "The Years of Rice and Salt" (2002) by Kim Stanley Robinson, particularly the chapters dealing
with the Quran as Mohammed's transmission of Allah's word and the difference between the Quran and the hadith, which are more like commentaries and traditions and are often conflated with the former. One character remarks that a common fundamentalist tactic is "taking an exception for the general rule". Sound familiar?