First of all, interested parties may want to Google "gylanic" and look for the feminist criticism of it, as well as research the role the matriarchal archetypes of virgin, mother and crone. Otherwise, we'll be working out of ignorance of what role feminists, Riane Eisler, and those archetypes play in daily life.
IMHO it's a joint effort. How it gets done requires that men refrain from doing their thinking with the little head, and that women remember that the male ego is a myth.
Otherwise it may become a battle of wills if either side has an axe to grind.
In order get beyond the objectifying of women, both sides have to acknowledge the role that the patriarchal roots of human society plays in it.
Likewise, the matriarchal archetypes of virgin, mother, and crone also play a role in women-only views of patriarchy and also need to be addressed to help sensitize the men to what women want to help both sides overcome this age-old problem.
Yet it is more than an age-old problem, it is also a challenge for both men and women due to social conditioning.
That is why I suggested that we make use of the extensive research that shows that objectifying women (and men) is due to social conditioning. The only thing that is "hardwired" into the brain is the sex drive.
As well, the terms "man", "woman", "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are artifacts of that social conditioning. The first two terms are genders rigidly defined by patriarchal society, and the latter two are forms of sexuality (sexual expression).
However, I am not suggesting that we try to undo all of our social conditioning. Rather, the focus is on objectifying women (and men).
When a person listens to a story of general interest written by another person without knowing the person's gender, it is impossible to know whether a man or woman wrote it.
Before the 1920s, after which time the genders were rigidly enforced and homosexuality was criminalized, a person's sexuality was nobody's business and homosexuality was condoned, provided that both parties remained discreet.
Once upon a time, transgender people were not subject to rigidly enforced surgical and often psychotherapeutic intervention, depending on the person's socio-economic background.
In other cultures, the third sex is accepted but within context of social rules sometimes being eroded by patriarchal values imposed by first-world nations, much as nationalism was imposed on peoples living in societies prior to the rising of nations both in Europe and in the Americas as well as Asia.
However, objectifying women (and sometimes men) is due to social conditioning. It is patriarchal in nature, and neither gender nor sexuality are immune to its effects. One of many ways to reduce the effects of such social conditioning is to sensitize oneself to the way such social conditioning plays on our relationship with others.
Alone, one does not objectify others, apart from treating oneself to be of sole importance to oneself and considering trusted others to be essential to one's well-being. Thus, one trusts first family and then friends.
Then how does objectifying others work? Objectifying implies that one is presenting the objectified as an object and thus depersonalizing the other. In contract, personalizing then implies that the other becomes known as a person, and subsequently respecting his or her rights as an individual, thus individualizing that person. As well, in language, personal pronouns tend to personalize a person while depersonalizing a person happens when s/he is described as an object to fulfilled the material needs of a person in power. Thus, there is a dominator-submissive dichotomy in the power structure associated with objectifying women.
Thus, maintaining an impersonal idea of a person without careful consideration of that person as a unique individual with the same rights as you or I is also a factor in objectifying other people.
Even so, the system of objectifying a person is not called objectification, which refers to the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing and is the concrete representation of an abstract idea or thing. While people are not abstractions nor are they an abstract idea or thing, our ideas about other people are abstractions when we do not know them personally.
The only term which defines the process of objectifying is depersonalization, which has both personal (from the point of view of the self) and social (from the point of view of the other within the context of self). Thus, other people cannot be objects without feeling depersonalized on learning that they have been objectified. Likewise, the person doing the objectifying may be unaware of the effect that such depersonalization is having on himself/herself.
Depersonalization has detrimental effects on both the objectified person and the person doing the objectifying. It is morally irresponsible for the latter to deny such effects or to blame the objectified for them.
However, objectifying a woman (or a man) is another case of situational ethics in that within the auspices of a loving relationship, the tendency to objectify each other is reduced by getting to know each other as people. Instead, by making it personal and a shared experience, such a relationship can reduces the tendency to objectify each other. Thus, objectifying another person denies a personal and shared experience.
As well, what defines a personal and shared experience requires communication between both parties on an equal level. Proponents of the view that prostitution is an objectified relationship deny that the prostitute and the customer are on an equal level, despite the fact that in some cases, as the customer gets to know the prostitute that he has chosen as a regular customer, they both may cross from a depersonalized relationship into a deeply personal and loving one.
Even the language used in prostitution depersonalizes each party: a customer is called a "john" and a prostitute is called many kinds of name, including the neutral term "professional".
Returning to the objectifying of women, this is a matter that may be remedied by social interaction both on a public and a private level. It cannot be done informally without facing the risks that depersonalization entails. Nor can it be done by people who are not familiar with the terms I have introduced here.
This is why I have introduced most of the concepts which face each and every person, men and women, as well as heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Originally posted on December 26, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Reference:
Social conditioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning
Transgender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Depersonalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization
Showing posts with label matriarchalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matriarchalism. Show all posts
20140128
Alice Miller and Transcending Sexism
"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. This she can become only when she has the same rights as he and is his equal in education and work." — Severin, a character in Venus in Furs by Sacher-Masoch
By writing thusly Sacher-Masoch represented 19th-century mores and the enlightenment prior to suffrage of women circa the 1890s and throughout the first 72 years of the 20th century.
Even today, women are still not treated with equality through education and work in certain parts of Eastern Europe including the Balkans, as well as as Turkey, the Middle East and most of Asia.
Until that happens by allowing girls the choice to choose non-traditional paths of freedom before the age of majority, any inequality is due to a rigid dualism of male-female with men in the dominant role which is artificially constructed as a result of the patriarchalism that underlies each society which practises such traditions.
The solution is not matriarchalism, which itself is a rigid dualism of male-female with women in the dominant role.
Rather, both the sexes must endeavour to transcend the artificial construct of the male-female dichotomy and especially transcend the dominant-submissive dichotomy and truly become democratic and egalitarian without preference for the limited dichotomy be it of the sexes or of control. Although sexism is inherent in any system which supports either patriarchal or matriarchal power structures, it loses its power in a gender neutral power structure where power is shared by capable men and women
Thus there is a way out.
It starts with Alice Miller and goes beyond the December 6 Massacre to the sole purpose to emancipate men and women alike from the perils of child abuse, the root of human violence learned in family. The solution is not to break up families but to provide counselling to let survivors tell their stories without censure.
By sharing it is possible to help heal psychic wounds, thus beginning the road to recovery to help renew a sense of hope.
For gylanic egalitarianism is the way out of sexism.
Originally posted: December 23, 2010 4:27 AM
By writing thusly Sacher-Masoch represented 19th-century mores and the enlightenment prior to suffrage of women circa the 1890s and throughout the first 72 years of the 20th century.
Even today, women are still not treated with equality through education and work in certain parts of Eastern Europe including the Balkans, as well as as Turkey, the Middle East and most of Asia.
Until that happens by allowing girls the choice to choose non-traditional paths of freedom before the age of majority, any inequality is due to a rigid dualism of male-female with men in the dominant role which is artificially constructed as a result of the patriarchalism that underlies each society which practises such traditions.
The solution is not matriarchalism, which itself is a rigid dualism of male-female with women in the dominant role.
Rather, both the sexes must endeavour to transcend the artificial construct of the male-female dichotomy and especially transcend the dominant-submissive dichotomy and truly become democratic and egalitarian without preference for the limited dichotomy be it of the sexes or of control. Although sexism is inherent in any system which supports either patriarchal or matriarchal power structures, it loses its power in a gender neutral power structure where power is shared by capable men and women
Thus there is a way out.
It starts with Alice Miller and goes beyond the December 6 Massacre to the sole purpose to emancipate men and women alike from the perils of child abuse, the root of human violence learned in family. The solution is not to break up families but to provide counselling to let survivors tell their stories without censure.
By sharing it is possible to help heal psychic wounds, thus beginning the road to recovery to help renew a sense of hope.
For gylanic egalitarianism is the way out of sexism.
Originally posted: December 23, 2010 4:27 AM
20131204
The Egalitarian Matriarchy (satire)
According to the feminists and the goddess movement, the world is run by a patriarchal system known by other names such as the world bank system.
While the conspiracy theory that purports such a system is anti-Semitic and thus unworthy of respect, the term "patriarchy" deserves definition, being a system run by men for the benefit of men by keeping men in power.
In contrast, the term "matriarchy" must first be defined by what it isn't: it isn't a system run by women for the benefit of women by replacing men in power with women. Rather, a matriarchy is essentially an egalitarian system in which men, women, and children exist, free of the need for men or women to have power over everyone.
Thus, a matriarchy is potentially more democratic than a patriarchy which has more often than not co-opted democracy to keep men in power.
Yet men who derive their power from a patriarchy are adverse to the idea of a matriarchy, sometimes referring to it as a "tyranny of women" that trumps male power.
Ironically, male power within a patriarchy is a myth as boys and men are a higher risk of death and rape at an earlier age than girls and women.
While it is unknown if a matriarchy would reduce the risks inherent in a patriarchy such as murder and rape, it would be workable within populations of 10,000 people, and does not require dismantling the overlaying patriarchy.
For a matriarchy exists when a group of mothers and daughters rule their families in an egalitarian fashion.
In contrast, when the girlfriend or wife rule in an unfair manner ("women are allowed to freely express their anger but men are censured for being angry"), this is a form of patriarchal suppression since the reason for women censuring male anger is out of fear of male rage. In such situations, compliant men learn express male anger in a manner acceptable to women.
Such matriarchies exist in secret within Muslim culture, especially in Middle Eastern countries where the State is secular. In Afghanistan during the Taleban regime prior to 2003, matriarchies were disassembled one by one through what amounted to violent genocide.
Thus, within Muslim fundamentalist regimes, the overlaying patriarchy fears greatly the power of the matriarchy, and are killing key members of society, both male and female, to reduce its influence over women.
How well does a patriarchy rule its men, using fear and the myth of male power? For not only does such a regime kill women and girls, it also kills any boy or man who does not support its way of doing things.
In essence, a patriarchy works when everyone believes in the myth of male power.
Yet statistics prove time and time again that more men and boys die at the hands of men more often than girls and women do.
Even so, a fair matriarchy which operates in an egalitarian fashion within a family protects everyone from the ravages of patriarchy.
However, it is up to the wives, mothers and daughters to trump male power by exposing the myth to their children instead of perpetuating it.
For democracy is learned at the knee of a mother, not in the marketplace.
Originally written January 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Matriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
While the conspiracy theory that purports such a system is anti-Semitic and thus unworthy of respect, the term "patriarchy" deserves definition, being a system run by men for the benefit of men by keeping men in power.
In contrast, the term "matriarchy" must first be defined by what it isn't: it isn't a system run by women for the benefit of women by replacing men in power with women. Rather, a matriarchy is essentially an egalitarian system in which men, women, and children exist, free of the need for men or women to have power over everyone.
Thus, a matriarchy is potentially more democratic than a patriarchy which has more often than not co-opted democracy to keep men in power.
Yet men who derive their power from a patriarchy are adverse to the idea of a matriarchy, sometimes referring to it as a "tyranny of women" that trumps male power.
Ironically, male power within a patriarchy is a myth as boys and men are a higher risk of death and rape at an earlier age than girls and women.
While it is unknown if a matriarchy would reduce the risks inherent in a patriarchy such as murder and rape, it would be workable within populations of 10,000 people, and does not require dismantling the overlaying patriarchy.
For a matriarchy exists when a group of mothers and daughters rule their families in an egalitarian fashion.
In contrast, when the girlfriend or wife rule in an unfair manner ("women are allowed to freely express their anger but men are censured for being angry"), this is a form of patriarchal suppression since the reason for women censuring male anger is out of fear of male rage. In such situations, compliant men learn express male anger in a manner acceptable to women.
Such matriarchies exist in secret within Muslim culture, especially in Middle Eastern countries where the State is secular. In Afghanistan during the Taleban regime prior to 2003, matriarchies were disassembled one by one through what amounted to violent genocide.
Thus, within Muslim fundamentalist regimes, the overlaying patriarchy fears greatly the power of the matriarchy, and are killing key members of society, both male and female, to reduce its influence over women.
How well does a patriarchy rule its men, using fear and the myth of male power? For not only does such a regime kill women and girls, it also kills any boy or man who does not support its way of doing things.
In essence, a patriarchy works when everyone believes in the myth of male power.
Yet statistics prove time and time again that more men and boys die at the hands of men more often than girls and women do.
Even so, a fair matriarchy which operates in an egalitarian fashion within a family protects everyone from the ravages of patriarchy.
However, it is up to the wives, mothers and daughters to trump male power by exposing the myth to their children instead of perpetuating it.
For democracy is learned at the knee of a mother, not in the marketplace.
Originally written January 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Matriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
20110203
The Family that Sticks Together is Matriarchal
Overall, when the husband lets the wife rule the roost, that marriage lasts longer than where the family is actually an autocratic patriarchy where the father rules every aspect of his family's lives without flexibility.
Yet this depends on the State: if it is democratic, then it does not care who rules the family as long as it does not violate first social rules and norms specific to it and second UN conventions and the laws enacted to comply with international law.
Locally, within a democratic nation, if a family is ruled by rigid adherence to a patriarchal groupthink and variance to the State's laws are noticed through runs with the police and social workers, then the State reserves the right to remove children from potential or on-going abuse. Separation and divorce may then be used as remedies to an untenable situation.
The father may even be labelled as a wife-beater or as an aggressor in a domestic abuse legal case. Or worse, the State may use divorce as a tool to punish the autocratic father, including child support and alimony judgments.
In contrast, when the wife rules the roost, while she is not less likely to become autocratic, however, the State is less likely to label her an instigator of domestic abuse and few people will consider her to be a husband-beater; the police will even ridicule the husband for exposing it.
Despite this, family cohesiveness is stronger in one which is run in a matriarchal manner due to the stronger bonds maintained between family members.
This may be because in an autocracy, threat of force is the main tool used to maintain social cohesiveness, which actually may result in a weaker bond between family members. In a matriarchal family, there are less threats of force made to maintain cohesiveness; rather, a benign form of subversive psychology is enough to strengthen social cohesiveness within that family.
Thus, the family that sticks together longest is matriarchal at its roots. While this is an idealistic hypothesis, research of families indicates that it may be the rule more often than Western society cares to admit.
20110125
"Who's that Girl?"
When I scoped out this picture of Prime Minister Harper, his chief of defense and associated military brass, I thought, who is the female aide to PM Harper on the far right?
She is military, but she isn't wearing the green, but won't ever be at the front because she's too valuable being the Harper's gofer.
Let's hope she stays out of trouble after hours and makes a long stay in the PMO.
Any trouble won't be entirely her fault, though. How would I know? Well, the government is always a patriarchy carefully watched over by a benign matriarchal group of underlings...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)