"Nowadays any one who protests against injustice to men in the interests of women is either abused as an unfeeling brute or sneered at as a crank. Perhaps in that day of a future society, my protest may be unearthed by some enterprising archaeological inquirer, and used as evidence that the question was already burning at the end of the nineteenth century. – E. B. Bax
By : All parties, all sorts and conditions of politicians, from the
fashionable and Conservative west-end philanthropist to the Radical
working-men’s clubbite, seem (or seemed until lately) to have come to an
unanimous conclusion on one point – to wit, that the female sex is
grievously groaning under the weight of male oppression. Editors of
newspapers, keen to scent out every drift of public fancy with the
object of regaling their “constant readers” with what is tickling to
their palates, will greedily print, in prominent positions and in large
type letters expressive of the view in question, whilst they will
boycott or, at best, publish in obscure corners any communication that
ventures to criticise the popular theory or that adduces facts that tell
against it.
Were I to pen an impassioned diatribe, tending to prove the villainy
of man towards woman, and painting in glowing terms the poor, weak
victim of his despotism, my description would be received with
sympathetic approval. Not so, I fear, my simple statement of the
unvarnished truth.
Now, I think it will be admitted, as a general principle at least, by
all parties in the present day, that equality before the law, as it is
termed, is the first condition of liberty, and that where you do not
have respect of persons in this connection, you are destitute of the
primal elements of personal freedom. According to the popular theory
just indicated, respecting the position of women, we might expect to
find every law framed in such a way that women should invariably come
off less than second best in any dispute with men: in short, that law
would be enacted and administered solely to the advantage of men. Is
this so in actual fact?
[...]
The foregoing, then, I repeat, is the present state of the woman
question – as it exists in our latter-day class society, based on
capitalistic production. The last point that we have to consider is the
relation of this sex-question to Socialism. Some years ago, on its first
appearance, I took up my esteemed friend August Bebel’s book Die Frau
in the hope of gaining some valuable hints or at least some interesting
speculations on the probable future of sex-relations under Socialism. I
was considerably disgusted, therefore, that for the “halfpennyworth of
bread” in the form of real suggestion I had to wade through a painfully
considerable quantity of very old “sack” in the shape of stale
declamation on the intrinsic perfection of woman and the utter vileness
of man, on the horrible oppression the divine creature suffered at the
hands of her tyrant and ogre – in short, I found two-thirds of the book
filled up with a second-hand hash-up of Mill’s Subjection of Women and
with the usual demagogic rant I had been long accustomed to from the
ordinary bourgeois woman’s-rights advocate.
It was the reading of the book in question that induced me to take up
this problem, and to make some attempt to prick the bladder of humbug
to which I was sorry to see that Bebel had lent his name.
In doing this I of course acquired the reputation of a misogynist.
This is the natural fate of any one who attempts to expose that most
shamelessly impudent fraud (the so-called woman’s-rights movement) which
was ever supported by rotten arguments, unblushing misrepresentations,
and false analogies. I have given some instances of the former in the
course of this chapter. I will give one instance of a transparently
false analogy which is common among Socialists and Radicals. It is a
favourite device to treat the relation between man and woman as on all
fours with the relation between capitalist and workman.
But a moment’s consideration will show that there is no parallel at
all between the two cases. The reason on which we as Socialists base our
persistent attack on the class-privileged man or woman – on the
capitalist – is because we maintain that as an economical, political,
and social entity he or she has no right to exist. We say that the
capitalist is a mere parasite, who ought to and who eventually will
disappear. If it were not so, if the capitalist were a necessary and
permanent factor in society, the attitude often adopted by Socialists
(say, over trade disputes) would be as unfair and one-sided as the
bourgeois represents it to be.
Now, I wish to point out that the first thing for the woman’s-rights
advocates to do, if they want to make good the analogy, is to declare
openly for the abolition of the male sex. For until they do this, there
is not one tittle of resemblance between the two cases…
What does Socialism, at least, profess to demand and to involve?
Relative economic and social equality between the sexes. What does the
woman’s-rights movement demand? Female privilege, and when possible,
female domination. It asks that women shall have all the rights of men
with privileges thrown in (but no disagreeable duties, oh dear no!), and
apparently be subject to no discipline but that of their own arbitrary
wills.
To exclude women on the ground of incapacity from any honourable,
lucrative, or agreeable social function whatever, is a hideous injustice
to be fulminated against from platform and in press – to treat them on
the same footing as men in the matter of subordination to organised
control or discipline is not to be thought of – is ungentlemanly,
ungallant, unchivalrous! We had an illustration of this recently. At a
meeting held not long since, the chairman declared that all interrupters
of speakers should be promptly put out. A man at the back of the hall
did interrupt a speaker and was summarily ejected, Subsequently a woman
not only interrupted, but grossly insulted another speaker, but the
chairman declared that he could not turn a woman out. So it is.
A woman is to be allowed, of course, full liberty of being present
and of speaking at a public meeting, but is not to be subject to any of
the regulation to which men are subject for the maintenance of order.
And this is what woman’s-rights advocates and apparently some Socialists
term equality between the sexes!! Advanced women and their male
supporters in demanding all that is lucrative, honourable, and agreeable
in the position of men take their stand on the dogma of sex-equality.
No sooner, however, is the question one of disagreeable duties than
“equality” goes by the board and they slink behind the old sex-immunity.
This sentiment also plays a part in the franchise controversy. Let
women have the franchise by all means, provided two things, first of
all: provided you can get rid of their present practical immunity from
the operation of the criminal law for all offences committed against men
and of the gallantry and shoddy chivalry that now hedges a woman in all
relations of life[1]; and secondly, provided you can obviate the
unfairness arising from the excess of women over men in the population –
an excess attributable not only to the superior constitutional strength
of women, but still more, perhaps, to the fact that men are exposed to
dangers in their daily work from which women benefit, but from which
women are exempt, inasmuch as they are, and claim to be, jealously
protected from all perilous and unhealthy occupations. Now, surely it is
rather rough to punish men for their services to society by placing
them under the thumb of a female majority which exists largely because
of these services.
Of course all the economic side of the question which for this very
reason I have touched upon more or less lightly falls away under
Socialism. Many Socialists, indeed, believe that the sex-question
altogether is so entirely bound up with the economic question that it
will immediately solve itself on the establishment of a collectivist
order of society. I can only say that I do not myself share this belief.
It would seem there is something in the sex-question, notably, the love
of power and control involved, which is more than merely economic.
I hold rather, on the contrary, that the class-struggle to-day
over-shadows or dwarfs the importance of this sex-question, and that
though in some aspects it will undoubtedly disappear, in others it may
very possibly become more burning after the class-struggle has passed
away than it is now. Speaking personally, I am firmly convinced that it
will be the first question that a Socialist society will have to solve,
once it has acquired a firm economic basis and the danger of reaction
has sensibly diminished or disappeared.
Nowadays any one who protests against injustice to men in the
interests of women is either abused as an unfeeling brute or sneered at
as a crank. Perhaps in that day of a future society, my protest may be
unearthed by some enterprising archaeological inquirer, and used as
evidence that the question was already burning at the end of the
nineteenth century.
Now, this would certainly not be quite true, since I am well aware
that most are either hostile or indifferent to the views set forth here
on this question. In conclusion, I may say that I do not flatter myself
that I am going to convert many of my readers from their darling belief
in “woman the victim.” I know their will is in question here, that they
have made up their minds to hold one view and one only, through thick
and thin, and hence that in the teeth of all the canons of evidence they
would employ in other matters, most of them will continue canting on
upon the orthodox lines, ferreting out the twentieth case that presents
an apparent harshness to woman, and ignoring the nineteen of real
injustice to man; misrepresenting the marriage laws as an engine of
male, rather than of female, tyranny; and the non-possession of the
suffrage by women as an infamy without a parallel, studiously saying
nothing as to the more than compensating privileges of women in other
directions.
Working-women suffer to-day equally with working-men the oppression
of the capitalist system, while middle-class women enjoy together with
middle-class men the material benefits derived from a position of
class-advantage. But in either case, as I have shown, as women, they
enjoy a privileged position as against men as men. Only the will not to
recognise the truth on this question can be proof against the evidence
adduced.
Excerpts taken from The “Monstrous Regiment” of Womanhood, chapter in Essays in Socialism New & Old (1907), pp.108-119. – PW
____________________
Footnotes
1. A friend of mine is fond of arguing that the privileges of women
are simply the obverse side of laws for the protection of the weaker. On
this principle I would observe that any system of tyrannical privilege
can be condoned. For example, it might be urged that the power of the
Southern state planter over his slaves was necessary to the protection
of the physically and numerically weaker white race against the
ferocious negro. A similar argument is, in fact, used to-day to justify
the action of negro-lynching mobs. Any system of oppression may be
explained away, if one chooses, as being designed for the “necessary
protection” of the oppressor against the oppressed.
Source/AVfM
By So there’s this video. It’s hard to watch. You probably should:
The accused, remarkably, admits it, and has resigned her position as Vice-Principal of Alhambra High School.
It kind of hit me hard, this. Brought up thoughts and memories I haven’t exactly buried, but mostly came to terms with and put away a long time ago.
I’ll spare you the details. It was all decades in the past, and of those I know to still be alive, they’re not likely going to be able to hurt anyone again. Besides, I usually make it a point not to make what I do here on AVfM about me and my own damage. Doing a bi-weekly show with Erin Pizzey on these issues makes it seem nearly impossible never to do it at all, mind you, but I try to keep it to a minimum, and only bring it up when I think it will help someone. So what the hell. Maybe Jamie X, or someone else like her, will read this, and maybe it will help.
There were five of them, between my infancy and my late adolescence. With three of them, what they did was relatively minor, mostly just disturbing and confusing in a young life that was already disturbing and confusing and unstable. The minor ones were the middle-aged housewife neighbor who felt me up, and the theology teacher who did pretty much the same but with more intimacy. With three others, however, it was more than minor. Of the three who weren’t minor, two were women, one was a man.
No, none of them really knew each other. It was different predators, different times and places. There just seems to be something about sexual predators: they can spot us. They’re drawn to us.
Who’s “us?” The vulnerable ones, the lost ones, the ones who are looking for guidance and understanding and security in a world that we can’t seem to find it in. I fancy they can tell by the way we walk, the way we talk, the way we interact–or fail to interact–with others. Whatever it is, the sexual predators, they can spot us a mile away I think.
Well, except for the ones who go after their own children. But that’s a different type of monster I suppose.
In any case, some may be born predators. Most, I think, probably not. Probably they’re reacting to their own childhood damage.
That doesn’t make what they did OK. It’s not. It just helps to know it, and to realize that while you can never wipe out evil deeds and evil actions, it’s easier to heal the trauma and reduce the incidence and help others through it if you recognize where it comes from.
Jamie X says something here about how her life was ruined. No Jamie it wasn’t ruined. You can heal from things like this. It can make you stronger and wiser.
There is a certain deal the devil offers us here in this modern culture, which says that if we internalize these experiences and make them the core of our identity, it will give us power. And it will. For a little while. I hope you don’t take it. I sense, just watching this, you probably won’t. Good.
Because that deal, it’s like taking methamphetamines: in the short term, it does good things from you.
With amphetamines, there’s no doubting it: you feel good, you’re sharp, you’re alert, you’re not at all tired, your memory is better, you can concentrate better, you can think more clearly about things, and the world seems like an awesome place. For a while. But pretty soon it robs every bit of that from you, and takes away even more. Eventually it consumes you, and you lose everything.
So too comes what I think of as the “victim mentality.” If the victim mentality consumes you, if you repeat over and over that this defines you, that this has crippled you forever, and use your victim status like a club to hit anyone who challenges you, as an excuse for every setback… well, it’s empowering for a time. But long term, you slowly just get sicker and sicker, and rather than gaining mature wisdom from it, you make yourself a permanent emotional cripple. And that’s not even your predator’s fault anymore, it’s yours.
Life’s a bitch that way, ain’t it?
I hope I’m right in my assessment, and Jamie X turns down the deal with the devil, and emerges stronger. Something tells me she will, but only time will tell.
There are also other thoughts this brings up, and these have nothing to do with Jamie X. So Jamie if you’re reading, you can stop here. The rest has nothing to do with you.
In this jumbled mix of thoughts that came to me listening to Jamie’s call, came sure knowledge that if I read this story in a place like The Good Men Project, or Salon, or Slate, or even some conservative organ, or even a mainstream media organ with no major political axe to grind, I’d read a line something like this:
“Sexual predators don’t always wear a male face.”
And you know, people would just nod sagely at that stupid line. “Of course, of course, not always, thanks for the important reminder.”
My response to that headline is, fuck you. Abuse does not wear a male face period. Nor does it wear a female face. Abuse is fucking abuse, and we have a cultural blind spot, an enormous one, when it comes to female predators. We tell ourselves they aren’t common even though they are quite common indeed. Just look at the difference between who gets prosecuted and convicted, versus what people report of their own experiences. On the self-reports, it turns out that females are anywhere from one-third to more than half of all sex predators. They just don’t go to jail for it anywhere near as often.
You know it’s one thing to be abused when you’re a child. Then it’s another abuse to be told that the abuse comes from males and maleness. For women, what this does is make it easier for the female predators to get away with it, and makes women more afraid of men.
But you know what it really does? It abuses little boys, and men of all ages, and makes them believe that this is their problem, that this problem wears their face. And it’s a whole other level of abuse, because it’s a hateful, bigoted lie.
If you tell a young man that he was sexually abused and raped by a woman… “but the problem is overwhelmingly a male-on-female problem,” and that he can use his experience to empathize with women, and you know what you are? An ignorant fool. And if you persist in that ignorance even after someone takes the time to try to educate you on the matter? Now you’re not just an ignorant fool, you’re an aggressively ignorant bigoted asshole.
Sexual abuse doesn’t have a male face. It doesn’t have a female face. It has a human face, and one day, with any luck, we’ll all recognize that.
Here’s hoping.
Source
_______
It does not wear a male face
Andrea Cardosa And Jamie X It kind of hit me hard, this. Brought up thoughts and memories I haven’t exactly buried, but mostly came to terms with and put away a long time ago.
I’ll spare you the details. It was all decades in the past, and of those I know to still be alive, they’re not likely going to be able to hurt anyone again. Besides, I usually make it a point not to make what I do here on AVfM about me and my own damage. Doing a bi-weekly show with Erin Pizzey on these issues makes it seem nearly impossible never to do it at all, mind you, but I try to keep it to a minimum, and only bring it up when I think it will help someone. So what the hell. Maybe Jamie X, or someone else like her, will read this, and maybe it will help.
There were five of them, between my infancy and my late adolescence. With three of them, what they did was relatively minor, mostly just disturbing and confusing in a young life that was already disturbing and confusing and unstable. The minor ones were the middle-aged housewife neighbor who felt me up, and the theology teacher who did pretty much the same but with more intimacy. With three others, however, it was more than minor. Of the three who weren’t minor, two were women, one was a man.
No, none of them really knew each other. It was different predators, different times and places. There just seems to be something about sexual predators: they can spot us. They’re drawn to us.
Who’s “us?” The vulnerable ones, the lost ones, the ones who are looking for guidance and understanding and security in a world that we can’t seem to find it in. I fancy they can tell by the way we walk, the way we talk, the way we interact–or fail to interact–with others. Whatever it is, the sexual predators, they can spot us a mile away I think.
Well, except for the ones who go after their own children. But that’s a different type of monster I suppose.
In any case, some may be born predators. Most, I think, probably not. Probably they’re reacting to their own childhood damage.
That doesn’t make what they did OK. It’s not. It just helps to know it, and to realize that while you can never wipe out evil deeds and evil actions, it’s easier to heal the trauma and reduce the incidence and help others through it if you recognize where it comes from.
Jamie X says something here about how her life was ruined. No Jamie it wasn’t ruined. You can heal from things like this. It can make you stronger and wiser.
There is a certain deal the devil offers us here in this modern culture, which says that if we internalize these experiences and make them the core of our identity, it will give us power. And it will. For a little while. I hope you don’t take it. I sense, just watching this, you probably won’t. Good.
Because that deal, it’s like taking methamphetamines: in the short term, it does good things from you.
With amphetamines, there’s no doubting it: you feel good, you’re sharp, you’re alert, you’re not at all tired, your memory is better, you can concentrate better, you can think more clearly about things, and the world seems like an awesome place. For a while. But pretty soon it robs every bit of that from you, and takes away even more. Eventually it consumes you, and you lose everything.
So too comes what I think of as the “victim mentality.” If the victim mentality consumes you, if you repeat over and over that this defines you, that this has crippled you forever, and use your victim status like a club to hit anyone who challenges you, as an excuse for every setback… well, it’s empowering for a time. But long term, you slowly just get sicker and sicker, and rather than gaining mature wisdom from it, you make yourself a permanent emotional cripple. And that’s not even your predator’s fault anymore, it’s yours.
Life’s a bitch that way, ain’t it?
I hope I’m right in my assessment, and Jamie X turns down the deal with the devil, and emerges stronger. Something tells me she will, but only time will tell.
There are also other thoughts this brings up, and these have nothing to do with Jamie X. So Jamie if you’re reading, you can stop here. The rest has nothing to do with you.
In this jumbled mix of thoughts that came to me listening to Jamie’s call, came sure knowledge that if I read this story in a place like The Good Men Project, or Salon, or Slate, or even some conservative organ, or even a mainstream media organ with no major political axe to grind, I’d read a line something like this:
“Sexual predators don’t always wear a male face.”
And you know, people would just nod sagely at that stupid line. “Of course, of course, not always, thanks for the important reminder.”
My response to that headline is, fuck you. Abuse does not wear a male face period. Nor does it wear a female face. Abuse is fucking abuse, and we have a cultural blind spot, an enormous one, when it comes to female predators. We tell ourselves they aren’t common even though they are quite common indeed. Just look at the difference between who gets prosecuted and convicted, versus what people report of their own experiences. On the self-reports, it turns out that females are anywhere from one-third to more than half of all sex predators. They just don’t go to jail for it anywhere near as often.
You know it’s one thing to be abused when you’re a child. Then it’s another abuse to be told that the abuse comes from males and maleness. For women, what this does is make it easier for the female predators to get away with it, and makes women more afraid of men.
But you know what it really does? It abuses little boys, and men of all ages, and makes them believe that this is their problem, that this problem wears their face. And it’s a whole other level of abuse, because it’s a hateful, bigoted lie.
If you tell a young man that he was sexually abused and raped by a woman… “but the problem is overwhelmingly a male-on-female problem,” and that he can use his experience to empathize with women, and you know what you are? An ignorant fool. And if you persist in that ignorance even after someone takes the time to try to educate you on the matter? Now you’re not just an ignorant fool, you’re an aggressively ignorant bigoted asshole.
Sexual abuse doesn’t have a male face. It doesn’t have a female face. It has a human face, and one day, with any luck, we’ll all recognize that.
Here’s hoping.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment