A sneaky patriarchy

What’s wrong with this picture? 

“The Code of the Amazons

Let all who read these words know: We are a nation of women, dedicated to our sisters, to our gods, and to the peace that is humankind’s right. Granted life by Gaea, the goddesses, and the souls of women past, we have been gifted with the mission to unite the people of our world with love and compassion.

Man has corrupted many of the laws our gods set forth. So, in their wisdom, the goddesses did create a race of female warriors dedicated to the ideals of uniting all peope, all sexes, all races, all creeds. No longer will man rule alone, for now woman stands as an equal to temper his aggression with compassion, lend reason to his rages, and overcome hatred with love.

We are the Amazons, and we hve come to save mankind. “

 

Hint: Saviors need to have victims, and salvation is all about the victims.

Leave a Comment

Nature or Nurture

Here’s an interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn14641.  Of course, this sidesteps the issue about how much we can challenge our preferred mix of brain chemicals.  But at least it makes for interesting thinking. 

If this (ie suppression of vasopressin contributes to commitment problems) is true, then would not a more rational social system figure out how to take this into account?    Furthermore, if the suppression also is linked to trust issues (surely related to commitment issues) and tendencies toward autism, then it seems that this supports the notion that certain men should, perhaps, be quarantined or at least branded as having genetic issues.  Just like I’d like to see a big V on the forehead of men who tend toward violence, why not have a not-V (for vasopressin-suppressed) sign as well?   Transaction theory economics tells us that it’s the inequality of information that generates the lack of trust in exchanges.  This should be equally true for emotional exchanges as well.

Leave a Comment

Hello world!

Hello World!  I’m starting a new post as Nigel–the eponymous Nigel of feminism.  Why there was a “notmy nigel” blog previously but was deleted by the WordPress editors, is unknown to me.  I’d prefer that name, since it’s more universally known, but……

Not My Nigel (from http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/faq-what-do-you-mean-by-not-my-nigel-feminist-abbreviationsjargon/)Not my Nigel” is shorthand for a common defensive reaction of many women to feminist observations  and explanations of widespread sexist activity and sexist motivations, which is that while certainly some other men are oppressively sexist, their particular partners/sons/fathers/brothers couldn’t possibly be part of the problem

  • i.e. “Not my Nigel! He’d never do anything like that”

or more invidiously

  • “well sure, my Nigel says/does that but he doesn’t mean any harm by it”.

(The feminist response is that truly one has no idea what sexist activities one’s Nigel engages in when performing manliness to impress other men (you think all those gropers and harassers tell their wives/mothers/sisters what they do?) and that not meaning any harm because “boys will be boys” is exactly the root of the problem.)

Well, I am Nigel.  I’m just a middle-aged guy married to a feminist, who believes he understands the general concept and paradigm of “patriarchy”, but realizes that it’s impossible to see that paradigm from outside it–and hence is necessarily controlled by the memetic rules of that paradigm.  That is, how can a man, especially, ever understand the full power patriarchal memes display to women?  Or how his own language is controlled by patriarchal language?  And, while he might think he is “nice”, “kind”, “pro-female”, etc.–how would he know?

I hope that future entries will further explicate the groping (uh-oh–is this a patriarchial-laden word?) understanding of anti-patriarchy.  Especially since it seems impossible to escape it without inventing your own language, a la Mary Daly.  More later, while I try to manage this blog.

Comments (1)