[LMB] Gender roles (was Predators vs. Protectors)

[Azalais Aranxta]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Thad Coons wrote:

> There have been more responses to the original topic than I can possibly
> hope to deal with.  So, I'll just make a couple of points.

You are certainly attempting to, but not in my opinion
succeeding.

> First, biology does matter, especially reproductive biology, which is tied
> to male-female relationships, which is tied to family dynamics, which
> is tied to.. I'd say the human pageant (a nod to the Vor pageant of
> succession of generations) which is tied to the continuation of social
> order, which is tied to everything else. You can't shove it under the rug
> and pretend it doesn't ever matter.

Nobody is trying to pretend that it doesn't *matter*.  What I
said was that it is not *relevant*.  It is not necessary for men
to have the socially-enforced role of provider and protector, or
for women to have the socially-enforced role of protected or fair
game.  And whether you like it or not, if you ENFORCE male
'protection' upon women socially and economically and legally,
you disempower women who choose not to engage in heterosexual
relationships and contract themselves to men, officially or
otherwise.  Patriarchy is a fact of history.  It need not be our
destiny or our future.  And if you are going to tell me that my
choice is to ally myself with a man and live in a society of
enforced heteronormative patriarchy, or to be forever a target, I
am going to tell you you are wrong, because I've met a lot of
people considerably younger than you who were raised outside of
that paradigm, and the males are not feral.

Biology means that women must have the babies and that they will
be temporarily helpless while the babies are growing inside them
and are small.  Biology means that women can be overpowered.
Biology means that women are more vulnerable than men especially
in times when there is no functioning society.  The women in
Borders of Infinity found a way to deal with that and it did not
involve asking men for protection.  Women who have dealt with men
on THAT level don't much want to deal with them at all for a good
while afterward.

Many societies have historically dealt with male aggression and
sexuality by making women sexual property--either public or
private, either sold for life or an independent contractor.  This
is for many reasons a devil's bargain for women and even the
lucky ones who are heterosexual by inclination, love their
partners and are able to negotiate for the most privileges
sometimes find it chafing.

However, most of us in the modern world have stepped away from
that model to some degree.  Girls no longer go from their
father's house to their husband's house.  Women can support
themselves and do so.  They therefore have a choice as to whether
or not to marry and some of them find that they as individuals do
not need men, except as friends and colleagues.  This is a fact
that many men resent.

It has been proven by numerous studies that women are more likely
to be harassed sexually when they step out of gender role--not
because they're more desirable than other women.  Men do use
sexual aggression in most patriarchal societies in order to keep
women down.  You yourself did it, with your ridiculous garbage
about feral packs of men being the only alternative to a world in
which women trade their company for male protection and allow men
to provide for them.  (Of course both parents should provide for
their children to the degree that they are able.  But that is not
the same issue at ALL.)

> Second,  There is reason rooted in human biology, why certain social roles
> are traditionally masculine or feminine, but men and women are alike enough
> that some overlap is  necessary. and inevitable. They do not or ought not
> imply anything about human worth, superiority, or the right to
> dominate those of the other sex.

There is reason why that has been so in the past.  It may or may
not be biological.  There is no proof of that.  One can say,
upper body strength, one can say, primate dominance, one can say,
it takes 9 months to have a baby and a year to wean it or
more--but ultimately, we don't know what was going on when all
this stuff got started.  Whatever the reason is or was, that
reason does not mean that it needs to continue to be that way
indefinitely.  Society becomes more egalitarian as technology
advances and people become more civilised.  If men don't rape,
then women won't need to fear rape.

> I take protecting and providing as service roles, and all this
> sexist *dreck* such as how the role of a protector or provider
> equates to Lord and Master keeps getting dragged in and
> attributed to me, even though I keep saying it's not what I
> believe and is wrong.

Then why did you tell me my only choice was that or Tasha Yar's
rape gangs?  Do you have any idea how ridiculous your last reply
to me sounded?

The sexist DRECK is the idea that women need an individual man to
serve them all the time in order to be safe, and that you or any
other man is a dog which has the choice of being protective or
feral.  You, sir, are a human being.  I've never met a dog that
could type fast enough to reply to me this fast.

And since you are a human being, your choice is not "be a rapist"
or "be a protector".  You also have the choice of "be human, act
to protect ANYONE who needs it regardless of gender, and forget
about raping anyone."  I vote for door number 3.

> I've been trying to discuss the moral behavior of men toward
> others, especially but not exclusively women, as illustrated in
> Lois' works.

Yeah, and you completely missed the point about Ekaterin.  Miles
wanted to do what was best for her but she had to make him back
down and let her figure it out for herself.

> Third, I don't believe that women were ever as totally
> subservient to or dependent on men as some list members seem to
> think. Women are certainly capable of fighting back against
> being oppressed, and they aren't so stupid to descent to the
> physical where men have a clear advantage.

There's not an underclass in the world that doesn't develop ways
of manipulating its masters.  Women are frequently characterised
as emotionally manipulative, scheming and conniving because in
many cases we have had to be historically.  Of course individual
women found ways to negotiate the system.  Individual blacks
found ways to negotiate the system in the USA when slavery was
commonplace.  That doesn't mean that it was not unjust, even
though some of them managed to be happy and many were indeed
valued members of the families they served.  Sexism, racism, and
homophobia as practised by humans in the real world always have
special cases and exemptions and "oh, but that one's our own".
That doesn't make it right or fair.

It is possible to be very happy in an unfair, inequitable world,
if you are lucky enough to make the right connections and smart
enough to figure things out.  The fact that some members of
underclasses are very happy does not make their situation
acceptable, fair or right.

> Societies are creations of both men and women, not men alone.
> One might get a very different view on the British 19th
> century, or the American 1950s, if one considers the possible
> part of women in creating these particular societies. When the
> society started to pinch, repeatedly they fought the old order
> and won. Female inferiority? Hah. Women have a lot more power
> than some of them think.

So pick one side of your mouth to talk out of.  Either we need to
be protected, and we have no choice but to accept inequities in
society, or we're perfectly capable of negotiating things for
ourselves.

Most of your arguments have not made me reconsider the value of
patriarchy.  But if every man believed them it would certainly
make me reconsider the value of lesbian separatism.

Men do not need the approval of an individual female as
protectors and providers in order to not commit sex crimes.  They
need to have enough self-control to understand that nobody was
put on this earth to service their needs, and to get their
self-respect and self-worth from defending the weak, whoever they
are, nurturing the young while they need it, doing the work to
build a better world, and learning as much as they can.  Those
are the things that make men attractive to women, rather than a
choice of desperation.

I do not want a guard dog.  And if I ever decide that I do, I'll
buy a Rottweiler.  I'm not keeping a man around in order to
protect me, I've lived just fine for 9 years without one.  Any
man who wants to live with me and be my partner needs to convince
me that he's bringing more to the deal than the ability to beat
people up and pay for things.  And that he has absolutely no
intention of trying to direct my life to suit himself.
Otherwise, it's me and the cat.

This is the kind of thinking that a lot of patriarchal men don't
like, and the reason that they (at least subconsciously) want
women to be scared.  Because if enough women opt out of this
devil's bargain, they're not all guaranteed a woman of their own.
And I strongly suspect some of them have no idea what they might
have to offer as human beings, because they've been too damn busy
internalising what a Man is Supposed To Be.

~malfoy :/

****************************************************************
Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy)
ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness

"I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it
think we all bow down." --Christopher Morley