The Lady Doth Protest Too Much
In yesterday’s article, I responded to yet another post, this time about click bait and censorship.
Context: previous discussion I initiated with the community.
@sean-king offered a few pieces of his personal opinion, on what our main disagreeance is:
Do women have the power?
(on gender inequality) He comments,
Why do I say that women have power? Because I experience it. I understand the influence they have over me. And the biggest misogynists here on Steemit, and the Internet in general, do too, hence their disparagement and attempts at shaming.
It also can be argued that most people have other influencing people in their life. I myself can admit that I have had influence/power over people and men in my life (sexually or otherwise). However, that hasn’t gotten me ahead in society, or made my female experience any easier.
It hasn’t made me more powerful--
I’m undermined, over-sexualized, harassed, and mistreated, because I’m a woman.
Women are, in fact, the "reason men do everything", and this gives them extraordinary power. That power just isn't always obvious. It's not the testosterone-fueled, grandiose pseudo-power that people usually associate with men. It's far more subtle and nuanced, but no less effective. In fact, it's more effective in many ways.
This is another claim that doesn’t make sense when applied to reality.
When I think “women are the reason men do everything,” I question that logic. It doesn’t account for any gay men, nor does it give men in general the credit of being capable of any rational, non-sexually motivated thought. It’s exclusive to straight people, and more specifically: straight men. An argument that is too reductive, hardly applies to modern society, and is therefore not valid.
The way he is applying “Evolutionary Psychology” to his theory that women have "sexual power" is sounding more like a Machiavellian conspiracy, to me.
Men don't, in fact, control the money in the world. Here are a few easily-verifiable statistics that I think will shock both you and @stellabelle and many others:
Women own or control more than three-quarters of the nation's financial wealth. Look it up! Women make more than 95 percent of all household purchasing decisions. Again, just look it up!
The key words here are own or control. That statistic does not mean, nor imply, that women have made a majority of the world’s wealth. It is irrefutably false to say that women have more power because they do more financing than men.
If women are more powerful, why is it so much more difficult for us to be more powerful? In even the most basic scenarios, like making more money, having a successful career, etc-- it just doesn’t make sense.
Let’s apply this logic to today:
Did Hillary Clinton get elected because of her “sexual power”? No matter what you think of her, I’m pretty sure you’re going to agree with my argument. Hell no was she elected because she’s sexy--she’s just as butt ugly as Trump. Yet right now, she’s a pretty “powerful” woman, wouldn’t you agree?
Below are quotes of “statistics” @sean-king shows (he does not cite). For the sake of the debate, I did some research myself. Feel free to do the same and develope your own opinion.
Please note these statistics are for the U.S. only, and do not include other countries, as I don’t believe that is what the author is referring to.
Also note, that just because I am showing these statistics, does not mean that I belittle or do not care about men's issues as well. These statistics are to back my conclusions.
Today, significantly more women than men now graduate from college each year, and the trend is accelerating.
According to TIME -2015: “Last year, 29.9% of men had a bachelor’s degree, while 30.2% of women did, the bureau reports. A decade prior, in 2005, 28.5% of men had bachelor’s degree, while only 26% of women did.” This is also verified by a cencus of the same year
These are recent statistics that don’t compare to the past 200,000 years. Women’s education is something to be applauded, and despite the progress, many women outside of the U.S. still don’t have access to it.
The unemployment rate for men has averaged two to three full percentage points higher than for women over the last decade.
While this is true, that doesn’t account for unequal pay. Here is a .PDF on women’s earnings according to the United States Department of Labor. It states that women make 78¢ for every dollar a man earns. If women being in power was the reason men were unemployed, why don’t they make the same amount of money?
Women physically assault men at rates nearly equal to the reverse.
A statement that is undeniably false. I am unsure where he got that information. Here is arrest data from the FBI, that states:
Males constituted 98.0% of those arrested for forcible rape.
Males constituted 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.
Males constituted 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault.
Men are actually raped more often than women (when prison rapes are counted, as they should be).
Again, refer to the previous table.
Also note that nearly 3 in 10 women (29%) and 1 in 10 men (10%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their functioning. According to a National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.
The list of counterfactual claims goes on, but I won’t bore readers with the rest.
The closing arguement
Lastly, he says:
People don't waste time attacking that which is not a threat. Men attack women not because women are weak and vulnerable, but because they are almost mystically powerful.
This is why I think these claims are borderline Freudian.
Freud himself said, “anatomy is destiny,”
This ideology is only good for justifying male misbehavior.
Imagine this: you’re a teenager having sex, and your parents walk into your room. You stop. That alone should is enough evidence that men have control over their sexuality.
People don’t just get raped because of their aggressors “over-arousal” or “sexual power.” Gratification is only one of the many causes of sexual violence. Other explanations ([according to Wikipedia] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence)) are socioeconomics, anger, power, sadism, psychopathy, ethical standards, laws, or attitudes toward the victims.
“Some feminists assert that male domination of women in socio-political and economic domains is the ultimate cause of most rapes, and consider male-female rape to be a crime of power that has little or nothing to do with sex itself.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy- Feminist Perspectives on Rape
Great post, Vera! You mentioned a lot of the points my business partner and I have been discussing as well. I do think @sean-king may be taking his views of evolutionary psychology a bit far, comparing it to more grounded disciplines and well-accepted theories like evolution itself. From what I understand, evolutionary psychology does have quite a few critics.
This line is golden:
That had me laughing out loud. :)
I don't mean to derail the discussion too much, but I wonder how much of our personal views (as they do in every opinion or discussion) cloud our thinking on this topic. For example, if someone has an incredible sexual relationship with their partner, and they are both in a safe place to fully embrace their "lizard brain" urges, it stands to reason they would both appreciate the power of sexuality and, in that context, depending on the preferences of the couple in question, I don't see it as too much of a stretch to imagine (on average) the woman being in a powerful position. I guess I could point to the pornography industry as a market example of how men are more interested than woman (again, in a very general, stereotypical sense, not a specific one) in visual, audio stimuli. The classic case I hear often made is that men are more into the physical nature of sex while women are more into the emotional, intimacy aspect of the relationship. Again, I know I'm generalizing here, but when we're talking about topics as broad as human sexuality, I think it's still valuable to talk about large groups and the probabilities they contain. It's also possible that this "reality" as it may be today is purely culturally driven and may not be reliant on physical male/female traits at all. If that's the case, does it change the discussion and if so, how?
The counter example to the point I'm making would be someone who has a terrible sex life. For them, it is not at all safe to engage or even acknowledge those urges. In fact, it might even be beneficial to suppress them.
How do we escape our own personal experiences when discussing this topic in a general sense?
Just this morning I was thinking of an analogy that may or may not be helpful. Let's imagine I really, really love good food. I mean, I fully geek out on the very best lobster, chocolate, wine and the like. When I see and smell these foods, my body responds with salivation and a deep desire to consume them. Does that mean I've lost all control or am "powerless" as @sean-king implied? No, certainly not. Does it mean I'd have less power than the chef who was preparing the meal and deciding whether or not to eat it for themselves or offer it to me? Yes, in that case, I would I have less power, unless I chose to engage in immoral behavior and take it from them.
That, to me, is the key to this whole discussion which hasn't been brought up. Any justification for immoral behavior is immediately invalid in my personal non-aggression principle-based morale framework. There is no excuse. Just as I control myself to not steal the food off of someone's plate who might be dinning next to me, I also can control myself not to aggress against other humans, male or female. All that said, to deny the joy and, I'd argue, beauty of giving in to those evolutionary core desires like food and sex would be, to me, a travesty. Done within a proper moral framework, giving in to these desires in a safe, loving relationship can be some of the most fulfilling experiences humanity can enjoy.
Again though, I recognize I'm coming at this discussion from my own experiences while in a safe, loving relationship. It's not only possible, but I'd say extremely likely, I'd feel differently if I had terrible sexual experiences involving immoral behavior. I think you bring up an important point that (outside of prison rape, which is really a completely separate subject when discussing normal human sexual behavior in society at large) women are, by a very far amount, subjected to more negative, immoral aggression against them than men.
Perfectly relevant! I agree with your opinion that justification for immoral behavior is invalid. Kind of like I said towards the end of the piece,
Your food analogy was a good point, as well.
I'm glad you pointed out those two points, because I didn't really understand them at first. :)
I'm not going to go defending Freud, but I also can't ignore every sexual animal species on the planet and how the "goal of life" in a very general sense seems to be the propagation of the genes. Yes, we like to think we're not just "animals" but we don't yet understand consciousness well enough to talk intelligently about that (IMO). To me, acknowledging our basic needs and desires helps us know ourselves and can be used in wonderful ways, not just for "misbehavior." If you could expand on that point, maybe I'd better understand what you mean.
As to the teenager having sex example, I'm not arguing men have no control. I hope @sean-king and other's aren't arguing that either. To me, it's about various levels of impulses and whether or not those are culturally constructed or evolutionarily hard-wired. And, beyond that, how powerful they are within one individual compared to another and what mechanisms are involved in the brain as far as pain/pleasure and positive/negative consequences for various behaviors. In the example you gave, they stop because the consequences of continuing in front of your parents would probably be quite high (within our current cultural framework). In other situations (such as a party, with alcohol), those consequences are lower and can lead to really bad outcomes. That, to me, in no way justifies immoral behavior, but it should at least be discussed as far as the impulses people feel and how they respond to those impulses.
I am aware that men and women are "different," in some ways biologically, physically, and mentally. That much is obvious. I don't believe I ever explicitly said I denounce basic science and facts, but I can kind of see how that could be assumed.
I disagree with the prospect that a. evolution can be an excuse for misbehavior, and b. that women have an inherent sexual power over men because of that.
Kind of like a user brought up earlier: I understand that women can exploit men for their sexuality, but that simply doesn't account for the majority. I don't really see how the argument that women have more power can be made with that ideal as the core detail.
You are DONE, get the fuck out of my sight now,
you fucking ignorant bitch
I never said the evolution is an excuse for misbehavior, or that men can't comtrol themselves. Not sure where that stuff is coming from.
I left @veralynn a long comment on this post clarifying and explaining the basis of my logic. Please check it out when you can. I think you'll understand where I'm coming from better.
@sean-king , sorry if it came off like I was "calling you out," that was never my intention.
You're not entirely wrong for everything you say, I just touched on some things I don't personally agree with (much like you did).
I take some quotes from you as motivation for me to speak about something I am passionate about, as well. I hope that didn't come off in the wrong way. Thanks for giving your thoughts the past few days. :)
I have been ruminating on this topic since @sean-king originally posted on it. I’ve had a hard time trying to figure out what I really think and why. I don’t want to do a point-by-point breakdown of anyone’s arguments, but I do have some points I’d like to raise in regard to women using their sexuality as power. Is your sexuality what you want other people to focus on when they think of you? I, personally, want other people to think I’m pretty or desirable, but I’d rather not emphasize that part of me to the point where my other qualities take a back seat. I would rather people be able to see that I’m smart or talented or kind. When we draw people’s attention to a certain part of us (whether it’s sexuality, wealth, etc), then that’s what they will focus on. The question is….are we getting people to focus on what we really want them to? I have a friend who is a successful businessman. He bought a nice BMW, but then said he regretted buying it because of the type of women that it was attracting to him—women very interested in money. Is it possible to gain someone’s attention/service/etc with your sexuality and then be able to switch focus later? Possible, but perhaps difficult? Even if using your sexual power may get you what you want in the short-term, does it get you what you want in the long-term?
A male would want them to focus on whatever gives him an advantage. :-).
Some are mischaracterizing my position. I never said that women ONLY have sexual power. I never said that ALL women have sexual power. Of course women can wield sexual power and other forms of power also. The combination is particularly potent.
I just left @veralynn a long comment response. If you'll read it you'll have a better idea where I'm coming from.
I wasn’t trying to say that you implied women ONLY have sexual power or that ALL women have sexual power. I was just trying to say as a woman OR as a man if you choose to wield a certain power over others, then people may come to expect that particular thing from you and see you as rather one-dimensional. Not just referring to sexual power here.
Got it. And agreed!
BTW, I use all caps from time to time only for emphasis. I don't intend to shout. I've not mastered Markdown yet and I can never remember how to italicize or bold things, but hitting caps lock is just a pinky move away.
Single
*around your text italicizes, double**gives you bold.No worries. I took it as emphasis, not as shouting.
I like that you are debating this in such a civil manner.
I just want to add that at this point in my life I am literally asexual. I have no sex drive whatsoever and no interest in courting anyone. So, where does that put me if my supposed power is my sexuality? I know, personally, I don't want my value/power to be tied to my sexuality. Women do not have more power in society and that is pretty clear but you already went into details on all of that.
But again, way to civilly debate and take time reading the other perspective and thinking about it fully.
I look forward to more of your content.
Sexuality could be one of your sources of power-- in fact, it's a source of power for everyone who is human, and recognizing that doesn't mean having sex, or even wanting to. Instead, recognizing that is more about understanding that the entire dynamic exists--- something I often forget to do myself. People who are more conscious of this stuff are better able to exploit the power of their sexuality.
(men,women,experimentersinphysicalevolution)==People
Doesn't matter what group you fall into, you can still derive power from people's perception of your sexuality-- or from their lack of perception of it, too.
valid point. I tend to not be aware of that these days as I don't often think about sex anymore. I have a disease that makes having sex excruciating so that lead to me being pretty much asexual. But you are right, I could still exploit my sexuality as can anyone as we see in marketing regularly.
After my car accident, it was like that for me too for a while. I feel for ya, and hope that you're able to enjoy many many things, if not sex :).
This!
Some theorists would probably argue that you are oppressed because of your lack of "sexual power," rather than being oppressed because... you're oppressed. Or at least, that's my guess.
Thank you for noticing. I always try to conduct myself as professionally as possible when it comes to discussions like this. :)
"rather than being oppressed because... you're oppressed"
you are oppressed because you are oppressed,
omg this is some heavy philosophy...
That was the point, haha.
you are insane and cant comprehend basic logic, did anybody ever tell you that?
You go to the library too, you are borderline scientifically illiterate
and barely literate as in your use yesterday of the word rebuttle instead of rebuttal
Have some respect for yourself.
Not sure but i think you may be the so-called pansexual thing.
pansexual is being attracted to everyone regardless of gender. I was pansexual. Now I am asexual, which means I have no desire in having sex.
Well done lemons. Remember you can be anything you want, except straight, normal, a wife and a mother of a gaggle of happy children.
I'm pretty okay with that. :P
a love so spread out that you love everything, is the same as a love so thin you dont love anything, asexuality often follows pansexuality
you will not be respected here if you are barely literate,
its not regardless of gender, its regardless of sex,
you can be a woman whose gender is male.
Learn the basic theory, go to local library and pick up some books girl,
it will pay out
I never suggested that women's only power is their sexuality. And I certainly never said that their value as people is only or even primarily related to their sexuality.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I will read more fully before commenting next time. I respect how civil you both are in this debate. :)
This is a pretty powerful conversation. Perhaps to some men, women represent nothing more than a chance for legacy. I've toyed with the thought that men, while historically powerful, are jealous because while they're an ingredient in the formula of life, they do not carry and bring forth that life into existence. It's a domain exclusively for the woman, and in my time on earth it does seem that men want to be a part of, if not control, whatever possible.
But aren't we equal (?) omg im so confused
this steemit thing...
we're equal catalysts to get the process going, yes, but once the ball is rolling, the physical distribution of work shifts entirely to the woman. I mean, of course we're important and equal in the responsibility of ensuring the child makes it, but it isn't our physical bodies that are integral to the success of a pregnancy. Once the process begins, life is dependent on a woman's body.
It's a thought I've toyed with.
Have you toyed with the thought that maybe, just maybe, that's why women are different from men?
Oh, how dare you :P
That is an interesting theory. I've heard a similar idea that claims it stems from internalized misandry. A thought provoking concept.
I am a silly robot!
!cheetah bad robot
Nice job cheetah bot! Only that's my original content. :)
its ok, the bot is not trained in autoreferential people
.... sorry had to.
rofl. #shitpostchampion
Great work @veralynn! Yes rape is just more about power over someone not about the sex itself! Lots of good facts! I Like your work.
Thank you! I plan on doing a lot more posts like this in the future. It would also be interesting for me to talk about common misconceptions about men, as well, but I wonder how that would sound coming from a woman.
Great I love reading your posts keep giving us some good content.
I think that would make for an interesting read. And don't worry, us guys will be quick to correct any mistakes you might make haha.
They're quick to correct me regardless of the content. Hahaha. Thank you for having a sense of humor.
CORRECTLY CORRECTLY CORRECTLY CORRECTLY
That's the first time someone told me I have a sense of humor, thank you very much kind lady. :)
@veralynn
You do these posts well, and it is evident in the conversations people are having in the replies. Good work!
Thank you! That is my sole intention. I'm super excited to continue posting and having constructive conversations like this in the future.
I'd just like to posit something here, it's what I've come to truly believe and I'm happy to hear thoughts on it. Basically, equality is not a laudable or even desirable goal, and it doesn't reflect reality. See, ladies, gentlemen, and experimentersinhumanevolution, we're different. Now, I'm not saying that to typecast people into traditional roles-- that's:
Instead, I'm commenting more on the discourse. we speak of equality like it's a desirable thing, yet I can really only think of one situation where equality is desirable and that is in courtrooms. Nonetheless the fact remains tha tin courtrooms all over the world, well, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to find the dozens of ways in which men and women are surely not treated equally in court. But I digress.
Now, I've never been female, though as an academic thought exercise, and not as a surgery, it's surely interesting. I have to assume that there are huge parts of the experience of being a human female that are vastly different from the experience of being a human male. I don't know, however, and probably won't know till I can virtualize my sensorium, and even then, who knows, really?
Point is this though: Instead of striving for something like "equality" -- which isn't very specific and well, could lead ladies to get tied up in situations that they'd rather not face by comparing them directly to men -- and vice versa, mind you-- wouldn't it be better to strive for "respect and autonomy for all"?
Lastly, my biggest beef with "feminism" isn't that it exists. It is the ridiculous name! Say what you want, specifically,. for all. Gendering stuff, racializing stuff, et cetera-- it leads to bad outcomes every single time. It's possible to advocate for women while at the same time advocating for the other 50% of the species.
Anyway, good article-- musta been good, because all this popped out of my head after reading!
Thank you for the insights! You are definitely on to something.
I agree on your points. It is better to advocate respect, and autonomy for all-- when I'm referring to women's issues, though, I really don't have much of a choice in using the term "feminism." As much as a disagree with categorizing things by gender, race, etc, I can't think of a better word to use other than feminism when describing the need for women to have political/social/economic rights on par with men.
Here's why not feminism:
....now don't get me wrong-- I'm no "mens rights activist" -- but the divisive language, it can create divisive actions and lead to a divided society.
So, I guess what I am saying is that there really are no such things as women's issues. They're human issues that we're all better off addressing.
I disagree in regards to the idea we ought not identify as feminists. Its important to call things what they are, and in the fight for gender equality, what we are fundamentally opposing is the patriarchy which imposes gender roles upon us all.
You say:
While I agree with you on that point, you conclude that:
Which I could disagree with really depending on what you meant, I don't want to put words in your mouth and fall into the pitfall of slaying a straw-man, but that reads as terribly reductionist. Different minorities are still facing systemic discrimination and we have words for the study of those power relationships for a reason. Systemic discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, class and nationality still exists in the world today and while the struggle to address these things is certainly intersectional, there still exists seperate schools of thought which seek to understand and address these various systems of discrimination.
To identify as a feminist is not in any way to disregard the other inequalities against which we struggle; To be a feminist is simply to recognize that the patriarchy - that is specifically the mechanism responsible for the hierarchical reinforcement of gender roles - is a social poison we must struggle against and is not in any way to the exclusion of the fight against classism, racism, or any other form of bigotry.
While this is true, I think some people have the idea that "some need it more than others." Is it exclusive? Definitely, but that's why we have individual movements.
For example: As a white person, I should have no say on black lives. That doesn't make it any less of a thing, though. Sure, it can be argued that "no one should be shot by police," but the problem with that is, white people aren't as often victimized by police violence... therefore, in my opinion, white people don't have to be included in that movement.
The same can be said for women's rights.
I'm not at all denying what you describe.
I'm advocating that it be done in a non-divisive manner. Highlight injustices piled upon women-- but when asked what your goal is-- think on a species level. We will all be better off that way.
That is valid! For the record, it's the highlight because it's the subject of the article(s). Haha. I do agree with you, though. :)
Very insightful, interesting and i guess a sensitive topic... I suppose there could be endless debates about this. I dont think we will ever achieve complete equality between men and women and unfortunately male jobs and market will always dominate. There have been massive improvements thou over the years and I think it has gone a long way, but still we have a long road..
You're absolutely right that there could be endless debates about this! The wonderful thing is that we have Steemit as a platform to discuss these issues, and perhaps brings some things to light. :)
yes for sure :))) love it!
You are not interested in debate, cut the fucking bullshit.
There's no secret agenda! This is what Steemit is for.
Well, I am still waiting for some answers from yesterday
@somedude, I answered your questions to the best of my ability in the previous article.
What are some things I left unanswered? Would be happy to offer my opinions.
@veralynn I dont think you should be silenced,
Im not gonna play this steemit game of telling people what they want to hear,
in my opinion you are a sociopath,
now, you might fairly ask, who are you?
Im a male psychopath, your antithesis
You are so stupid you cant even look for a connotation of the word thats favorable t your bullshit, thats a lazy fuck, 3 shots
I'm interested in the debate.