"A feminist theologian explains the problem with men"

Submitted by anthony on Fri, 2012-03-16 19:04

Article here. Excerpt:

'In gatherer and early gardening societies, built on the matricentric core of the human family, women often had real power and prestige, when food-gathering and agriculture also meant female control of resources. Such societies achieved real gender parity of power when they constructed ways of drawing in the adult male contribution to work and parenting, conceding to him real and symbolic spheres of prestige and power, while limiting male aggression. But the conditions of such societies began to break down as the agricultural revolution moved toward more crowded urban societies about five thousand years ago, and only remnants still exist today. (170)

In a somewhat surprising, maybe even shocking, admission, Ruether, a leading feminist, says that “this matricentric pattern [of primitive societies and of families in general] is itself the breeding ground of male resentment and violence, rooted in male strategies of exploitative subversion of women’s power….” (171)

Now, it would be totally wrong to interpret Ruether as suggesting that the blame for patriarchy lies with women. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is arguing, however, that matricentricity is the “original position” of human society because only women can give birth and suckle and, generally speaking, in most societies, women have been the primary nurturers of children. And there’s nothing wrong with that UNLESS some mechanism isn’t found to balance matricentricity with male prestige and power. When men become resentful, which happens when they feel hopeless about prestige and power, patriarchy is the result. (Remember, “matricentricity” is not “matriarchy”—the opposite of patriarchy. Both would be hierarchical patterns of relationships. Ruether is against all hierarchy as dominating power over. Matricentricity is in itself a good thing. But it contains a hidden weakness that leads to patriarchy unless that weakness is acknowledged and corrected. The way to do that is for matricentricity to yield to young men prestige and power, not dominating power over. I think of “prestige and power” as social acknowledgement of worth and value.)
...
Now, how does Ruether’s view support my own? It seems to me that the root cause of the present male malaise is resentment arising from the perception that males are viewed by society as, at their core, inferior to females. One education expert noted (in Newsweek’s “The Boy Crisis” cover story (January 30, 2006) that in today’s public schools boys tend to be treated as “defective girls.” Boys and young men cannot help but pick up the not-very-subtle messages in the media that boys and men are fundamentally flawed. ...'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

That's what this is-- some interesting ideas. I post this because she writes with the voice of moderation relative to her feminist ideologue colleagues. That takes guts. And her observations that intermix the psychology around the male sex's particular challenges and the challenges of modern life are not bad reading-- if you can get past the feminist structure of her wording and see to some of the core ideas -- you may find some value in a few of them. But don't get me wrong, her repeated "all men want to do it seems is dominate women" thing is old. But that is one of the things you have to ignore in the writing to see some of the other ideas found therein. Overall, personally, I believe indeed that both sexes would be much better off if both parents of children really were as involved and respected by society as parents (and honored as well) as she describes. As it is now, as we know, men are hounded and abused and ridiculed by society, even before becoming fathers, much less afterwards.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2012-03-16 23:09

Do you, men, want to be a secondary person, relegated to the periphery of a woman-centred society? I do not, yet for all the sugared words that is what this article proposes. I will not. I refuse to play second fiddle in some woman's life. That is why I reject women. I do not hate them (heaven forfend) but I have no time for them. Women are boring, and I have better things to concern myself with. Men should en masse refuse to have relationships with these people, and then female "power", like their reproductive value (the only thing they have) will mean nothing. Ladies, MGTOW is the future, and you can take your matricentric society back to the pre-industrial utopia you oh so love.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by sirprince on Fri, 2012-03-16 23:22

In The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell talks about how, as soon as an external threat came, these socities would give primacy to male gods and start encouraging males to fight and defend the society, then later switch back to emphasizing female gods when there was peace. He talks about how this created false women-peace men-war associations, kind of like Mars and Venus, when in reality men were just doing what was expected of them by the matriarchy. There are some who believe that's really what's going on in society anyway, under the disguise of men having "power." I would say that Esther Vilar's book "The Manipulated Man" falls into that theory even though it focuses on the interpersonal. I happen to believe there is some degree of truth to that idea.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Marc A. on Sat, 2012-03-17 03:58

Good point Marc A. Women become more hawkish in their voting choices when they feel frightened by an internal or external threat. Men and women pass laws that result in only men being drafted to fight our wars, and then women complain that men are the more militaristic sex.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by gregory on Sat, 2012-03-17 15:52

Funny that you mention the draft. This is the only laws that is geared specifically toward men. If men don't register for selective service they won't get any type of federal or state funding to include financial aid for school, can't vote, can't get FHA loans and if you read deep into the law can go to jail for not registering. If women are so equal they too should do the same. What would the world look like if all the back breaking manual labor was done by women instead of men? Would we have the great wall of China, the pyramids, the great crops of the new America, the industrial era? How man women worked in the coal mines at the emergence of industrial America or died in any of the wars we've fought compared to men? No that things are pretty easy physically, we are cast aside as worthless and violent.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by usfspa2012 on Sat, 2012-03-17 21:42

I must say apart from her allusions to the patriarchy, and men's desire to control women, I found her views to be rather refreshing. I've never once heard a feminist acknowledge that being a man is not all it's cracked-up to be, or speak of the anti-male sentiment present in society. I was shocked.

However, I notice that while she stresses that men and women should share all of the child-related, and domestic duties, she doesn't mention that women should be responsible for half of the family's income.

Apart from that, I agree with her.

They also forgot to mention that a main reason why there are many more men in prison than women, is

a) men are likelier than women to be charged for a crime
b) men are likelier to receive jail time for commiting a crime
c) when sentenced to jail time, men receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes
d) men are much likelier to be wrongfully convicted than women (of the ~200 people the innocence project has exonerated, only 1 was a woman)
e) men are likelier to grow up without a role model of the same gender, or they are born into squalor, and find far less sympathy and help than their female counterparts. (i.e. 5x as many scholarships for women than for men, business loans and grants just for being women, affirmative action, etc.) This lack of help usually leads to a life of crime.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Sun, 2012-03-18 18:55