SEXISM IS INHERENT: the proof
December 5, 2007
The following is a humble little hypothesis I developed which needs proofing. It proves that sexism is inherent. Feminists are welcome to refute any part of it, and I hope you choose to do so.
Sexism is inherent:
- The desire for sex is inherent, with the degree lying upon a continuum.
- The desire for power/control is inherent, with the degree lying upon a continuum.
The intersection of these two desires is sexism, with the degree lying upon a continuum. It should go without saying (but included for clarification) that because both of those two desires are inherent, the intersection is inherent.
This dictionary was used to establish the meaning and intent of all word used.
I understand that even the existence of this proof is upsetting to people, especially to feminists who need a heavy dose of faith in the goodness of men in order to continue fighting for equality. Countless women have expressed exactly that sentiment to me, and I believe their sincerity when they say it. I understand, and I am sorry for causing you pain, but you need to understand something. You do not fight for women’s rights because you love men. You do not fight for women’s rights because you hate men. You fight for women’s rights because you love women. If you even thought for one second that sexism is inherent, as I do, that would be the impetus to fight all the harder, not less.
The blinders would come off, though, and that is terrifying. To imagine the soul of a monster who is bigger than you, who only pretends to care about you, and yet to know that in the deepest recesses of his heart that he thinks of you as only a fucktoy. That is the real fear, ladies. Look at that fear and laugh as if laughing at shadows, because true knowlege is the ultimate light, illuminating all before it.
That fear is also groundless, which is another reason to laugh. Women have always been intimidated by the threat of physical harm, but men have always been intimidated by the scorn of a rightious woman. Who’s the one who leaps from shadows, now? Men drink women’s love and devotion like water, and piss it out as if it is nothing special. Sojourners, they cannot survive on piss. One of their biggest slight-of-hands is convincing you they can.
While I am deeply sorry to cause distress to the women who are still reading, please keep in mind that the misogynists hate this proof even more than you do. Trust me, they will not gleefully hi-five each other as soon as they notice that I have named their game for what it is. Theirs is a game of misdirection, and that game depends on willful blindness to continue. They would be first in line to denounce this little proof, but because they always attack the person instead of the idea presented, and because they only have one way to deal with uppidity women, at least one of them would hunt me down and rape me to death if they could.
Ask Kathy Sierra if I’m exaggerating. Ask the families of the four women a day who are murdered by their loving partner if I’m exaggerating. Ask Du’a Khalil Aswad if I’m exaggerating. Ask all the women who use gender neutral log-in names to avoid sexual harrassment while they chat about anything if I’m exaggerating.[1] Ask all the women bloggers who routinely suffer DOS attacks and have to retreat into totally hidden, invitation-only private forums if I’m exaggerating.
I do not expect many people to bother attempting to refute this proof; my experience has been that the reaction is limited to expressions of denial. I understand, and I am sorry for causing you pain, but the truth isn’t going away just because it upsets you. Most feminists who read this will immediately want to write long soliloquies on the gentleness of men, and most men will claim to not understand a damn thing except that some internet bitch is having her period.
There was a fascinating thread here, but I think Hearrrt is a little uncomfortable about what direction the coversation was taking, so I think it best to stop talking about it there. If anyone wishes to continue here, or elsewhere, please do so.
[1] I didn’t link to any bloggers, since they all copied the headline “female names get 25 times the harassment” of neutral names, and I wasn’t sure who discussed the more damning statistic. From the study, female names also received almost 100 times the harassment as MALE names. Plus, nobody probably wants anything to do with this post. 😉
Courage my friends, there is a way out! I wouldn’t be telling you these depressing things just to upset you, if a better way was impossible .
Anthropologists are unanimous in their agreement that during periods of resource contraction, the status of women has always declined.
Admitting a problem exists is only desirable when the goal is solving the problem.
The good done by men does not compensate for the harm done to ALL women.
Trends change, inherency is forever.
miss Andrea's 
December 5, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Well this piece is very well written m Andrea. I like the idea that you formed it as a proof, rather like a geometry problem.
One of the interesting sidelights, is that I often hear white people talk about racism, and even right wing christian radio admits that racism is still a big problem in America, but men will never have a program on sexism, and they will never publicaly say that sexism is just as big a problem as racism is.
This is a hint that men have a completely different agenda when it comes to the human rights of women worldwide. Because men rely on women as esseentially a comodity that they “own” or a domestic servant in the home, they have a vested interest in continuing their oppression of women.
Their very lack of outrage over the condition of women worldwide I think points to a kind of inherent sexism in men in every culture.
The key to dealing with this reality, is for women to finally decide that they want a world of their own making, and that they really can create this world. There is no reason that a majority population can’t do this, if its consciousness is raised sufficiently to make this a living reality.
The purpose of feminism is simply to get women to wake up to this male oppressor reality. Women often get stuck in “exceptionalism” but they have a hard time with general observations. Maybe there is not enough mainstream reporting on the statistical things that give you a hint as to what is going on globally. More later….
December 6, 2007 at 1:01 am
Hi Satsuma! It is always given as a proof, every single time I presented it somewhere. It took so long to post here because I was compulsively screwing around in paintshop.
If you feel like it, could you clairify what you mean by “exceptionalism”? I have no idea what you’re talking about! 🙂 Do you mean that women have a tendency to believe, “oh not my Nigel?”
Also, for anybody else: someone suggested that one of the reasons people tend to get upset when refuting this proof is because of a lack of precision with the terms being used, and therefore assuming things that aren’t intended. “Control” does not mean “dominate”, for instance. “Inherent” does not equal “all men will”. But if someone is already in basic agreement with it, then it really doesn’t matter what terms they use.
I spend a lot my time contemplating denial these days. It took a concentrated effort to get people to wake up to even the idea of climate change, nobody likes being shoved out of their comfy place. But somebody has to do it, or it won’t get done!
December 6, 2007 at 5:35 am
Hi Andrea–
I really appreciate your efforts to point out the various nasty things men do. I think that’s really important, because I think you’re right that it’s something many, if not most, people do not want to talk about in any detail. I do wonder, though, why this “proof” is so important to you. In the sense of, what difference does it make if it were true? Would you do something differently, as a feminist, as a woman? Would your strategies be different?
Cause I don’t think mine would. I tend to believe that male supremacy is a constructed system and the behaviors and attitudes that support it are learned–but even if men were “inherently” sexist, I don’t think I’d be carrying on my feminist activism any differently. For me, it would still be about exhorting women to collectively resist male supremacy and to organize to protect and promote our own interests.
So I guess that’s where I kind of shrug about this whole discussion. Do you think women are more likely to respond to “men are inherently sexist” than to “men commit 95% of the violence in the world” or whatever the current statistic is now? Is the inherency argument more likely to get women moving? I’m wondering what you think about that.
December 6, 2007 at 7:35 am
” Women often get stuck in “exceptionalism” but they have a hard time with general observations.”
What I mean by exceptionalism, feminazi, is that women will object to radical feminist arguments by pointing out the exception to the rule. This is an annoying trait. “But hey ALL men aren’t bad,” you’ll hear. They are searching for the exception to a rule, and thus stay in this persistent denial.
Another form of exceptionalism is women who believe they can raise “feminist children” in a patriarchal society. As anyone who has ever seen American children growing up in a foreign country knows, the children will become like the new culture. Once they are out of America at a young age, they will become like French children or Japanese children, because the culture trumps the home life every time.
I don’t know why women get stuck in exceptionalism, other than I think they might also be stuck in wishful thinking.
Inherent simply means very very likely to be a certain way, a strong predisposition. We know that men are still fighting tooth and nail to prevent women’s freedom, and they’ll say just about anything to still hold to the view that men are superior to women. I know of no other oppressed group that sits so quietly while it is completely insulted by an oppressor holding a microphone! Mega male churches, radio shows, men attack women openly in the public sphere, and women sit there and let this go. Maybe they’re thinking that the man they married is the exception! Thus the persist belief in exceptionalism among women.
I actually think straight men flat out lie to straight women, and women want to believe that men will change.
I’d have to agree with Amy, that whatever the situation, my tactics would not change all that much either.
Let’s look at the world as it is, and not search always for the exception! Whatever gentle loving men are out there, THEY aren’t the ones who ever have power — CEOs or presidents.
I don’t know how difficult this is for women to get, but women need to put their own interests first and foremost, and that’s that. You don’t do something for the sake of everyone BUT yourself, and there will always be some cause out there that seems to need more attention then the cause of women.
Women are number one. Women are in a struggle against a system so horrifying that it makes the NAZIS look like street musicians. You either want to put yourself first, and win the day as the majority in the world, or you can stay in your denial. Me, I want patriarchy to fall just like one of those statues in some eastern block town square!
December 7, 2007 at 3:01 pm
What a great question, Amy!
“Anthropologists are unanimous in their agreement that during periods of resource contraction, the status of women has always declined.”
Regardless of how well they behaved they are now, once you decide that a pack of dogs will automatically revert to feral at the first opportunity, I am suggesting that we, as humans concerned first and foremost with our own personal safety, have an obligation to begin a different set of conversations then what is currently being discussed.
If we believed that we had less status than a dog, however, we wouldn’t even see the need for those conversations – because caring for the dog even at the expense of our needs would seem normal.
It amazes me to see a woman express gratitude when she is treated as human. The only healthy response to mistreatment is anger and disgust, not gratitude when the abuse stops. Gratitude is for doormats. While some people feel that criticizing doormats is wrong, and while of course they are welcome to their own opinion, I think there is something wrong with pretending that doormat status is heathy or appropiate place for a human being.
At the same time, I can also see that a willingness to encourage rational discussion of the blindingly obvious is profoundly disturbing and deeply upsetting for many people, and for that I am truly sorry.
It really is in men’s best interest that somebody refute this proof, because there’s all kinds of logical repercussions from it, if it’s true. I have a list! LOL
fratboy, am I as hilarious as those rape jokes? I AM!
December 18, 2007 at 7:43 am
[…] women will say that they don’t care why men are inherently sexist pigs, as long as men stop the sexist behavior. But if men are behaving well only because they want to […]
December 19, 2007 at 12:49 am
[…] perhaps she hopes against all odds that one day the boyz will stop being sexist pigs, and she knows that the best way to manipulate a child into behaving himself is to raise her […]
December 31, 2007 at 6:31 pm
A hypothesis is proven via the collection and correct interpretation of evidence. A hypothesis cannot ‘prove’ (if such a thing exists in science) itself, that is entirely contradictory to what the term ‘hypothesis’ actually means.
December 31, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Sorry. Doesn’t matter what label you want to use. Hypothesis, argument, proof, whatever, – the point still stands.
Argue the argument, not the definition.
[edit twice!] If I changed the word “proof” to something else, would it make any difference to the original assertation that sexism is inherent, and the evidence already provided? It makes no difference what label you give it, and that’s why it doesn’t matter. I used “proof” as the page title; if there is another word that is more appropiate, then failing to mentioning it and only complaining appears to be nothing more than a bad-faith distraction technique. Sorry, but that’s how it comes across.
Just looked up the definition on webster’s:
1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
Thanks for trying, and don’t give up. Surely there’s a weak spot in the actual argument somewhere. 🙂
January 4, 2008 at 6:14 am
[…] wall, and convinces everyone how freaking worthless they are. Oh, dear, the ruby red slippers are here, and I’ve had it all […]
January 13, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Phil asked, “I thought this was an interesting conception of sexism. There are 2 implications I was wondering about. The first is that Gay men can’t be sexist toward women. The second is that women can be sexist towards both men and women depending on their sexuality. I tend to think that sexism is not sexuality dependent.”
I tried to set your comments to always go into moderation, because I have zero interest in allowing trolls to rampage away on this blog. It wouldn’t let me, so I had to dump it. If you’re not a troll, I apologise.
Why can’t Gay men be sexist? Oh, you meant because gay men aren’t into sex with women, that is interesting, thank you! I’ve seen instances of gay men actively engaging in typical sexist behavior which is of course discrimination, but that is not what you meant.
However, gay men do fall into the catagory of “passive” benefiting of sexism, the same way all men passively benefit by a culture of sexism. When the pie is only so big, there’s more for men when women are getting less then their fair share. And many gay men want children, so exploiting women in some fashion is the only way they can get that need met. Without women, gay men wouldn’t last a generation. Gay men also only conceive more heterosexual males who would exploit women based on sex.
They perpetuate the problem, benefit from it’s existence and they’re small in number.
So there’s a big problem with even saying gay men are a clear anomaly, let alone an exception.
Women are sexist towards other women because they are fighting with each other for male approval. Without men to fight over, women wouldn’t be sexist to other women in that way.
April 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm
First off, while sexism does exist, by labeling it the natural result of the inherent drives of men it creates an unfair, biased portrait of males.
If men wish to control and dominate women, and “only think of them as fucktoys”, why would women, as human beings, not have the desires for sex and power and control (even though power and control are vague terms)? You even acknowledge women’s power over men when you say “men cannot survive on piss”. Women have used sex and man’s need for affection for centuries against men.
Of course, the response to this is that even if women did have these drives in the same amount as men, there has never been a matriarchal society, and there has never been as much destruction towards the earth as done from men.
Fair enough, but many anthropologists and sociologists note that in hunter gatherer tribes (perhaps the “natural” state of human society), there is much equality between the sexes. There have been statues of “goddess worship” that were systematically destroyed during a period of time. Can you go back to that period and know exactly how that society was? No (although we can look at modern day hunter gatherers and make observations).
The world and the atrocities committed over the course of history occurred when agriculture and eventually industrialization were established. It was these technologies that changed the nature of human society for better or for worse. Read “Guns, Germs and Steel” for more information.
My point is: It is wrong to believe men are inherently sexist. Most of our attitudes and beliefs are the result of the society and its culture we grow up in, so why assume that men are naturally sexist, when it may be the culture men grew up in?
This theory of inherent sexism doesn’t do much except say that “men are naturally horrible”.
April 13, 2008 at 10:36 am
Hi! Thanks for responding, and yes it’s obvious you’re not a troll, so welcome!
“If men wish to control and dominate women, and “only think of them as fucktoys”, why would women, as human beings, not have the desires for sex and power and control (even though power and control are vague terms)?”
Because the female desire for sex does not equal the desire to be oppressed, to use an old-fashioned term. Or to oppress others, for that matter. I have no doubt women also have the desire for a certain amount of power and control, but the difference is that most women tend not to go as far as most men in their desire to control others.
The evidence is the matriarchal societies you already mentioned. Gerda Learner, in her book The Creation of Patriarchy, went through all the known tribes and made the very clear point that at no time in recorded history has a matriarchal society ever had power OVER men. The most women had was true equality, and they were outliers. So pointing to a tiny few while ignoring the larger whole is insulting to those of us with a working brain.
Besides that, to strive for class power over another group would render women as nasty as men, and then we would lose our claim to moral superiority. That is also what I meant when I said somewhere else, that logically men are screwed no matter what they do — we can always point to men oppressing those whom they claim to love for 10,000 years in almost corner of the planet. It’s a giant gotcha! moment which will require at least a few thousand years of uninterrupted equality before that point will lose it’s sting.
“You even acknowledge women’s power over men when you say “men cannot survive on piss”. Women have used sex and man’s need for affection for centuries against men.”
That particular sentence of mine about the piss was a secret feminazi message aimed exclusively to any women readers. It doesn’t mean what you think it does. It concerns a post which still needs to be written, but I can’t get it under 5,000 words and it’s not amusing at all. People will get bored before I hit the main point. I suck.
Anyway, you didn’t prove your main point. Men *are* naturally horrible, and the sooner we realize this then the sooner we can do something about it. There are nice men of course, but the harm done by a few overwhelms any good, and women don’t deserve this crap.
April 13, 2008 at 5:04 pm
“Women have used sex and man’s need for affection for centuries against men.”
Do you mean to say that women have actually been going around acting in their own interests and persuading men to act in their interests for centuries? How very shocking!
Perhaps you mean that for centuries women have used sex and man’s need for affection to convince men not to enslave, beat, rape, and murder them.
How exactly is that against men and not for women? Or is anything that improves women’s condition seen by you as being against men?
mAndrea, I think he is a troll. That or he doesn’t understand what his own words say about him.
April 13, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Er, he knew that no menz-controlling matriarchy ever existed. First time I ever heard a guy say that, but then he had to ruin it by claiming outliers are more important then the whole. Isn’t it wierd how if that were any other thing, no one would always point to the outlier first? And still claim they’re not in denial?
How are things, btw? You never said. Hope things have been going well for you.
April 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Just the usual crappy Dr visits for the crappy medical problems.
The good news is that I was finally able to save upp enough to have the windows in the house replaced. It was messy, and I had to interact with menz, but it was worth it. They were the aluminium frame windows from when the house was built in the early eighties and were far past their pull date.
Other than that, all is well. Spring is here and the dirt grubbing has commenced.
May 22, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying her mAndrea. The only thing is, if sexism is inherent in men (I know, it’s not the same as saying “all men will…”) then what would be the point of feminism? I am NOT saying that we should “convince” men to not be sexist, or rely on them for revolution. What I am saying is: if men are inherently sexist, then fighting it would only make them fight harder back. So what’s the point of feminism then? If that’s the case, sexism will NEVER be rid of. And that therefore makes feminism obsolete, no?
I’d like to see your response to this because I love your blog and I think your posts are cogent and hilarious.
May 22, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Oh my goddess, where did you get that photo of the tree and rainbow?! I work at an art gallery, and we have an artist who I think made a painting based off of that photo!:
http://www.pcart.com/MarioRainbowA5030842Oil.htm
That’s crazy!
May 23, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“:if men are inherently sexist, then fighting it would only make them fight harder back. So what’s the point of feminism then? If that’s the case, sexism will NEVER be rid of. And that therefore makes feminism obsolete, no?”
No.
If men are inherently sexist, the point to feminism would be to stop tolerating the outward expression of sexism. Changing the behavior would change the attitude, and therefore reduce the damage that men’s sexism causes. The tendency of sexism may be inherent, but like any other tendency, one has the ability to exercise self discipline so that ones tendencies do not result in death and destruction.
We have a tendency to take anything we see that is Ooo shiny, but we learn to apply discipline to that tendency and express admiration rather than grabbing. I’m unclear why you think men cannot learn discipline.
I can’t get any sense out of your argument that the less sexism is tolerated the more there would be, so I cannot address it, but I don’t think that word obsolete means what you think it means.
May 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I think my point was that I don’t think sexism is “natural” or that people are born with it. I don’t like this idea that if people had no rules or laws they’d be a bunch of raging misogynist sickos, because that’s what they are now. If that’s not what missAndrea meant than my bad.
May 29, 2008 at 11:13 am
Forget where I stole the tree from, and the women are from National Archives or someplace like that. Think I made the rainbow. Supposedly, it’s fair use to steal as long as it’s a collage, but I try to avoid the professional work. Rainbow-over-tree motif goes back into antiquity.
Sorry I’m not funny anymore, in dire need of an attitude adjustment.
“What I am saying is: if men are inherently sexist, then fighting it would only make them fight harder back. So what’s the point of feminism then?”
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, that is doormat thinking. Stop that. If some guy is about to beat you up, do you just sit there and take it? Because that attitude is saying, “well, I can’t win, so I’ll just accept whatever he chooses to dish out”. That attitude says you have no power, and that is a lie. That is what patriarchy wants you to think, because it benefits them for you to be compliant.
Besides, this isn’t about teh menz at all; it is women’s perception of men — and of themselves. You have untapped power you are not even aware that it exists, you have unused tools you don’t even know where they are, you have options you cannot think of, because patriarchy lied to you and still lies to you and you believe the lies because you think men love you as an equal and would never lie to you. But no one ever oppresses those whom one loves as an equal, — and so we know they lie.
That lie is a shadow, an illusion; and when you argue with shadows, reality never changes. Remember that as women’s economic freedom has increased, her status as pornstar fucktoy has increased right along with it. Up here, down there, the averages are the same; women’s overall stature is the same now as it was 60 years ago. Reality never changes when you argue with shadows.
As soon as women realize what is an illusion, everything changes instantly. You find the options, you find the tools, you find your power. Only then do you argue with reality.
I swear to god I’m not a new-ager; just speaking in generalities. imao. Also, I put this post in proof form for a reason. Opinions don’t count in proofs. 🙂
Gee this long, sorry. The world will not fall off it’s axis if someone acknowleges that sexism is inherent. It does not change reality, it changes how you deal with reality. If some men were to acknowlege that sexism is inherent, it does not become a license to rape rampage dominate etc, it becomes an acceptance of his responsibility to stop… Remember, the only reason to acknowlege a problem is to fix it.
If women were to acknowlege that sexism is inherent, it would mean that she agrees to *really* hold men accountable for what men do, and stop blaming intangible culture… Because the only reason to acknowlege the true cause of a problem is to fix it. In this way, men and women really do get to hold hands and fly off into the clouds on the wings of a dove, As true equals who recognize and acknowlege each others strengths and weaknesses. It becomes an equal partnership to work together to deal with reality as it is, and not as we wish it to be.
Men do not want to be known as insane animals, Lara, you really don’t have to worry about them claiming that title for themselves. There is a good reason they do not want that title!! It is actually pretty hilarious and any woman with the power of reality behind her could think of it. When you’re blinded by the lie, then you only see in one direction, and only one set of options is clearly visable. There is another way.
Right now men and women remind me of abuser and abusee colluding to avoid defining the problem; yet they dance around each other while cleaning up the latest mess. The assholes still deny sexism (and racism et al) is a problem, and the pro-feminist men insist “that other guy” did it. Very few are taking ***real*** responsibility, which means acknowleging one’s own weaknesses and forgiving oneself even if nobody else does.
Personally, I think this is the real revolution, sorry I can’t explain it very well. I will keep trying until TheB figures it out for us.
June 2, 2008 at 9:38 am
If sexism is inherent, then men need to be put in cages or put to sleep, drowned upon birth, or exiled to some isolated island, like Devil’s Island. At the very least, men should not be allowed in public without leashes. This is what men do to any other creature they consider dangerous or a menace to society. Why should the rules be any different for them?
But sexism is not inherent. Because sexism is a behavior. Human beings do not live by instinct. Therefore, this behavior is learned. If it is learned, then it can be unlearned.
History bears this out. History, as is taught to us, is only the history of patriarchy, not the history of human beings. Human beings existed long before the patriarchy did. Mistakingly thinking that the opposite of a patriarchy is a matriarchy, many historians erroneously go in search of matriarchies. But the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy. A matriarchy, you see, would only be emulating male-dominating behavior. So the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy. It’s democracy.
Imagine that! Check the patriarchal thinking in at the door and dare to think outside the box. Because pre-patriarchal societies were gynocratic. Which means they were egalitarian societies, where women had the final say-so. Many societies today are still gynocratic. Native American culture, for example. Which is why, in part, the white man tried to exterminate Native American societies. Raised and conditioned in the ancient cult of masculinity and male supremacy, these white men could not tolerate women being equal to men. So they had to go. In Crusade-like style.
Today, the influence of these conquering white men is keenly reflected in Native American culture. These masculinists (aka the patriarchy) have also done a good job of covering up and hiding their tracks and historical motivation geared towards gynocratic genocide. Reflected in Apollo’s words and inscribed on his temple, “Keep women under the thumb.” Why would this have to be inscribed on a temple if sexism were inherent? Wouldn’t it just be common knowledge and a given?
In short, sexism is not inherent and patriarchy is not inevitable. Otherwise, gynocratic and egalitarian societies could never have existed, much less, still exist today. Which means if sexism is learned, it can be unlearned. And if there was a beginning to patriarchy, there can be an end.
However, I’m not into saving the males. I think the ancient cult of the brotherhood (aka patriarchy) has progressed too far to be reversed. At this point, it’s a global paradigm and, save a global catastrophe, at a point of no return. So at this point, a drastic solution has to be incorporated if we’re ever going to see the final end to patriarchy.
June 2, 2008 at 10:41 am
P.S. I don’t want to give anyone the impression that the patriarchy began with the white boys. Ghengis Khan, for example, was the greatest conqueror of all time. He wasn’t a white boy.
The word “patriarch” originates with religion. Now there’s a really big clue. Now ask yourself this. Are we born with Christian genes or Muslim genes? Is Christianity or Islam inherent? Most of us would find this absurd. But what isn’t so absurd is that there are 3 billion Christians on the planet and 2 billion Muslims. Those are the figures, last I looked. And then we wonder why patriarchy is a global paradigm?
Tho 5 billion people are *a lot* of people, religious beliefs are still not inherent. If they were inherent, there’d be no need for a Bible, a Quaran or a Torah and there’d be no need to train or teach people religion. It would just be a given. The profound impact these religions have had on the world we live in and how it has influenced us, even if one is pagan or atheist, cannot be denied. These religions are not woman-friendly or passive. They are quite misogynist and aggressive and advocate and promote male supremacy and female subjugation.
I contend that religion is a key factor in the roots and global paradigm of patriarchy and sexism. Major religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism all originate in the same corner of the world. If I wanted to find the origins of patriarchy and sexism, I’d start there.
June 2, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Second luckynkl. But in regards to religion and how Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the first marks of patriarchy, I beg to differ. Just take a look at ancient Chinese cultures and ’nuff said. I would say that the “middle east” (as it is called by Westerners today) is not the only or sole region of the world where patriarchy started. It started quite randomly in various parts of the world.
“However, I’m not into saving the males. I think the ancient cult of the brotherhood (aka patriarchy) has progressed too far to be reversed. At this point, it’s a global paradigm and, save a global catastrophe, at a point of no return. So at this point, a drastic solution has to be incorporated if we’re ever going to see the final end to patriarchy.”
Agreed. That’s why I think violent revolution is basically our only solution at this point. The stupid boys have given us no choice but to resort to violence to bring about revolution.
June 2, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Bah, okay this is Lara, I am signed into wordpress though and my wordpress username is “Rychousmama”, sorry for any confusion 😛
June 6, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Branjor here.
The major religions did not “originate” patriarchy and sexism. They grew *out of* patriarchy and sexism, for the purpose of legitimating it. If men were not patriarchal and sexist before, they would never have even thought of such religions. I think these religions were made up by men in reaction to the natural female centeredness of human society and consequent Goddess religion.
June 6, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Thank you for that Lucky, especially the part about indian culture. I had heard that in some tribes at least, there was two councils — mens and womens. Men couldn’t do anything if it didn’t pass the womens’s council as well as their own. Forget where I heard that, would really like a good source. Supposedly, the women’s council didn’t really instigate much on their own except put the kabosh on men’s plans occasionally.
I had wondered if that process might signify that women in those tribes realized how dominating and destroying men tended to be, and having a seperate council with veto power was their way of evening the imbalance.
“But sexism is not inherent. Because sexism is a behavior. Human beings do not live by instinct. Therefore, this behavior is learned. If it is learned, then it can be unlearned.”
Eating is an instinct. But we learn to like certain foods, and also to control our choices. So it’s an interection. 🙂 See, I don’t really even have to prove sexism is 100% inherent, all I have to prove is that it’s not 100% culture. Because as long as sexism is not due 100% to learned behavior, then it has to be some part of inherency — and then we have to deal with reality. We’ve been playing make-believe all this time and it’s time to grow up.
June 6, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Sorry I’m so bossy. It’s time *I* have to grow up, and if I have to, then everyone else has to also. Otherwise I shall pout and sulk, which is a very grown-up behavior, you know. Why, it’s right up there with stomping my foot and pointing the finger.
Hi Branjor!!
June 6, 2008 at 8:37 pm
In his “People’s History of the United States” Zinn quotes Gary B. Nash from his book “Red, White, and Black” when he talks about the League of the Iroquois where they treated children like humans, property was communal, there was no poverty, and the senior women selected the men who represented the people in council as well as the chiefs. If the men strayed too far from the wishes of the women they were removed from office.
The way the Iroquoise organized society was in stark contrast with the European’s ideas of a society of rich and poor controlled by priests, governors, and male heads of families.
June 6, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Holy succotash, that was fast! Kind of amusing really, as I’ve already decided you really do know everything worth knowing, it’s just a matter of prying it out of you.
June 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Would that it were true. Or maybe not.
Mostly I’m just old and I read a lot.
May 21, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Really loved your post. Thank you for writing.
December 14, 2010 at 9:26 am
Yes I admit it! On behalf of men everywhere I admit that we secretly do not love any women, we don’t care about our girl children, we just want you all to submit to our fiendish power (baahahhaha). Some of us who spend our lives with our wife, we actually just pretend to care, all we want is a submissive fucktoy, but since beating her into submission has been outlawed, (shame really) we sometimes have to pretend.
The world council of Men of course knows we all are sexist, inherently of course. That follows quite logically from the fact that we want sex and strive for control (well, even spurious logic will do). The council has proposed keeping all females naked and tied up, but some queens have objected, unfortunatly. But wait, I mustn’t disclose to much. I know you are already on to us, you might bring the whole evil scheme down…
One last piece of advice for all you galls, just because your paranoid doesn’t mean we’re not after you.
November 19, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Men suck. Lol.