How to Blame the Patriarchy by a Feminazi
December 29, 2007
Someone* wanted to know how men could
suggest insist that their access entitlement to porn body parts was crucial to their mental health and social development; and she noticed in particular how men could at the same time claim that the respectful dehumanized images found in the average porn has absolutely no influence on their attitudes behavior towards women.
Excellent! She wanted a rebuttal to that and here it —
We interrupt your regularily scheduled commercial stream to bring you a brief message from the product sponser:
The difference between what we know to be true, as opposed to what is emphasized, tells us something important about the culture in which we reside — if we can but see the dichtonomy. While there are numerous reasons why we might not see what is right in front of us – exhaustion, stress, too busy rushing from one activity to another – sometimes one of those reasons is plain old denial, which sometimes can be healthy and necessary when faced with an immediate attack on our psyche. It buys us time until we learn better coping skills, but it can also become it’s own source of stress and confusion if we never move forward.
Some types of denial are based on simple avoidence, a desire to protect ourselves from the discomfort of a painful reality. We pretend the thing in front of us is not important and so we don’t have to acknowlege it, or deal with the consequences.
Other types of denial work to protect ourselves from how others perceive us. By insisting that we don’t even know that something is wrong, we eliminate our own accountable for our failure to act. We are blameless, because we didn’t know. We remain innocent in other’s eyes. So when men continually pretend to not understand plain language – “this is rape, stop, now” – it should tell us something very important about men.
But it doesn’t, because the thing that hurts our brain gets in the way, and so we don’t want to know. It doesn’t have to be this way. The patriarchy is just a giant game, like Monopoly or Life, and uses every psychological tool and manipulation tactic in the DSM-II to stack the deck in it’s favor. It’s a game that has a happy ending for everyone – but only if you see the game. You cannot end what you do not see. Blind blundering hope will never race as fast to catch the moving prize as those who see where the movement trends, and wisely takes the shortcut.
Still other types of denial perform a more intensive service, which is to shift blame away from one source to another. This happens when a fault-finding mission is underway, and it becomes a game among all players to see who gets caught holding the proverbial smoking gun. In other words, blame the problem on somebody else, before somebody blames you. While this is a lovely denial mechanism and a very useful way to avoid attention, one itsy-bitsy tiny thing needs to be made clear. Before someone even gets to the point where she feels it is necessary to shift the focus onto somebody else, that person either has to experience some degree of responsibilty for the problem in the first place, or that person recognizes that she will be the likely focus.
Looks up. Is that a fair assessment, do you think? And what exactly does that have to do with the original question and finding a rebuttal?
Advertisers spends billions of dollars each year convincing people to buy their products, and millions are invested in marketing/psychology research, which studies how and why people make the goofy buying decisions we do. There is an entire subfield of study devoted exclusively to “how to get shoppers to walk away from the fricking door” — I kid you not. (People tend to walk in a store and pause in the doorway, which blocks the path of incoming customers; and we can’t have that.)
**Obviously** companies wouldn’t blow their budget each year, decade after decade, if advertising didn’t influence attitudes and affect change in behavior. This statement alone should refute the claim of pro-pornies quite nicely. But in addition to that, there is a massive amount of research demonstrating that people who are exposed to porn will give convicted rapists less punishment, etc.
All of that should be enough to close the argument, and yet it never does.
Gee, I wonder why?
That bit of logic -with a TON of proof to back it up – never is quite good enough to pass muster with the patriarchy, it is instead dismissed and minimized, and distractions flourish. But those are strictly manipulative tactics and do not and never will amount to a logical refutation of feminist arguments.
Have you considered the subject of denial? 🙂
I don’t think the answer to the original question has anything at all to do with what would appease the patriarchy, in my arrogant opinion, because it never addresses the real problem. The question for me is “why do men deny the bloody fucking obvious?”
The only reason for admitting a problem is to fix the problem. Their denial is a tactical delay, which hopefully will buy them more time in which to fuck women over.
But folks – what is the next question in the que? Come on, there’s another one. Ask it. You cannot find the answer until you find the question. Your happy ending to the game is waiting for you.
*The person who asked this question may or may not want credit for inspiring today’s spewage. I am waiting for her approval. Yes, she is fabulous.