Friday, November 29, 2013

Assertive Femininity and the New Masculine

Women have been taking leading roles in their relationships with men for a long time, despite the patriarchal structure of modern society. History is full of women leading men in science and engineering, computer development, medicine, humanitarian expeditions, exploration, and social activism (just read the Blanche Black recommended reading list).  And in fact, even though that history was obscured and neglected for many years, due to poor character and discipline among Western Civilization’s rather socially-insulated male scholars, the collective work of female scholars within the Feminist Movement managed to recover a large portion of it for us.

Perhaps one of the most potent demonstrations of women’s abilities as cultural leaders has been the development of the Feminist Movement over the last two centuries. Beginning in the 1860’s over the issue of women’s suffrage, the movement eventually began to address a much broader scale of political and social concerns, all of which were tied together by a common feature: the persistent censorship and repression of women’s self expression and self determination. As it turned out, the cultural female gender identity that had been prescribed for women by their social and professional peers wasn't working for them; rather, it proved to be consistently ineffective in protecting women against exclusion from family and group decision-making, domestic violence, sexual assault, denial of legal recourse, lack of employment opportunities, homelessness, and other depressing topics of discussion.

The Feminist Movement, however, was the collaboration of female thinkers, writers, researchers, academics, intellectuals, and activists who addressed this challenge by redefining society’s cultural and legal understanding of womanhood, redefining women’s concept of their gender role in heterosexual relationships, and changing public policies and laws to protect these developments. These women pioneered the first revision of a cultural gender identity - in a patriarchal and nearly global society - and they did so knowing the “heat” they were going to take for it from insecure men and women. And despite that clearly foreseeable backlash, they expressed their true gender identity anyway. We Feminists continue to do so.

So, there has never been any shortage of women out there leading men.

The reason misogyny and backlash against assertive women is still so widespread is not for lack of women leaders effectively leading. It is for lack of men following women’s lead by coming “out of the closet” regarding their own identification with and admiration for women’s cultural contributions, as well as their desire for a new masculinity – one that compliments the self expression of their newly “liberated” female peers instead of attempting to compete with it.

Men- the intimidation tactics resorted to by those who cleave to the myth of machismo for fear of change is merely an indication that it is time for men to follow in the footsteps of their assertive female peers and have their own gender identity revolution. In many social situations, it is only the example of socially-evolved men, and their increasing success with pleasing women, that makes other men begin to question the necessity, or even usefulness, of using attitudes like egotism and self-centeredness to prove their “maleness” to others.

It is in public that men really show others what their perception of masculinity is. Public behavior, not private life, is what demonstrates whether a man defines his masculinity as complimentary towards a women’s self expression, or dominating towards women. Is a man doing and saying whatever he’s doing and saying to impress other men in the room by attempting to demonstrate a form of power and control over women?  Is he aggrandizing himself and other men in his own eyes, and in the eyes of others, at the expense of the women in his company? Or does he use those moments when others are looking on and listening in to demonstrate a woman’s importance to him, as a man, by making her needs and interests a priority, even over those of his own?

And a man’s concept of his own masculinity determines how much room he allocates in his mind for perceiving and considering women. When it comes to evaluating a man’s potential as a prospective romantic partner, it’s the details of his public persona that tell a woman how he really thinks of her and her gender.

Fortunately for women, the overdevelopment of ego in a man usually shows itself as a subtle yet transparent disregard for others unlike himself. For example, men who engage me in conversation long enough to notice I am confident, independent, and most likely Feminist, often try to pass themselves off as supportive of Feminism and other assertive behavior in women in order to get a date with me. In the course of a lengthy conversation, they are quick to deny interest in porn and readily condemn perpetrators of domestic violence; yet they casually refer to the women in their life with the diminutive term “girl”. They are “all for” women in leadership, yet they are quick to criticize female leaders in the public eye and skeptical of women’s judgment in business and work situations, in contrast to their relatively blind faith in the men that occupy similar positions. They are not familiar with any female pioneers in their fields of interest, and in the midst of a speculative philosophical or scientific statement they blithely refer to the entire human species as “mankind”.

These are the ‘guys’ whose concept of “submission” to a dominant woman consists of lying on their back during the sex act.

These are the type of men that keep the dildo industry in business, simply for purposes of time efficiency.

Women- if you’re dating a guy who opens the door for you, yet fails to offer to carry the heavy backpack and grocery bags you’re carrying, you’re dealing with a self-centered guy. If you’re dating a guy who commonly refers to males over the age of 18 as “men”, yet refers to post-pubescent females with the same word he uses for pre-pubescent females, you’re dating an egotistical guy with the creepy inability to distinguish between age groups when relating to females. Other symptoms of an overdeveloped ego in a man include: interrupting women in mid-sentence; walking in front of his date in public; lack of interest in asking a woman questions about her opinions or livelihood; eating off a woman’s plate in addition to his own during meals; lack of gastro-intestinal control; and lack of grooming, research, and other forms of self-exertion in preparation for dates.

Personally, I’d much rather spend my time with a man who thinks enough of women and their wants to groom himself, in body and in mind, to their liking. What turns me on is a man physically disciplined enough to get his body in beautiful shape in anticipation of pleasing a woman visually, while also being mentally disciplined enough to choose his words wisely; a man who refers to adult females as “women”, in acknowledgement that they have more-than-earned a title that distinguishes them from children; a man who loves sports enough to know who Babe Didrikson and Jackie Mitchell were; a man who is well versed enough in the history of social activism to know who Mother Jones was; a man who would have voted for Victoria Woodhull in 1872 when she ran for president of the United States; a man who knows about the first group of tested and trained American astronauts that made up the Mercury 13 space program, and that they were all women; a man who knows that the inventors of the first computer software program, as well as the first computer language, were also women- along with the inventors of Kelvar, windshield wipers, and the Mars Rover; a man who knows the definition of Feminism and isn’t afraid to use it in front of other men.

Check out this example of masculinity by Jackson Katz, in his TED talk “Violence & Silence” . This is a man who works with men in professional circles, institutions and industries where machismo and a deep misunderstanding of manhood runs high (athletics, law enforcement, the military, college campuses); yet he coaches these men to be affirming and protective of women in order to be effective social leaders for their male peers. His example of appreciation for female leadership and his public demonstration of respect for women should be the official standard for any self-respecting heterosexual man who considers himself a lover of Womanhood. And among the hoards of men he has mentored and influenced there are many others who follow his example and mindset by demonstrating love and appreciation for assertive women in their interactions with other men.

So you can believe there are a lot of men out there redefining the gold-standard for masculinity with their Pro-Feminist worldview and attitude. And there are a growing number of women out there who know enough not to “settle” for any less.

There is a rich history of assertive femininity and female-affirming men out there that has paved the way, as well as a wealth of human activism all around us giving birth to the new manhood; both have been actively censored from academic textbooks and popular media channels by those industries that stand to lose money from the social changes such a collaboration would bring about.  It takes a socially-evolved man to follow in the footsteps of his Feminist female counterparts by reclaiming this stolen heritage, liberating himself from the unsustainable gender identity of machismo, and redefining his cultural gender role towards women to achieve meaningful and authentic relationships with them. Indeed, that is the only type of partner worthy of a “liberated” woman.


Additional Resources:
Tony Porter, A Call To Men
Jeremy Meltzer, Where Is Men's Roar 
Ingrid Vanderveldt, The Art of Making the Impossible Possible
Codes of Gender, Infantilization of Women
Lauren Zander, No One Is Coming To Save You (How women can get what they want)
Joel Stein, My Search For Masculinity
Educational Resources: The Bro Code
Educational Resources: Tough Guise 2




21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ms. Christina for returning to your blog! Your words of wisdom have been sorely missed. As usual, I find some really important insights that I can use in my life in this post. The first is that women have been leading men for a long time, but this has been obscured by historians and by popular writers. The problem is not just that women have been suppressed, but that men have refused to be followers of women. That will require a new masculinity. In just a few words it seems to me that you have found a way of fusing political feminism, the rising popularity of female-led (personal) relationships, and the broader vision of matriarchy. At least that’s how it works in my mind. What it implies to me is that men have a key role to play in the ascendancy of women.

Personally, I find this approach dovetails with my own personal transformation, which is to become more giving, supportive, and yielding in my relationships with women—or to use a loaded word—submissive. Personally, I have found it very satisfying, when I can do these things—aside from its effect on the women involved. The phrase you use in your earlier post to describe a new masculinity is “serviceable martyrs.” That is very evocative. I wonder if you could elaborate on it.

By the way, I am saddened that so many of the men you have encountered are unwilling to be open followers of female leadership.

Thank you again Ms. Christina. Your blog is to my mind the most intelligent one online on these matters.

Richard

Anonymous said...

I just found this blog, and am disappointed to find it to be at it's end. However, I plan to go back and read it from the beginning.

The topic is one that I have become quite interested in lately, as I realized some time ago that my proper role in life is to be my wife's help mate in a matriarchal marriage. As i like to say, 'We discuss, she decides, and I abide'.

Blanche Black said...

Richard,

Nice to hear your thoughts.

The term "serviceable martyrs" refers to a state of being that people attain when they learn how to enjoy life vicariously through the happiness of another person.

To be generous, supportive, and yielding to another person by choice is to take on the role of a nurturer. Since this role is often expected of and even thrust upon women, especially in motherhood, many women have adapted to the self-denial inherent in the role by developing this ability to experience other people's pleasure vicariously and deriving their motivation for nurturing from it. Women get a lot of practice developing this altruistic ability throughout their life.

However, since men are often overlooked by society when they are looking for someone to play the nurturing role, men are usually short-changed the experience of sensing vicarious pleasure from nurturing another at their own expense. This level of social consciousness is not masochism; rather it is a serviceable martyrdom, a sacrifice for a better purpose.

I believe men instinctively crave this experience, this heightened level of self-sacrificial love, and can only fully realize their true masculinity by developing it through finding their role as a nurturer of others. In fact, of all the archetypes recurrent in ancient mythology, the archetype of the sacrificial masculine deity is one of the most prevalent and culturally universal. However, the modern culture has conditioned men to develop such a superficial ego that they do not know how to reconcile their inner instincts to become the nurturer they seek externally while saving face culturally. Therefore, many men are scared away from genuine spiritual self development for the sake of finding a quick fix to fitting in with others.

Nevertheless, the role of nurturer is every man's birthright as much as it is for women, and men would benefit greatly from developing it. The ancient archetype points to this, as does men's seemingly unquenchable appetite for the nurturing of their ego, which I would propose is a psychological projection of their desire for their own serviceable martyrdom onto others.

Anonymous said...

My wife taught me to be a better nurturer and for this I am so grateful. When our children were smaller, she insisted that I put them to bed every night and spend some alone time with them. This used to irritate my parents who believed that that was a mother's 'job'. But my wife insisted, saying that she was with the children all day, and even though I worked and may be tired, I needed to spend time with them. I came to really enjoy this time, reading stories, lying in bed with them. As a result, I grew much closer to my two sons. What she really taught me though was to be nurturing and for this I am today a better person

Uxorious

Anonymous said...

Hi Ms. Christina, Thank you for clarifying and expanding upon my question. It’s been very helpful to me. I like the phrases “sacrifice for a better purpose” and “experiencing other people’s pleasure vicariously.” Some of it is new to me. The idea that men nurture their own ego as a projection of [and denial/substitute for?] their own desire for serviceable martyrdom is thought-provoking. It is really quite brilliant because it makes sense of so many things. It is still percolating in my mind.

Of course, I like the idea of this being a “true” masculinity. It is certainly a better one than what we have now and fits with women’s ascendancy and their societal leadership, which I love. It’s kind of a win-win. Women are nurtured into their potential as social leaders through men fulfilling their deeper desires and potential for a higher masculinity. Quite a beautiful vision!

The idea of going back to ancient archetypes is also very interesting. Of course, Dionysus immediately comes to mind. The neo-romanticism of the sixties era culminating with feminism fits well with your ideas. Were you thinking of any other ancient archetypes?

I think about these things a lot, but always end up recognizing that Your thinking on these matters is more advanced than mine. It is a pleasure to be:

Your follower,

Richard

Blanche Black said...

Richard,

Great to hear from you. The archetype I refer to is one where a male deity sacrifices himself or is sacrificed for the greater good of the community and is referred to in comparative mythology as "the dying god". Other examples include Tammuz, Odin, Osiris, Xipe Totec, Balder, Iarilo, and of perhaps most distinctly in Jesus.

For some resources, you can check out this brief summary and bibliography:
http://www.billstifler.org/HUM2130/files/3D-002-arch_divine.htm

Anonymous said...

Hi Ms. Christina, I want to take a moment to write another note of appreciation of your wonderful work. As I see it, you are truly pushing the envelope of thinking about gender. You are right at the edge of heresy, which would make you unintelligible to the mainstream, but are creating a bridge out of our present impasse in the relations of women and men to that realm just beyond it. In the process you are showing how feminism can be rethought from within. Thus, I just love how you use the language of everyday feminism—for example, “assertive” and female-affirming”—to bring to light the hidden potential residing within it. And I wonder how many people appreciate the partially ironic use of the word “liberate” to describe what is happening with men when they decide to create a new identity of self-sacrificial, self-denying love in the service of entitled women. I also am in awe of that apt word you use to describe this jiu-jitsu: “refreshing.” I looked up the word refreshing, and it means: invigorating, revitalizing, enlivening, and inspiriting. Other words I would also add would be: playful and stimulating. What could be more desirable for this re-visioning of female-male relations!

So, here’s a question for you. If the new archetype for men is the serviceable martyr, exemplified in some of the ancient archetypes, including Jesus, then what do you see as core of the spiritual archetype for women? If Jesus is the archetype taken by men, what do women take? And can you speak more about this?

Your student,

Richard

Blanche Black said...

Richard,

What a wonderful question... I will use this to formulate my next post.

Of course it is always nice to be appreciated and noticed for the content of my writing... In terms of the mainstream, I don't think it's so much that my concepts are unintelligible to most people; rather I get the impression most people do not want to read past two paragraphs these days and are not really paying attention because these subjects make them uncomfortable. It is much more comfortable to stick to mainstream media, which offers pat answers to questions regarding gender and sexuality. However, pat answers do not suffice to resolve in any sustainable way the kinds of needs and desires that many people are encountering within themselves while socializing in contemporary society.
More to come...

Ms. Christina

I'm-Hers said...

I grew up in a conservative Christian home. My mother ran our home but she also didn't like 'feminist'. Yet she loves the way that I treat my wife, the way that my wife has freedom to do as she wishes, the way that I look after her, the way I keep her appointment book, open doors, cook and clean for her etc. I mention that because in many conservative circles in our current era (not the 60's and 70's) I believe conservative women might better identify with men that are women focused rather than men that are feminist. I don't know if that makes sense but in the end, we are talking about word choice when the real crux of your issue, my wife's issue is the yeilding of men to women and give them the respect, honor and power they rightfully diserve. A thoughtful post. Thank you

Blanche Black said...

I’m Hers,

Thanks for sharing your experience. It is a good question that you bring up, which is whether or not the term “Feminism” is necessary in effectively addressing men’s behavior towards women, especially if the social group is uncomfortable with the term.

To answer, let me just clarify for you that the crux of the issue is not “the yielding of men to women and give them the respect, honor and power they rightfully deserve”. The crux of the issue is that men should be doing so consistently, in a reliable way that does not waver with their mood or sexual whim. The only way to ensure that the men of a social group are consistent in their behavior towards women is to base it on a set of philosophical, or theological, and moral principles that can be used by the community to hold men accountable for consistently following that code of behavior.

A man’s individual choice to be “women-focused”, as you say, and to express that as doing chores and freeing up your wife’s time, is great and works well on an individual level. But personal preference in and of itself does not ensure widespread change or behavioral consistency, which is what this article is addressing the need for.

Whether the community in question is conservative or not, it is necessary to have such a set of values backed by a philosophical construct to ensure women’s human rights aren’t violated by the men in their community. For example, many women in conservative circles would just be grateful for their conservative husbands to stop beating them up, verbally bullying them, and excluding them from basic household and community decisions.

To do that, these women need to employ a set of values for the beneficial treatment of women by men by which the community can collectively hold men accountable on a consistent basis. That’s what Feminism is, and since Feminism has a track record of effectively protecting women from male violence and exploitation- more so than any other social or religious movement- Feminism is the most effective community tool for the job of mass change.

Although it is true that many conservative Christian women find it difficult to relate to the term “Feminism” when expressing what they want from men, I believe this is because of their patriarchal conditioning, which often shames women for initiating change themselves. If men stopped being antagonistic towards the term themselves, I suspect even conservative women would not be so “uncomfortable” with it. They simply don’t want to be socially penalized by men for identifying with Feminist women.

Many men seem uncomfortable with the concept of Feminism, only because it was created by women, for women, and was more successful at benefiting women’s quality of life than any ideas or movements conceived of by men. So to acknowledge its successful track record and usefulness as a reference point for philosophical and sociological evidence to support “women-centered” behavior is actually fitting for any man or woman who has faith in the relevance of women’s direction and feedback.

In other words, it would be very beneficial for conservative women and the men who love them to acknowledge the historical significance and modern-day usefulness of Feminism so that they don’t have to “reinvent the wheel” when it comes to defending or promoting their respect for women’s contributions.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ms.Christina, I thought I would add a little activity to this blog by bringing your attention to an article covering a study of academic achievement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2616906/Boys-perform-worse-girls-EVERY-school-subject-100-years-claims-study.html

It shows that girls outperform boys in all subjects and that this has been the case for a hundred years. The article attributes this to the superiority of female thinking styles, something you've emphasized. I also think a certain innate superiority is involved as well. It just seems likely that women have always been superior in many ways, but patriarchy has stifled it.

While the idea of female superiority can be misused, I do think such recognition has a positive effect on women and men. It gives women more self-confidence to consult their own thinking first and foremost, and it gives men a good reason to get into the habit of asking for women's advice and to follow women's leadership.

I hope you are well.

Richard

Blanche Black said...

Well said, Richard. I agree, and I believe society is at a turning point. Articles like this being so prevalent in popular media is one clear indicator. However, public exposure to this evidence doesn't guarantee support from all who are exposed to it; rather, certain people's acknowledgement of this evidence serves as a catalyst that pressures each individual to choose their relative position, polarizing the public on this issue which is finally gaining the attention it warrants.

Blanche Black said...

"So, here’s a question for you. If the new archetype for men is the serviceable martyr, exemplified in some of the ancient archetypes, including Jesus, then what do you see as core of the spiritual archetype for women? If Jesus is the archetype taken by men, what do women take? And can you speak more about this?"

I almost forgot to respond to this question!

Actually, ancient Biblical literature uses gender archetypes to describe relationships between God and the Community.

Firstly, as background, let me clarify that God, in Hebrew literature, is depicted as both Female (through maternal imagery, as well as feminine nouns and verbs,), and male (through paternal imagery, as well as one male noun). For more on that, please refer to my other blog, http://christianfeministnyc.blogspot.com/

So, in Biblical literature, when the aspect of God being discussed (either by God through a prophet, or through a human author) is that of the Creator of life, a compassionate teacher, or a provider of bounty and prosperity, God is referred to with feminine names, terms and nouns/verbs. In this analogy, the receiver of this life, instruction, and prosperity is the human community which is usually compared to a "son" or "child".

Also, when God is being discussed as a protector or parent/authority figure, God is referred to with both male and female analogies and terms.

However, when God is being discussed in the aspect of a sacrificial nurturer- specifically the one in the relationship making the initial sacrifice to restore harmony or intimacy between humanity and Godself- God is referred to in masculine terms with the analogy of a husband making sacrifices of personal pride to inspire his wife to love and be faithful to him again. This analogy is most frequently seen in the prophetic books, (such as Hosea, where God calls a male prophet to do exactly this for his cheating wife), and in prophesies referring to the sacrificial Jewish Messiah, Jesus.

In this particular analogy, God is compared to a man in a sexual/romantic relationship for one reason- to indicate the role of sacrificial nurturer in this dynamic. (FYI-This role is also what the Greek term "kephalé", often poorly translated as "head", is referring to in I Corinthians 11:3).

However, the role of receiver of this sacrifice is assigned to the human community, which is depicted as a female in the form of a wife or fiance.

So the gender roles assigned to aspects of behavior in ancient Hebrew literature indicate ancient gender archetypes derived, in large part, from the observation of nature by an agrarian society. And they were not alone, as other ancient societies developed mythologies depicting a male sacrificial deity fertilizing a feminized symbol for earth or humanity to reproduce life for the human community. Celtic societies seemed to perceive these gender roles as manifest in the human sex act itself, as well as in agricultural reproduction, and attributed these attributes to gender-specific deities in their mythology.

I think the main importance of observing gender archetypes from ancient literature is to more closely observe the cues our natural ecosystem and most basic of human instincts provide regarding the larger social significance of our gender. In the process of reproduction, when gender differences are perhaps most pronounced, female genitals are doing the receiving and male genitals are doing the sacrificing. (That's why guys are always so exhausted after the act, of course.) These specific gender role differences result in fertility in the form of a new member of the human community. It benefits both individuals, but it was the woman doing the receiving that made it possible.

I believe this indicates our authentically instinctual gender roles, derived from nature rather than political dogma and divisive psychological programming. It indicates not just how humanity functions best sexually, but also socially.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ms. Christina, I just read this. Thank you for clarifying this for me (and other readers). My own understanding of these archetypes comes from my own experience reading and being inspired by your writings. When I think of you I perceive three archetypes, combined into one: 1) the authoritative Queen, ruling Her realm and acting as a conduit for spiritual wisdom to her circle of followers; 2) the indomitable warrior fighting to bring down patriarchy, thus liberating women and men from a false order; and 3) the wise and patient teacher, explaining and demonstrating new way of living.

Your loyal follower

Richard

Frank said...

It is sad, but true that women give to men much more than they deserve or could ever repay. It is a privilege and honor to serve and obey women. In return for our service, they teach us to be unselfish, loving, kind, respectful, and obedient. They use their profound wisdom to guide us in all our decisions and help us reach our full potential as men. The more we learn from them, the more of service we can be to them. Nothing in the world is as beautiful or more deserving of respect than a woman, especially one like Ms. Christina.

Frank

Blanche Black said...

Thank you Richard and Frank. I think the most important way those who admire and appreciate women can make a difference is being a power of example among men. Simply acknowledging various women's cultural, social, and professional success, and their validity as a role model for all (including men), demonstrates to other men what should be the norm. This is how social change happens.

Ms. Christina

Mark said...

Don't know if the author is still active with this blog, so I won't write an essay. I support the blog and female supremacy. I am willing to give a modern matriarchy a chance. I have never been a man that has underestimated woman. Sciences and Arts are not male dominated, these areas are not even gendered specific. While I do think radical feminism is extreme and some women just flat out hate men, I really believe a globe ran by women would be better. I am more trusting of females running a global humanity, over males. Males created nationalism and oligarchies. True femininity would be women safeguarding the planet and life on it. Not women acting like men and destroying the planet.
I say hail the matriarchy. Males have owned the world for thousands of years, we should lower our pride and see how they rule.

Blanche Black said...

Mark,

Nice to hear from you. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Matriarchy in light of world disillusionment with every other system of rule, despite us all giving them all a go for the last three and a half millennia. Women's leadership in many industries and even households is currently being recognized for its catalyst effect on collective social success, so why fight something that makes people money, right? For the record, though, I would like to correct you on a few points.

Both the Sciences and Arts have unfortunately been male dominated for a very long time. Though Mother Nature sure hands out talent equally among the genders, there are many artists, and more than a few scientists, who can attest to the rampant andro-centricism and exclusion of women in both sectors. For example, I'm a painter with two decades of experience being treated as a novelty in the gallery system strictly due to my non-male gender. However, why take my word for it when you can listen to the Guerrilla Girls (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/apr/29/the-guerrilla-girls-interview-art-world-sexism) and, of course, the most amusing exposure of dark-ages-like gender bias within the science community- Mr. Ben Barres (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201883.html).

However, nothing prevents the progress of men and undermines genuine matriarchy more than the myth that "radical feminism" is a man-hating movement and too "extreme". Let me offer you the publicly-agreed upon definition to date: "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.[1] Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a purely political process. This includes challenging the notion of traditional gender roles, opposing the sexual objectification of women, and raising public awareness about such issues as rape and violence against women."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism)

And how is protecting women from rape, violence, objectification, and subjection under others not "safeguarding the planet and life on it"? They've done a damn better job of it than anyone else in our history. Where do you think rape-victim care procedures, domestic violence shelters, maternity leave, and children's legal protections from domestic abuse came from?

If you have a problem with eliminating male supremacy (aka:male privilege over women), having our patriarchal social norms (including gender roles) and institutions challenged in order to do so, and publicly opposing our cultural trend of sexualized and non-sexualized violence against women in the name of men, then what, pray tell, to you think Matriarchy is? Do you not realize that Matriarchies- those currently existing as well as ones documented from the past- feature women in leadership roles that defy our society's gender role expectations?

Are you not aware that Matriarchies feature women who rule as military leaders and political leaders who dominate men economically, politically, and socially? And yet each of these matriarchies consistently demonstrate a complete lack of sexual violence, as well as a distinct lack of social violence and human rights violations when compared to patriarchies in an anthropological cross-cultural study covering the last 2000 years. If anything proves the effectiveness of Radical Feminism for undoing the destructive effects of patriarchy on our culture, it is the history of Matriarchies and their impressive effects on quality of life for all members of their society. However, none of them came about from women following men's prescriptions regarding gender roles.

I suggest you read the rest of the articles on this blog on Matriarchy and Feminism, as well as some of the books in the suggested reading list, to gain a more accurate understanding of both terms.

Ms. Black

Frank said...

Mistress Christina, since many women are becoming the primary breadwinner in modern marriages, do you think it is acceptable that the husband takes care of the home, prepares the meals, etc. while the wife supports them both financially? Like it was in the 1950's except with the roles reversed.

Blanche Black said...

I think that is to be expected, except that it would never be the complete reversal of 1950s gender norms, only because both women and men have experienced the roles the other performs and so have more awareness of the other's needs. However, it is important for men who take this role on to understand that their job as caretaker continues after normal office work hours, and is essentially a round-the-clock job. They have to be thorough in their work at home to ensure that women are not left with unfinished housework on top of their public careers. As long as men keep up their end of that bargain, then it should work out well.

Frank said...

Absolutely, Ms. Christina. It doesn't matter whether the woman or the man is the breadwinner of the family, she is still the boss. She decides the chores he is responsible for and he must meet her expectations or suffer the consequences. The man must pamper and please his Lady always. In fact, he should take pleasure in doing so.