The Crisis: Part III - Another Perspective
[This is Part III of an ongoing series of posts, Part I here and Part II here discussing some aspects of the Crisis of American Masculinity. For this version, The AntiCentenarian invites Resident Genius Jiggavegas to share some of her thoughts on the matter. Expect Updates, folks: Jigga's wheels are in constant motion.]
-----
From Jiggavegas:
(Please excuse my novel. I got a little carried away.)
I think so much of the "backlash" against gender, and by extension liberalism, has to do with the fluidity:rigidity dichotomy she [Lorraine, in her original post] mentioned. I don't think, or don't want to think, that sexism, racism, bigotry, etc. exist consciously in most people as a choice. (It does in some, and unfortunately they tend to be the vocal ones, but that's another conversation.) I think it really comes down to what threatens people, what makes them feel unsafe or uncomfortable, what challenges they way they live and the choices they make. It's so much easier, isn't it, to continue to do things "the way they've always been done" because then everything makes sense: I married my wife because that's the way you raise a family, we attend church because that's what makes us good people, we go to work every day because that's what makes us productive citizens, etc. etc.
Where liberals have been failing Americans, especially recently, is in (our) insistence on relativity: Just because you're Catholic and I'm Jewish doesn't mean one of us is wrong, just because you would lock your daughter up for trying to have a baby out of wedlock doesn't make her choice wrong, your morality is not my morality but that doesn't make either of us wrong. While I would take a relativistic approach over a reactionary one any day of the week (because at worst, it leads to confusion, while reactionary impulses at worst end in fascism...or genocide) it is not a philosophy the majority of Americans can embrace.
How can you tell "Joe Six-Pack" that while he's spent his life living by a series of clearly defined moral precepts, not only are they unnecessary, they're in fact restrictive and offensive (a stance adopted by many otherwise relativistic liberals, which gives the lie to the very relativity they profess)? And how do you argue when Mr. Six-Pack retorts that if everyone lived by his set of values, the world wouldn't be going to hell in a handbasket? It's a specious argument, granted, but you can't start arguing "what-ifs" and plan to get anywhere. We live and think too linearly, with too much emphasis on causality, to get very far by insisting that one thing doesn't necessarily lead to another.
But you asked about gender. *sigh* How do you begin to separate traditional gender roles and the preconceptions that go with them, from the daily interactions, reactions, and assumptions of Americans in general and Republicans in specific?
It's back to Joe Six-Pack again: how do you say that women don't (or shouldn't) necessarily behave the way he thinks we always have? That putting your children in pre-school is actually beneficial in many cases? That a business model predicated on "feminine" discourse (cooperative, "horizontal hierarchy," supportive methods) is often more successful in the long run than traditional "masculine" methods (vertical hierarchy, competitive, "survival of the fittest" approach)? How do you get people to think in terms of results instead of category (successful/unsuccessful instead of masculine/feminine)? The idea that liberalism threatens "masculinity" only holds true if you insist that no real man can empathize with victims of poverty or abuse, that no man is capable of negotiation before aggression, that no man places the needs of his society's children above his nation's bottom line. Which, if I were a man, I would find incredibly offensive. It's worse than the old eighties version of feminism (no man, no kids, no feelings) because instead of asking you to mask your empathy (and common freaking sense) it assumes you're incapable of it in the first place. No one's asking America's men to stage some sort of therapeutic cry-in, for God's sake.
But I find it extremely interesting that in all of this discourse about sissies vs. machismo, an entire facet of "masculinity" has been ignored, probably because it doesn't help the Republican cause any: What about the man as protector and provider? The old American adage that no man lets his wife and children go hungry, that a real man provides for the needs of his family and community, that he ensures the prosperity and stability of the next generation? Raiding the nation's funds; picking fights at the expense of communities at home and abroad; ignoring, underfunding, even ridiculing, the needs of weaker members of society, and using natural resources without replacing or protecting them all paint a pretty traditional portrait of masculinity, all right: It's the portrait of the villain. The outcast. The one with the twirly mustache that the hero kicks out of town.
Not that we should revert to simplistic, rigid definitions of masculinity/femininity. But it might be worth pointing out that there is room for America's males in a liberal discourse. That fathers and husbands can be those things--traditionally even!-- and still spare a thought or two for something besides declaring war and getting more tax breaks.
I'm just saying.
-----
[This concludes some of Jiggavega's thoughts on the Crisis. Thanks, Jigga, that's fantastic. Tomorrow, for Part IV, we'll be looking at some of those "Men" who, for better or worse, indicate different aspects and strnangeties in the Crisis as symbolic cultural figureheads of the Right! Santorum, Delay, Limbaugh Gannon and others! Tune in, folks!]
-----
From Jiggavegas:
(Please excuse my novel. I got a little carried away.)
I think so much of the "backlash" against gender, and by extension liberalism, has to do with the fluidity:rigidity dichotomy she [Lorraine, in her original post] mentioned. I don't think, or don't want to think, that sexism, racism, bigotry, etc. exist consciously in most people as a choice. (It does in some, and unfortunately they tend to be the vocal ones, but that's another conversation.) I think it really comes down to what threatens people, what makes them feel unsafe or uncomfortable, what challenges they way they live and the choices they make. It's so much easier, isn't it, to continue to do things "the way they've always been done" because then everything makes sense: I married my wife because that's the way you raise a family, we attend church because that's what makes us good people, we go to work every day because that's what makes us productive citizens, etc. etc.
Where liberals have been failing Americans, especially recently, is in (our) insistence on relativity: Just because you're Catholic and I'm Jewish doesn't mean one of us is wrong, just because you would lock your daughter up for trying to have a baby out of wedlock doesn't make her choice wrong, your morality is not my morality but that doesn't make either of us wrong. While I would take a relativistic approach over a reactionary one any day of the week (because at worst, it leads to confusion, while reactionary impulses at worst end in fascism...or genocide) it is not a philosophy the majority of Americans can embrace.
How can you tell "Joe Six-Pack" that while he's spent his life living by a series of clearly defined moral precepts, not only are they unnecessary, they're in fact restrictive and offensive (a stance adopted by many otherwise relativistic liberals, which gives the lie to the very relativity they profess)? And how do you argue when Mr. Six-Pack retorts that if everyone lived by his set of values, the world wouldn't be going to hell in a handbasket? It's a specious argument, granted, but you can't start arguing "what-ifs" and plan to get anywhere. We live and think too linearly, with too much emphasis on causality, to get very far by insisting that one thing doesn't necessarily lead to another.
But you asked about gender. *sigh* How do you begin to separate traditional gender roles and the preconceptions that go with them, from the daily interactions, reactions, and assumptions of Americans in general and Republicans in specific?
It's back to Joe Six-Pack again: how do you say that women don't (or shouldn't) necessarily behave the way he thinks we always have? That putting your children in pre-school is actually beneficial in many cases? That a business model predicated on "feminine" discourse (cooperative, "horizontal hierarchy," supportive methods) is often more successful in the long run than traditional "masculine" methods (vertical hierarchy, competitive, "survival of the fittest" approach)? How do you get people to think in terms of results instead of category (successful/unsuccessful instead of masculine/feminine)? The idea that liberalism threatens "masculinity" only holds true if you insist that no real man can empathize with victims of poverty or abuse, that no man is capable of negotiation before aggression, that no man places the needs of his society's children above his nation's bottom line. Which, if I were a man, I would find incredibly offensive. It's worse than the old eighties version of feminism (no man, no kids, no feelings) because instead of asking you to mask your empathy (and common freaking sense) it assumes you're incapable of it in the first place. No one's asking America's men to stage some sort of therapeutic cry-in, for God's sake.
But I find it extremely interesting that in all of this discourse about sissies vs. machismo, an entire facet of "masculinity" has been ignored, probably because it doesn't help the Republican cause any: What about the man as protector and provider? The old American adage that no man lets his wife and children go hungry, that a real man provides for the needs of his family and community, that he ensures the prosperity and stability of the next generation? Raiding the nation's funds; picking fights at the expense of communities at home and abroad; ignoring, underfunding, even ridiculing, the needs of weaker members of society, and using natural resources without replacing or protecting them all paint a pretty traditional portrait of masculinity, all right: It's the portrait of the villain. The outcast. The one with the twirly mustache that the hero kicks out of town.
Not that we should revert to simplistic, rigid definitions of masculinity/femininity. But it might be worth pointing out that there is room for America's males in a liberal discourse. That fathers and husbands can be those things--traditionally even!-- and still spare a thought or two for something besides declaring war and getting more tax breaks.
I'm just saying.
-----
[This concludes some of Jiggavega's thoughts on the Crisis. Thanks, Jigga, that's fantastic. Tomorrow, for Part IV, we'll be looking at some of those "Men" who, for better or worse, indicate different aspects and strnangeties in the Crisis as symbolic cultural figureheads of the Right! Santorum, Delay, Limbaugh Gannon and others! Tune in, folks!]
posted by General Stan at 3:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home