Dilbert's take on oppressing women and free will
Ever notice how maybe 99% of anti-feminist traditions, laws, opinion, and behavior derives from the sincere conviction that men are fundamentally vicious, stupid, irresponsible animals lacking not only social graces but also lacking consciences, morals, scruples, ethics, personal hygiene, and, especially, self control?
Shorter chauvinism: "We want to keep you locked in the house because it's the only place you'll be safe. From us. Oh, and can you tie this necktie for me so it looks right?"
Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog doesn't always get the gender-dynamics thing but boy when he does...
My favorite story in the news this week is about the Australian Muslim cleric named Al-Hilali who got in trouble for explaining his reasoning for why women should wear head scarves. His translated quote goes something like this: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?"
Like you, I am highly offended by this comment. He compared men to CATS! Now don't get me wrong - I love cats. But they do clean themselves with their tongues, eat bugs, and have the IQs of squirrels. No offense to squirrels. And these cats are apparently rapists too. As you know, rapist cats are the very worst kinds of cats - even worse than the hairless ones.
I suppose I should consider the fact that the cleric's analogy is nothing more than a colorful restatement of a common Muslim religious view. But that's no excuse for comparing me to a cat that can't resist meat. I'm a vegetarian, ferrchrissake! I've been resisting meat for years! I call for that cleric's resignation.
...
I'm also told that some women took offense to being compared to a piece of meat. That's not as bad as being compared to a squirrel-brained, self-licking rapist, but whatever. That's why I think the U.N. should have a special division devoted to correcting defective analogies. In this case I would recommend replacing that cat/meat analogy with something less offensive but equally illustrative of the point. Something like this:
"If you leave a rare and beautiful diamond outside, and a handsome and well-educated man puts it in his pocket with the intention of later finding its true owner, but he is hit by a truck, is it the diamond's fault or the nice man's fault or the truck driver's fault?"
Maybe then we could get past Al-Hilali's bad analogy and get back to wondering why a cleric is arguing that men have no free will.
Notice that Adams isn't dismissing the insult of comparing women to inanimate pieces of meat. With his peculiar brand of benevolently sociopathic insight he's putting it in perspective: anti-feminists may not care much for women but they outright hate men.
[Variations on the same aphorism appear on all inhabited continents, and almost all spoken tongues. Don't get caught up in the particulars of this rendition. Think instead about why so many people think the best way to prove men's superiority is to assume we're reeetards and trust us the way you would scavengers or ambush predators. --fl]
Happy Friday Figleaf !
Ignorance and overall venom about either sex is offputting.
How sad when one has the emotional intelligence of a sackful of hammers.
Sincerely and without any verbal delicacy in expressing myself at all,
Anne Elizabeth
[I hope you have a wonderful weekend, AE. Take care, fl]
Figleaf. I was intrigued by your contention that anti-Feminist thought is underlain by a negative stereotype of men. I agree that there are many men that are very well behaved and have themselves under control. I also don't like the negative stereotype of men that you described. My male friends are invariably wonderful respectful men. I loved the imagery of rapists as squirrel-brained, self-licking sorts that could not keep their teeth off a steak! We laughed for at least 10 minutes. However, as a young person I was subject to repeated harassment and even assault from young men. Therefore, I am very careful, especially with regard to the young women in my care.
Figleaf...I'm sorry....I have to pick up on your example.... I know that your focus was on the male stereotype, not the religion...please don't take offence!!
Um...you must see the Sheik's comment and its report within the media within the general trend for stereotyping Muslims as violent threats to all that is civilised. For many days the only report in Australian media was that women that did not wear headscarves were like pieces of meat. The Sheik actually said that women that behaved provocatively, wore inappropriate clothing and no headscarf were tempting some men too much.
I disagree with the implied contention in his sermon that women are responsible for rape. Rape is essentially a crime of power, not sexuality, and victims can be highly unattractive in conventional terms. However, he was speaking within his own religious context, so I would not normally mix in. In any event, the situation is being dealt with by Muslim elders in their own way, lets leave it to them.
It is unfortunate that the Sheik said what he did, but how many pastors have to be worried about what they say in their own church in the context of their own religion? We say similar things to young women in our church - if you dress and behave provocatively you will get the wrong type of attention. On the other hand, we tell our young men that there is no excuse for inappropriate touching or indeed rape.
It's not just some Muslims that think that women ask to be raped. My Father overheard Christian men in the local bar say just the same thing. He never went in there again! Also, I found a mainstream American site saying that if you were looking for a woman that would agree to have sex with you, then you should observe behavior and clothing before choosing your target. These instances could be construed the same way... and the communities involved vilified similarly.
I refuse to take part in any mass hysteria that is stereotyping members of my community (either Muslims or men in general) as rapists and violent threats to society. I refuse to be manipulated by the mass media and political forces within our society. I refuse any part of the racist political agenda that is driving discrimination and violence against innocent people. Many Muslim men in Sydney where the Sheik lives have to escort their wives and mothers to the shops because of overt racism whipped up by the media. One Mosque has been burnt in my city and an unarmed round the clock guard needed to be placed on another.
....mmmmmm....
[I'll stick with Adams's point that anybody, of any culture, who believes that men are *literally incapable of controlling themselves* and that *that's* why women should walk around in full-size burlap sacks has an astonishingly, insultingly low opinion of men. That the cleric has an even lower opinion of men than (many) Westerners is immaterial in the face of the young men you encountered who felt, nor feel, any obligation to control themselves around young women. It's a characteristic of human beings to live up to whatever standard they're raised to believe is expected of them... and generally no more. Thanks, Avalon. --fl]
Being Australian myself, this particular issue is extremely personal to me. These statements were made after it was discovered that a bunch of teenagers had attacked and abused a young girl in a park and had filmed the entire thing. The "movie" was then circulated among high schools around the country (you know how quickly these things spread) until one teenage girl was disgusted enough to report it to the police. The way these boys treated the poor girl was disgusting, beating her, lighting her hair on fire, stripping her of her clothes and tossing them into a pond/mudpit, urinating on her, and then raping her.
When those particular comments were made there was instant public outcry here and 99% of the Muslim community are asking for his resignation as they strongly disagree with his opinion, especially pending "the movie" being shoved into lives in such a harsh and violent way. They show excerts on the news (covering her face) and there is not a human alive that I know who could possibly watch it and take the boys side in the debate...
Sorry for the rambling comments - but this one is personal.
[First of all I really don't want this to be about the cleric because, in particular, there's a local sports broadcaster who doubles as a "hot talk" radio host who, despite being pure-bred lily white and not particularly religious at all (else he'd be in church instead of a broadcast booth most Sunday mornings) renders approximately the same opinion in situations like this: she should have known better than to X, Y, or Z. And implicit underlying assumption is that women shouldn't do X's, Y's, or Z's because men are hyenas. Nor, I should add, should *he* be singled out because there are plenty of other men and women from all sorts of walks of life in all sorts of places who *also* believe it. I agree that almost all men are actually pretty decent guys -- my experience with very small boys is that generally they *want* to be good. So why are we have such low expectations for them that by the time they reach the age of the boys in the video they're capable of such bestial acts? I ought to add, by the way, that Pfc. Lynndie England's behavior at Abu Ghraib demonstrates that a) it's not intrinsically *male* behavior and b) that, again, it's a matter of expectations at every scale. The conservative (which is synonymous with anti-feminist) response that, Pfc. England notwithstanding, it was just a matter of "well, boys will be boys" and "harmless fraternity pranks" is damning proof of their low opinion of men. Thanks, CS. --fl]
I couldn't stop giggling at what Adams wrote.
Since I'm studying the history of sexuality in Canada in one of my classes, this post reminds me that men were raised to be "real men" by being able to control their sexual desires. If/When they were unable to do so, they became less of a man.
As for women, it's up so us to always appear to be pure and chaste in order to become "real women" for if we aren't then we aren't able to fulfill our "true purpose in life" which is to be wives and mothers.
*eyeroll*
I do wonder how many Muslim men have beeb raped by women? Like there'd ever be any who would report it...
I can't help but shake my head at a large part of humanity.
[Yup, I read the same sort of thing in Coontz's "Marriage, a History." Until roughly the beginning of the 20th Century real men were indeed supposed to very tightly control their impulses. And yes, generally when they failed they were thought less of rather than more of. Stephenson's Victorian-era "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was entirely a morality tale of what happens when men follow their "natural" impulses. Good point. One imagines there needs to be some sort of compromise here. Thanks, JeN. --fl]
It may not be Islam it self, but its assimilation of cultural traditions that portray women as the seducer and men having no responsibility in controlling their behavior. As Avalon mentioned, that idea is not peculiar to Islam, other cultures and religions have perpetuated it. Is it something about most men, where they don't want to take responsility for there behavior? When it is religiously sanctioned, what incentive do they have.
[it's worth pointing out that until roughly the 1700s Westerners also held that men had the moral compasses and women the opportunistic seducers. And today more of the world still believes that than believes our largely Puritan-influenced, largely Eurocentric reversal. (Which, incidentally, plays hob with various equally Puritan-influenced, Eurocentric Evo/Devo theories of gender determinism.) As for who's to blame, I blame the men and women who spend so much time obsessing over the slightest blemish in women's virtue that they utterly neglect to instruct men in virtue at all. (I remember hearing an inner-city woman say the problem there was "We love our sons but we *raise* our daughters." Which, I think, is more universal than she imagined.) Thanks, Five. --fl]
I won't go into my views on the religious aspects, but I do wish to say that a similar statement was made by a university official in my state in regards to a high-profile rape case at the university--the official said "You can't throw a chicken leg out in a parking lot and not expect ants to crawl all over it."
It's called victim-blaming, and it doesn't just happen with rape. It happens with poverty, with CDV, with young pregnant mothers, with virtually everything. As a social worker-to-be and a victim advocate, it's easy for me to see the effects of person-in-environment. On a macro-level, things make sense in regards to personal interactions, and also how we're not taught to/or discouraged to see things through a critical lens.
I would have to argue, though, that it's worse to be viewed as a self-licking rapist cat or a hungry mindless worker ant, than a piece of raw uncovered meat, or a spicy southern-fried chicken wing.
Let me elaborate--as a cat or an ant, you still are seen as having agency, are an animated being, have control, self-ability--you have power/over. As a piece of meat, things are done to you. You are totally objectified--you are seen as something dead and thus acted upon with no control over fate.
I understand it's bad to be stereotyped, either way. But I would still have to say it's better to be seen as something with agency than a piece of dead non-human something with no ability to say no, to stop what's being done to you--and then get blamed for it afterwards, suffer the long-term physical and pyschological trauma, while little to nothing happens to the actor, the ant, the cat.
Just my two cents.
xoxo,
-Rae-
["Let me elaborate--as a cat or an ant, you still are seen as having agency, are an animated being, have control, self-ability..." vs. "As a piece of meat, things are done to you." I'd argue it's actually worse than you think because the moralists are effectively saying that women *have* agency *until* they unbutton one too many buttons, or walk to the car at night, or whatever thing the moralists blame them for *doing* that turns them into male ant or cat bait. And that *that* agency, that failure to exercise that agency *virtuously,* is what makes it women's fault. It's a genuinely hellish double-standard, yes. But they don't even give men that much credit. It's all just "Ugg, him see unbuttoned button. Him go berserk. It her fault. What she expect? Ook, ook." It's just starting to soak in for me how totally weak an indictment "blame the victim" really is. Not because women don't deserve better -- you certainly do! -- but because it so totally fucking leaves men mired in the animality of low expectations. --fl]
I really appreciate Figleaf and everybody that comments on his views. You really stimulate my thinking and facilitate discussion within my friendship group!
OK...so.....
Firstly, I read that humans have a natural tendency to blame others when things go wrong and take credit when things go bad. That could help explain victim blaming. Secondly, last night I discussed with a friend the paradigm of men pushing and women being reticent as the traditional sexual relationship dynamic. In this context men might be seen as pushing too much. My male friend mentioned that some women also push too much. So...maybe the problem of sexual misbehavior and blaming the victim is a human condition rather than just a male thing. We may tend to vilify males because the media tends to report male misbehavior a lot more than female misbehavior (and for other reasons).
Why do people hurt others?
I think that people that hurt others generally rationalize their behavior, for example, those young men that attacked me did not seem to feel guilty and there appeared to be acceptance in society in general for their behavior (may I mention in the context of the debate about dress that I was dressed at all times as a conservative and non-attractive female). As my mate said last night - attitudes have changed! We cannot judge the past using present values. (Figleaf is right in emphasizing the influence of societal values)
Nevertheless, while I am very tolerant of differences and capable of understanding diverse others, I cannot support the exploitation and harm of vulnerable people, especially children (but also adults of any gender), whatever the value system!
What is the point of view of the victim? (thanks Rae)
For many years I was the stereotypical victim: vulnerable, passive and accepting. My chief attacker blamed me and felt totally justified in her actions. For years I wondered what I did wrong. It helped to see that it was not my problem and to frame her violence in terms of her problem. But that did not take back my power. I was still the "meat". I was still the southern fried chicken wing in the car park!
My power returned when I asked myself, not "was I to blame?", but "what could I do to protect myself?". I realized that I could (as an adult) stay away from circumstances in which I was vulnerable, learn how to defend myself verbally and physically and report misbehavior.
But back to the original debate...it was about stereotyping of males and anti-Feminism...I am really curious to learn more...
[I think I can lay it out for you (though I'm formulating as I go.) I say it's anti-Feminism's fault because anti-Feminists put *all* the emphasis on women's faults -- you could have done this, you shouldn't have done that -- and consequently they're unable to hold men responsible. Which is a *very* peculiar, but sort of internally consistent, attitude for a philosophy that claims that men are the superior gender. I mean *seriously* they're unable to see past "blame the victim" for the same reason most of us can't see past the occasional lunatic who jumps the fence into a hyeana's cage. *Of course* the hyeana's going to eat them so it's lunatic's fault... and since they genuinely believe that men have no more responsibility than a hayeana they're conceptually incapable of blaming anyone else but their victims too. Thus my contention (via Amanda Marcotte) that anti-feminists are far, far more anti-men than feminists are. (Amanda speaks about "...how profoundly anti-male anti-feminist thought is, and conversely how feminists tend to show more respect for men and their potential than non-feminists.") Feminists demand that men behave responsibly because they believe we're capable of it. Anti-feminists can't even imagine it and therefore lay all responsibility, and blame, on women instead. Eww! Thanks for asking exactly the right question, Avalon. --fl]
Is it about sterotyping males, when only about ten percent of the worlds population of women have equality as we do in the western world? Even here, when it is about rape, pregnancy and defining moral attitude about sex, underlying assumptions rise to the top. She really did want it, it's her responsibility for birth control and she must be a whore, she's slept with too many men.
It's more implied in that sermon than was reported, it puts the responsibilty totally on women and says that men by nature are weak when it comes to sexual desire. In places where women are required to wear burkas, raising an eyebrow can be justification for their murder. I think the sermon is dangerous not only because it diminishes the victim, but sets up the scenario for even more violent attacks to occur.
I do know that not all men are morally challenged, but I am concerned with how many that are.
["...it puts the responsibilty totally on women and says that men by nature are weak..." Exactly! "I do know that not all men are morally challenged, but I am concerned with how many that are." There's only one way to find out and that would be to actually try instructing men in morality. I rather expect we'd pick it up pretty quickly if it were expected of us. And more and more I'm convinced that feminists expect it more than do anti-feminists. Thanks, Five. --fl]