Re: Men's socialization into risk and expendability
- From: "Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Aug 2006 06:50:19 -0700
ddnoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Men's socialization into risk and expendability
August 17, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Few movies have been made that are more touching and thoroughly
wholesome than The Bells of St. Mary's starring Bing Crosby as Roman
Catholic priest Father O'Malley and Ingrid Bergman as Sister
Benedict. If anyone has missed this beautiful 1945 classic, you've
got to treat yourself and soon.
In this movie, a little boy comes up with a black eye because the
Sister advises him to "turn the other cheek." Fr. O'Malley tells
her "it's a man's world" and that he ought to learn to duke it
out to some extent. The Sister fears she may be turning him into a
"sissy" and teaches the lad some basic rules of fighting.
"It's a man's world" really means that it's a world in which
men are expected to take physical risks, a world in which men must
learn to suppress fears and to ignore feelings of pain, both their own
and those of other men, in order to protect women. "It's a man's
world" really means the opposite: that it's a world unforgiving of
men who don't want to take risks while permitting women the privilege
of remaining as far outside the fray as possible.
[That's not true, Denise. "It's a man's world" means that men weild
more power to make life altering decisions like going to war and that
men have more wealth within their control. It also means that women
have less 'say' in how things go and that, because of that, it makes
men more responsible for the choices they do make. A world in which
women have less say, obviously relieves them of that degree of
responsibility. That's just common sense.
However, women do enter "the fray" as they still have to live in
situations created by men and so, in some way, become victims of men's
decisions. AND, as women gain more and more of a voice, both in wealth
and politics, they have more of a say, becoming less of a victim.]
Saying that men are socialized to violence is not quite accurate. What
they are really socialized into is taking physical risks.
[Well, both seem to be true, that men are socialized into being more
violent than women and also, that risk taking is part of that.
Testosterone plays a role as well. And it's not just risks; it's
choices. For example, my father would never see a doctor unless my
mother forced the issue. ]
Boys who are reluctant to risk their skins are often taunted as
"sissies."
[That's very true. Of course, the ones doing the majority of the
taunting are other boys. ]
They have traditionally been razzed as "you girl" or "what a woman"
by other boys. The implication is that boys must "prove" that they
are "better" than girls - yet the ultimate purpose is to make
them into men who will rush into danger, treating themselves as
expendable, so women will not have to.
[I agree with the first part of your paragraph, but not the last. The
REASON to use being a 'girl' as a put-down is, first of all, showing us
that girls are considered to be less than boys. IOW, society is
anti-girl. Secondly, the reason that men and boys are socialized to
put down girls and women is certainly not done in order to protect
girls and women. It's done, much the same way that mideastern prayer
is uttered, "thank god I'm not a woman".
:-) In that regard, the reason boys are socialized not to be girls is
becasue being a girl comes with less rights. Does that place boys in
riskier places? Possibly. But blaming those who are not in power
(women) doesn't help your cause. The world would simply be a better
place all around if women shared power.]
The same society that demands men be willing to accept violence against
themselves and perpetrate it against other men in military combat has
no patience for men whose violence spills over onto women.
[Women are not demanding wars. It is men who demand them. Men have
wanted invasion instead of planting. They have wanted to take the oil
of other nations instead of investing in wind and solar power, etc.
Trying to claim some right of abuse because men resort to
violence.....well that's old snake oil. There is no reason to "have
patience" with men who beat up women or anyone else. Throw them in
jail .]
The famously flamboyant General George S. Patton, a traditionally
masculine man if
ever there was one, wrote in War As I Knew It, "I told him that in
spite of my best efforts to keep it to a minimum, there would
unquestionably be some raping and that he should let me know the
details of all such incidents as soon as possible so that I could have
the offenders properly hanged." This statement is truly remarkable,
especially coming from the General who went into a fury when soldiers
said they were in the infirmary because of "nerves," slapping them,
deriding them as "cowards" and demanding they be "sent to the
front lines." Unbeknownst to Patton, one of the men he slapped was,
at the time of incident, suffering from both dysentery and malaria and
running a temperature of over 101. However extreme Patton's actions,
he reflected his society's demand that men be violent and equally
strong demand that they not turn their violence against women.
[Were Pattons soldiers unable to determine the enemy from those who
were not fighting, i.e. women and children? Or do you, Denise, like
many anti-women folks here, believe that women are the spoils of war?
Some have said that the very reason men like war is so they can rape
the women of their enemy. Perhaps that adds some colour...a bit of
flavor to their distasteful other tasks of blowing things up and
killing. ]
Japan is often thought of a far more solidly patriarchal country that
just about any nation in the West. This is not without reason as women
have historically been expected to walk behind men and make displays of
deference and subservience to them. However, a Japanese man aboard the
Titanic disobeyed the rule that he was supposed to stay on the ship to
allow women and children first dibs on the lifeboats. He forced his way
onto a lifeboat, perhaps taking a seat that would have otherwise gone
to a woman. For refusing to get his lungs filled with water so a woman
could survive, this man received hate mail from his fellow Japanese and
was shunned by them.
[There is nothing new in the notion that patriarchy is about protecting
women...right out of their civil rights. :-) And lets think about
Titanic; when the T. sank, American women did not vote. There was no
American woman who helped design the ship; certainly no American woman
decided to put so many life boats on the ship. Hmmmmmmmm Perhaps
patriarchy was still protecting her right out of her rights. Of
course, there were other women (other than American) on the boat,
perhaps we should also consider the rights of British women at that
time, etc. How many had equal rights compared to their male peers?
How many men vs. women of that time knew how to swim? How many men
could have lasted longer swimming in that frigid water? Is it, in
society, a better ideal that those strongest amongst us should try to
help those weakest? And were there no female heroes on the Titanic? ]
The very idea of the "patriarchy" and it's more prosaic
formulation of the "man's world" should be retired. No group that
was truly dominant would demand that its members die so their
subordinates could live.
Nonsense! Patriarchal societies have historically demanded cultural
roles for their participants. In China, young girls had their feet
bound by their mothers so that they would make suitable marriage
partners, hobbled for life. That was a cultural role for women in
patriarchy. Chinese men were the warriers and held to the standards of
other men....sometimes that meant assuming a cultural role for which
they were ill-equipt.
So, while I do agree with you that patriarchy is a very bad thing, I do
not agree with your one-sided interpretation of the cultural results of
patriarchy, which have had far more negative impact on women than on
men who have choices and rights. And today, we find ourselves in yet
another war ....fueled by patrarichal conquests of Little Lord
Fontleroy Bush. And today, we are protecting women and men here in
America by giving away some of our rights and killing masses of others,
for whom we have nothing but contempt. Shame on us.]
.
- References:
- Men's socialization into risk and expendability
- From: ddnoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Men's socialization into risk and expendability
- Prev by Date: Re: Men's socialization into risk and expendability
- Next by Date: Re: A synopsis of major Men's Issues
- Previous by thread: Re: Men's socialization into risk and expendability
- Next by thread: Re: Men's socialization into risk and expendability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
