I'm skeptical of this whole thing. Perhaps, in Canada, I'm a little isolated from people like this, but still:
1) The commenters/replyers to that post seem to be under the assumption that these kind of men make up 95% of the population. A vocal minority does not make an absolute majority. 2) If you were to reverse the genders in these commercials/situations, you'd just have a humorous anecdote. I know the reversal isn't entirely analogous, but it's worth noting that we're trained to interpret bad behaviour in men as morally suspect, while similar behaviour in women is just humorous. 3) It is easy as hell to avoid such social groups. The homosocial male is the most flamboyant individual in our culture, he's loud, rude, obnoxious, and dresses exactly as you'd expect him to. But he isn't avoided. Amongst young women especially, he's often the most popular guy around. His behaviour (which is, as the article points out, a strategy) is rewarded. The strategy works. Why does it work
( ... )
Re 2) I suggest you take a look at "Oppression" by Marilyn Frye and "Gender and Moral Luck" by Claudia Card. The reason that "bad behavior" in men is more readily seen as morally suspect in men by feminists is because it is in fact men that are the oppressor class. Card points out in her article that men while men are indeed are guilty of many moral failings when it comes to the oppression of women, that women -- especially feminists -- should not any sense "let women get away with it." Other philosophers -- de Beauvoir comes to mind immediately -- are quick to implicate women as well as men (for instance, for behavior like that in your point 3). So while this particular analysis doesn't mention women's social choices and responsibility (whatever that may mean), its an on-going discussion, and a big one, in the feminist literature
( ... )
Fair enough. This probably highlights a massive difference between Canada and the US... in three universities over seven years, I've never really observed any prominence in this sub-culture. The jocks stick to the gym, and let the hippies and musicians run things. However, a visit to Oregon State University was scary. Frat houses everywhere, people dying because they're throwing bottles out of the window randomly...
As far as the strategy being rewarded, it is seen as "cool" by women usually for the same reason its seen as "cool" by men While I agree that this is a valid analysis, it always makes me suspicious when someone(not referring to you) plays the "socialization" card in this kind of scenario. It seems to deny the possibility of group choice, of women as a group being able to break the cycle. Every instance of liberation in history involves not only a "top-down" program that seeks to break the behaviour f oppressors, but also a "bottom-up" swell of resistance from the oppressed. I can't help but imagine what would
( ... )
Comments 3
1) The commenters/replyers to that post seem to be under the assumption that these kind of men make up 95% of the population. A vocal minority does not make an absolute majority.
2) If you were to reverse the genders in these commercials/situations, you'd just have a humorous anecdote. I know the reversal isn't entirely analogous, but it's worth noting that we're trained to interpret bad behaviour in men as morally suspect, while similar behaviour in women is just humorous.
3) It is easy as hell to avoid such social groups. The homosocial male is the most flamboyant individual in our culture, he's loud, rude, obnoxious, and dresses exactly as you'd expect him to. But he isn't avoided. Amongst young women especially, he's often the most popular guy around. His behaviour (which is, as the article points out, a strategy) is rewarded. The strategy works. Why does it work ( ... )
Reply
Reply
As far as the strategy being rewarded, it is seen as "cool" by women usually for the same reason its seen as "cool" by men While I agree that this is a valid analysis, it always makes me suspicious when someone(not referring to you) plays the "socialization" card in this kind of scenario. It seems to deny the possibility of group choice, of women as a group being able to break the cycle. Every instance of liberation in history involves not only a "top-down" program that seeks to break the behaviour f oppressors, but also a "bottom-up" swell of resistance from the oppressed. I can't help but imagine what would ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment