*OF COURSE* I mean "the right to choose to enslave women"; this thread started with a note that "why are so many men so awful?"
And the answer is (they think) they are better off by being awful. And they are quite probably right, for them, in this time, so they act to protect their right and their ability to be awful, because that is what makes them better off. And their analysis, for them, isn't wrong. It works; it gets them what they want.
The necessary thing, if you want a society that agrees with the proposition that women are people, is for being awful *not* to make those men better off. This has clearly not presently been achieved. I don't know how to do it; it's a really tough problem.
And the whole "general benefits of educated women" thing, while certainly systemically true -- there used to be serious worry about the eventual shortage of doctors -- has to balance against "it's harder to get a job" (which it is, for what used to be the unquestionably privileged group), "it's harder to get married and have kids" (which it is, just because fewer women chose to get married when they don't *have* to get married), and the whole perceived diminished economic attractiveness problem. *Of course* a huge slice of the male population is against equality for women, because it really is making them worse off in terms of the things they care most about. And this really does come out in their behavior.
I don't think they're right, I don't think the desire to maintain alpha-male primate band status type status makes sense in a global urban culture, but I also think "they're just assholes" is a bad explanation. I also think the idea that all these people will eventually be for women-are-people without a certain amount of cultural extinction having to take place is beyond optimistic.
(Legally, right now, we have strict female choice. We should have strict female choice; you get involved with who you want to get involved with. Socially, we have not left the Victorian/Edwardian men-have-all-the-responsibility, and the social cues from that period -- buy flowers, say -- still work to communicate attraction. The interaction is unstable.)
no subject
*OF COURSE* I mean "the right to choose to enslave women"; this thread started with a note that "why are so many men so awful?"
And the answer is (they think) they are better off by being awful. And they are quite probably right, for them, in this time, so they act to protect their right and their ability to be awful, because that is what makes them better off. And their analysis, for them, isn't wrong. It works; it gets them what they want.
The necessary thing, if you want a society that agrees with the proposition that women are people, is for being awful *not* to make those men better off. This has clearly not presently been achieved. I don't know how to do it; it's a really tough problem.
And the whole "general benefits of educated women" thing, while certainly systemically true -- there used to be serious worry about the eventual shortage of doctors -- has to balance against "it's harder to get a job" (which it is, for what used to be the unquestionably privileged group), "it's harder to get married and have kids" (which it is, just because fewer women chose to get married when they don't *have* to get married), and the whole perceived diminished economic attractiveness problem. *Of course* a huge slice of the male population is against equality for women, because it really is making them worse off in terms of the things they care most about. And this really does come out in their behavior.
I don't think they're right, I don't think the desire to maintain alpha-male primate band status type status makes sense in a global urban culture, but I also think "they're just assholes" is a bad explanation. I also think the idea that all these people will eventually be for women-are-people without a certain amount of cultural extinction having to take place is beyond optimistic.
(Legally, right now, we have strict female choice. We should have strict female choice; you get involved with who you want to get involved with. Socially, we have not left the Victorian/Edwardian men-have-all-the-responsibility, and the social cues from that period -- buy flowers, say -- still work to communicate attraction. The interaction is unstable.)