According to Stroller Derby blog http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/09/22/should-dads-kiss-their-daughters-on-the-lips/ "An anonymous woman, who signed her letter “Want My Husband’s Lips for Myself,” finds her husband’s habit of kissing his 5-year-old daughter on the mouth to be “a sexual gesture and very inappropriate.”"
The writer's opinion derives from the belief that man are unable to control their sexual desires. We used to say that women were bringing it on themselves when they were raped because everybody knows that men can't control themselves. Second wave feminism, meanwhile, has rightly convinced that blaming the woman for their sexual assaults is wrong, but we haven't internalized the necessary corrolary that men are fully and completely in control of their sexual urges.
Masculinity makes men out to be animals, incapable of true relationships with women because they become sex machines the second they get a peck on the lips. I say, kiss your daughters, kiss your sons, kiss your friends. Liberate your lips! Let's have a national kiss your loved ones day and continue our liberation from masculinity.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Institutionalizing Women's Work
Parenting has long been the province of mothers, and so the expertise in parenting has been developed over the course of millennia by women. This has led many to claim that the women's work of parenting was intuition based, and discredited as not knowledge based. However, much of what these women developed was valuable. Many children were raised successfully, healthfully and literate despite great odds. The best of the parenting technology developed by these women was often discovered by the wealthy (the oppressors) and used with their own children.
Powerful kings and wealthy lords deliberately sought out lower class women to raise their children, and often supplemented the technologies of these women with educators from Aristotle to Galileo. Eventually, America got into the act by forcing black women to raise the children of wealthy white slave owners, a trend that continues with chains of indebtedness and advertising driven desire instead of iron to this day.
During all of these millennia, women's work was used by the oppressor against the oppressed, even though the technology was developed almost exclusively by the oppressed. This is par for the course with human history. Education was used in exactly the same way until it was institutionalized to create equality by offering public schools and then by (attempting to) desegregate them in the 1950's. All technology is harmful until it comes into the hands of the people and becomes a tool for equality.
Starting in the 1950's, cognitive science started to make the women's work of parenting available to the people. It turns out that a lot of things that women have been doing for millennia were right, and a lot of other parenting techniques were harmful.
The Harlem Children's Zone has had an immense amount of success sharing this traditionally women's technology with people who never had access to it. The base of the Harlem Children's Zone is parenting classes. In this way, they began to institutionalize women's work and value it society wide, and as a result of giving it value we are creating equality. The Harlem Children's Zone has gone from having schools that were desperately below average, to average and above in only a little less than a decade, not by changing how children are educated, but by giving children's parents access to the best parenting technology. This technology was pioneered, hypothesized, and tested by women exclusively, and now it is being valued by society at large. More importantly, it is being valued as a skill by men, who are coming to realize that women's work may not be "intuitive" and therefore exclusive to women, and may therefore be accessible to everybody, the same way that office work and leadership roles are not exclusive to men.
This institutionalizing of technology is what made America great. Universal access to neccesities such as public education and governmental decision making create freedom precisely because they create equality, not in form but in fact. And it is this idea that continues throughout Europe, but has come to wither on the vine in the hands of people who proclaim themselve patriots while actively attacking the very thing that makes the country histroically notable. I suppose if I were busy attacking everything that was good about my country, I also would want to shout louder than anyone else in the room "God bless America!!!" because, like an abusive husband, I wouldn't want the country to wake up and realize that I was not contributing.
Powerful kings and wealthy lords deliberately sought out lower class women to raise their children, and often supplemented the technologies of these women with educators from Aristotle to Galileo. Eventually, America got into the act by forcing black women to raise the children of wealthy white slave owners, a trend that continues with chains of indebtedness and advertising driven desire instead of iron to this day.
During all of these millennia, women's work was used by the oppressor against the oppressed, even though the technology was developed almost exclusively by the oppressed. This is par for the course with human history. Education was used in exactly the same way until it was institutionalized to create equality by offering public schools and then by (attempting to) desegregate them in the 1950's. All technology is harmful until it comes into the hands of the people and becomes a tool for equality.
Starting in the 1950's, cognitive science started to make the women's work of parenting available to the people. It turns out that a lot of things that women have been doing for millennia were right, and a lot of other parenting techniques were harmful.
The Harlem Children's Zone has had an immense amount of success sharing this traditionally women's technology with people who never had access to it. The base of the Harlem Children's Zone is parenting classes. In this way, they began to institutionalize women's work and value it society wide, and as a result of giving it value we are creating equality. The Harlem Children's Zone has gone from having schools that were desperately below average, to average and above in only a little less than a decade, not by changing how children are educated, but by giving children's parents access to the best parenting technology. This technology was pioneered, hypothesized, and tested by women exclusively, and now it is being valued by society at large. More importantly, it is being valued as a skill by men, who are coming to realize that women's work may not be "intuitive" and therefore exclusive to women, and may therefore be accessible to everybody, the same way that office work and leadership roles are not exclusive to men.
This institutionalizing of technology is what made America great. Universal access to neccesities such as public education and governmental decision making create freedom precisely because they create equality, not in form but in fact. And it is this idea that continues throughout Europe, but has come to wither on the vine in the hands of people who proclaim themselve patriots while actively attacking the very thing that makes the country histroically notable. I suppose if I were busy attacking everything that was good about my country, I also would want to shout louder than anyone else in the room "God bless America!!!" because, like an abusive husband, I wouldn't want the country to wake up and realize that I was not contributing.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Encouraging Risk Taking
We've all seen the stereotype of the father figure who watches his children playing out in the road while sipping a beer and leaning over to another man saying, "teaches 'em to watch out for traffic." This stereotype plays in to the traditional fatherly role as mostly a passive observer until it is time to protect the child physically from outside threats. While both the passive encouragement of risky behavior, and the physical protectiveness seem like opposites, what links the two roles is that they are both seen as not nurturing. In the last posting, I pointed out how protectiveness actually can be nurturing, so far as it enables our children to take risks. Here, I'd like to point out that encouraging risk taking is also nurturing. However, like protectiveness, if it is taken too far it can become harmful, even becoming neglectful. It is truly sad when a father does not participate in the child rearing to the extent that his children take unnecessary risks without his knowledge. On top of being harmful for the children, it also denies those men the most significant and enjoyable task of life, i.e. child rearing.
Men and boys take more risks when testing and in business. This risk taking has helped men ask for raises more often than women, and helped boys take more educated guesses on the SATs and ACTs than girls which results in higher scores, even though boys have worse grades on average than girls. Being able to take a risk is probably the thing that men are most able to turn to their advantage over and over again. If men are dominant in our society, one of the reasons is that they are far more willing to take risks. Particularly with girls, but also with boys, men in our society are in a better position to encourage safe but meaningful risks on a daily basis, from the playground to socializing. This talent is extremely important to the traditional women's work of parenting. We should not take seriously the stereotype of the bad father watching closely while his children to play with fireworks while Mom stands disapprovingly in the background. We should laugh at that stereotype because we know that those kids will score higher on the SATs than their peers, apply to more prestigious schools, seek more salary raises, and maybe even allow their children to take more risks than the children of the inactive father next door.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Protectiveness
Men often use their urge to protect those around them as a tool for controlling those persons. We tell our loved ones that they cannot do dangerous things and deny our loved ones the ability to make their own mistakes and get hurt. We have to realize that our children have to be able to fail and get hurt or they will never become adults. However, there are times when all parents need to stand up and be a straight up papa or mama bear. Through questionable methods, men are given the tools at a young age to be forcefully protective and keep our children from harm. By harnessing this talent effectively, and channeling to healthy protectiveness, men can use it to make our children feel safe enough that they are willing to try, fail, get hurt, and then try again.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Men's Gift for Parenting (and Other Feminine Things)
Just as we have come to acknowledge the gifts that women bring to the work place, we too should acknowledge the gifts that men bring back home. While we have this discussion, we must be careful not to accept women's or men's talents as inherent. We do not know how much of these traits are inherent and how much of these traits are learned because the overwhelming societal pressures put on us from infancy through until the day that we die. However, by acknowledging gender traits (be they nature, nurture or more likely a combination of both), we can have a discussion about which gender traits are a benefit for care giving and housekeeping. After all, the most important thing we will ever do in our lives is raise a child, and housekeeping is a part of all of our lives.
Since I became a father, I have noticed that some traits that I have associated with masculinity have helped me be a better caregiver. While, traditional masculinity often keeps men alienated from their role as a father, by examining masculinity and masculinization, I have been able to break from the harmful parts of masculinity, while attempting to keep those parts of masculinity that are helpful to care giving. The next few blogs will include discussions of some of those traits that are traditionally associated with masculinity, how they can help dads become better dads, and how they can hurt dads deeply by alienating them from their children if they go unexamined.
Since I became a father, I have noticed that some traits that I have associated with masculinity have helped me be a better caregiver. While, traditional masculinity often keeps men alienated from their role as a father, by examining masculinity and masculinization, I have been able to break from the harmful parts of masculinity, while attempting to keep those parts of masculinity that are helpful to care giving. The next few blogs will include discussions of some of those traits that are traditionally associated with masculinity, how they can help dads become better dads, and how they can hurt dads deeply by alienating them from their children if they go unexamined.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Who is We The People?
Lately, I have been trying not to let this blog become party political. However, I will comment here on a Tee-Shirt that I witnessed several Tea Party Members wearing because it is the kind of thing that might go unnoticed if you didn't think particularly on the gender and race implications, and that is what this blog is for.
The shirt said, "I Am, We the People." This is one of two possible kinds of claims. It could be an historical claim. As such, it is accurate, but not exactly surprising. Clearly our founders meant older wealthy white males. According to a New York Times poll recently taken, the Tea Party is mostly exactly that. Note that if this were a woman of color making the claim that she was "we the people," it could also be seen as historical, but as recognition of how far the U.S. has come since 1982.
The shirt could also be a political statement. This is more likely what the wearers meant, because it is a more assertive and less obvious meaning. However, it has an equally racist and sexist meaning. The wearer is saying "I am, we the people" as opposed to you or they whoever you or they are. This divisive statement seems to reflect the position of Glen Beck that those who disagree with him are socialist, which is a scary and strange foreign political philosophy and therefore unAmerican. This defines the tee shirt wearer as a real American in exactly the same way as the historical meaning does, by holding as a positive example a political system that deliberately excluded those who were foreign and strange, namely black Americans, and those who were drawn to philosophies that resembled modern socialism, namely the Mechanics and the Guilds of New England. Those people were deliberately excluded in 1782 because to include them would be to diminish the power of the rich white male almost completely, a fear clearly expressed by the tee-shirt wearers even today. The insidious racial and sex question that lies below the surface is "Who then is a real American." I think we know what the wearers answer would be.
The shirt said, "I Am, We the People." This is one of two possible kinds of claims. It could be an historical claim. As such, it is accurate, but not exactly surprising. Clearly our founders meant older wealthy white males. According to a New York Times poll recently taken, the Tea Party is mostly exactly that. Note that if this were a woman of color making the claim that she was "we the people," it could also be seen as historical, but as recognition of how far the U.S. has come since 1982.
The shirt could also be a political statement. This is more likely what the wearers meant, because it is a more assertive and less obvious meaning. However, it has an equally racist and sexist meaning. The wearer is saying "I am, we the people" as opposed to you or they whoever you or they are. This divisive statement seems to reflect the position of Glen Beck that those who disagree with him are socialist, which is a scary and strange foreign political philosophy and therefore unAmerican. This defines the tee shirt wearer as a real American in exactly the same way as the historical meaning does, by holding as a positive example a political system that deliberately excluded those who were foreign and strange, namely black Americans, and those who were drawn to philosophies that resembled modern socialism, namely the Mechanics and the Guilds of New England. Those people were deliberately excluded in 1782 because to include them would be to diminish the power of the rich white male almost completely, a fear clearly expressed by the tee-shirt wearers even today. The insidious racial and sex question that lies below the surface is "Who then is a real American." I think we know what the wearers answer would be.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Plague of Individualism
Sometimes, despite my better efforts, I somehow manage to explain some of this blog successfully to someone. Their answer usually is, "I just try to treat everyone like an individual." As though I were trying to treat people like 6 headed hydras or something. "I'm sorry..." they seem to be saying, "I can't tell whether you are a boy or a girl, and if I could, I would ignore it." Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but when I meet a man, I treat him differently than when I meet a woman. For one thing, I don't speak to men at the urinal. To be fair, I've never tried speaking to a woman at the urinal. Also, I don't look men in the eyes until I am introduced. If you women (or people who identify as women) out there don't beleive me, try walking through Harlem or South East DC dressed as a man and looking everybody you walk past in the eye. I promise you will be beat up, or worse. I make decisions about people before I even meet them. We all do, it's how we survive.
We can't see individuals. All we can see are balls of social shit that we call individualism. So just get used to it. You will never be color-blind, you will never be gender-blind, you will never be able to see the "individual," and you will never be able to float like a butterfly to the rainbow land above the clouds. Jews have been trying to get rid of the badges of slavery for 6000 years. How are we able to overcome race and gender in less than 40? Hint: we're not.
We can't see individuals. All we can see are balls of social shit that we call individualism. So just get used to it. You will never be color-blind, you will never be gender-blind, you will never be able to see the "individual," and you will never be able to float like a butterfly to the rainbow land above the clouds. Jews have been trying to get rid of the badges of slavery for 6000 years. How are we able to overcome race and gender in less than 40? Hint: we're not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)