Sunday, July 18, 2010
Sex and violence
Yesterday I realized I was feeling irritated, frustrated, angry, tense. Then I realized that I was horny. Sex felt like the perfect way to express and to calm my anger. So my question: did my horniness manifest as the anger or did my anger manifest as the horniness? Or am I trying to put words onto something which is both at the same time?
The three archetypal roles of the male, originating in the hunter-gatherer world where our species was formed and spent the vast majority of its time: fathering children, fighting for the group and against its enemies, and feeding them protein thru hunting. Distill these down and you have sex and violence. That's what little boys are made of. And made for.
Jack Donovan recently wrote a very restrained, rational and civilized piece defending the preference for men in certain roles from charges of "misogyny". I was led to think of the larger gender wars going on in Western culture, where masculinity has been pathologized. Precisely because of issues around sex and violence. Wouldn't the world be a better place if women were in charge?
Well, sister, let me put it to you this way. Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone were a Quaker? Better? Not at all sure. More peaceful? Sure. Possible? See below.
But as it is with Quakers, so with women and feminized men: you can only survive in a world where either a) non-Quakers and non-females protect you from the great number of non-Quakers and non-females or b) everyone must become a Quaker or a female.
The likelihood that the whole world will become a Femdom paradise is pretty slim. Consequently, there will always be lots and lots of male-driven societies out there and unless you have home-grown males to protect you against them, you will become their vassals. Feminism can only occur in societies where the men allow it. So women, and especially feminists, have a crucial stake in making sure that society produces sufficient numbers of actual men. Who else can protect them and their privileges?
Part of the reason I get so incensed when I see thinks like arch-cunt* Maureen Dowd profiting from a book called "Are Men Necessary?" is that it is so deeply dishonest. She and her kind could not exist for ten minutes without relying on the works and ideas and sweat and lives of vast numbers of the men she has such disdain for. Contemptuous privileged women like her provoke misogyny in me.
*This is a word I once found so objectionable that I could hardly even speak it at all. Up there with the N-word. Shows you what my feelings are for Modo and her kind that now I will put it in print.
at 11:46 AM