How do I deal with the Patriarchy? I resist when I can - I speak out - I point to obvious abuses. Your theoretical way of framing the situation for women makes sense, but it is too theoretical. As I’ve said, focusing on the gender binary misses all sorts of other ways of living in the world. And the lived experience of women is missing from the theory - we do have subjectivity, and we come in multitudes. We aren’t just objects, or I don’t see myself that way. The young women showing lots of skin may just be glorying in their bodies, enjoying the gaze of everyone, not just males. There is pleasure in being connected or attuned to others; it’s not just calculated, unconscious or a ritual. It’s a way of being - and being, sense of self, ideas about why we do what we do - all very hard to capture in social science research. Probably the reason I enjoy reporting and writing is that it allows me to observe human behavior without reducing it to quantitative categories. That is one reason I’m troubled by the use of generative AI for self-expression.
Well … of course you are right about the male gaze and its impact on women. I call this the Patriarchy. But having fought this battle as a second-wave feminist for eons, I have to emphasize that women have subjectivity, too, and do make choices about how much to care or bother with what men think. I also think that getting beyond the gender binary takes this discussion (as it would for talking about the Tannen book) to a more nuanced, contemporary look at how gender affects the way we present ourselves. Everyone is performing, in Goffman’s terms, not just women. I think many cis-straight men are more aware than they were of the stereotypes they embody online, and LGBT+ people have long known this - as does anyone who didn’t grow up white in America (or northern Europe).
All of which is to say that selling ourselves as “merchandise” is not just a female thing. I like this discussion, but it’s not quite provocative enough for me 😉
So how do females deal with "the Patriarchy"? My notion is that it is as strong as ever, but only hidden under wraps of unconsciousness. The most awakened men, are only awakened so long is the hierarchy is intact. The divorce rate may be 32%.
You might not worry about what men think of how you dress, but the fashion industry does, and presents you with those choices. (Maybe they are wide enough?) Everyone is performing. I have always performed as neutral as possible, I choose to be unmarked. Others try to be as provocative as possible (a little less before being arrested).
I have the occasion now and again to be in a tourist location. You can see with ease who comes from where, for the greater part. (My sample size is only tourists.) I would say European girls, (really maybe 98%) from 14 to 34 or 40 are most comfortable with the maximum amount of skin exposed to the air. Just sit in a coffee shop on a busy central city corner for an hour. They parade by, (going where)? Some are with a guy, some are in a group of girls. They may be marked with tattoos and piercing's, or not, the guy is usually marked also.
First they have the smallest pair of shorts possible, and flip-flops (barefoot). So all legs and feet are out. Their tops are sleeveless, large arm holes, and very low neck and back. That's just about everything. Then the top belongs to their little sister, in that it can't go down to the shorts. This is what they love.
I am a human being (although male), and I am intensely uncomfortable if my shirt rides up on my stomach. In this climate I always wear a long sleeve shirt and most often long pants. I am not looking to cook my forearms or legs in the sun.
So what is the point with these females? Nobody is taking care of them either, in that from the back something might be riding up or hanging out unintended. Is this stylish? Many of them are not that shapely. Are they impressing someone, their girlfriends? Is the guy that is with them proud of his trophy? Generally he is dressed as the slob, unkempt hair and unshaven, (I wouldn't even dignify as a beard), and could care less. Is human trafficking just the nature of western girls, even if there are no buyers? Getting ready for when there is one.
Asian girls have the shorts, but they are careful with the sun, and even have a floppy hat.
THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST HALF OF THE ARTICLE.
The 2nd half, and I would have wanted to make it much more provocative, Is that females have been under the male thumb for millennia. How can they carve out a life, while pretending to conform to this rigorous tutelage?
Males set the household (society's) rules, and that is with all his straightforward logic. The female has claimed a chaotic nature, which is now called her creativity. But it is only the struggle to find wiggle room, going left and right, up and down, searching for an open space. All women's tendencies come from eons confined in this enclosure. This is also the origin of females speaking styles.
I think you have to say this, in order not to be supporting it. Men are not going to free you. They continue to lie to themselves, and they truly believe it. You've been sucked into the same story for some convenience or other.
The phrase in the article is: "To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social-presence of women, has developed as a result of THEIR INGENUITY in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
I ask, is that true? Then what is that ingenuity? How does it work?
The second is along the lines of your second part of the essay on female nudes. As Joseph Campbell wrote about the character of the feminine in the book Goddesses - Mysteries of the Feminine Divine:
“The thing to note is that all these female figurines are simply naked, whereas the male figures in all the caves are represented in some kind of garment, dressed as shamans. The implication is that in embodying the divine, the female operates in her own character, simply in her nature, while the male magic functions not from the nature of the men’s bodies but from the nature of their roles in the society.
This brings out a very important point for the whole history of the female in mythology: She represents the nature principle. We are born from her physicaly. The male, on the other hand represents the social principle and social roles.”
This last one is a super complex topic because everyone appreciates the beauty of a female body, comfortable in her natural role but many aren't comfortable with the naked male. We want to see them in their garments of society...
I have to agree with the main premise - there are no unmarked women. It's the damndest thing. Everyone notices women - even other women. Your insight about woman being continually accompanied by her own image of herself is quite brilliant actually; you've managed to articulate things I've always known as a woman, but never put into words.
You're also spot on about the world treating a woman the way that she would treat herself. My parents desperately tried to teach me that growing up, but I insisted on learning that lesson the hard way.
Even though male dominance is more pronounced in Eastern cultures, the West still desperately tries to smooth over it, but I think it's hard-wired, and so it should be.
My husband and I got into watching NYPD Blue - neither of us had ever seen it, and I remember the puzzled looks on hubby's face when Andy Sipowicz seemed to attract very - out of his league appearance wise - women. I told him, of course he gets the girl! It's because he's the Alpha.
As for European nude paintings, my theory is that they were the Playboy magazines of the day. They were painted by men, for men, so they can enjoy the view without repercussions, and - because sex sells - so the paintings would sell. I like the connection you made between the blank expression of the nude to the adverts of today's magazines. This brings us full circle to the appearance of today's models and how modern women try so hard to emulate them.
I can understand how you would see the objectification of women as a sign of inequality, but we've come a long way from the days of Renaissance. Women are now considered equal in every respect, maybe too much. The pendulum has swung violently in the other direction, and now we have women assuming leadership positions in just about every scenario.
If you ask me, I'll tell you there are many positions right now occupied by women that women have no business occupying, but that would make my post much much longer. I sometimes consider with nostalgia the time when it was just fine for a woman to be a homemaker, and be there for her husband and kids.
I remember one day, yelling in frustration at my mother, "Why do men have all the power?!" To which my mom calmly answered, "Women have a different power - a power men cannot have." And we've given it away - and now we are punished by a world populated with too many boys who don't have good role models to show them how to be leaders, providors and protectors - but I digress.
To answer your questions - imo -
Being pretty enough to be painted (or given an opportunity she otherwise wouldn't have), is a blessing. And like all divine gifts, I think it's ok, so long as it is used within moral boundaries. It was Adam that blamed Eve for sinning, but God punished both according to their respective roles.
I personally love Renaissance nude paintings, because they glorify the female body, and don't demean it. So no, not a piece of merchandise, but definitely fine art.
I went to college, got my engineering degree. A noble pursuit, for sure. But my most important job was at home - hard-wired. I know it now.
Hello Chantal, and thank you for your thoughts on this topic.
I don't KNOW these things that I wrote, so I want to throw them out there, to see the response. Actually I see it as basic to the man / women relations in western society. We are working around that fundamental bias. I don't know about other societies, so I am not comparing anything.
Actually I wrote this post a couple of months ago. I sat on it because I don't think my site is ready to receive it. Really, there should be 100's of comments IMO.
I said above:
"To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social presence of women, has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
Women develop a presence AS A RESULT OF THEIR INGENUITY! under such tutelage.
Both Eastern and Western, males are hierarchical. You say "smooth it over", but then "it is as it should be"?
You mention Alpha gets the girl, (or is it through ingenuity, that the girl gets the alpha???) To which your mom calmly answered, "Women have a different kind of power - a power men cannot have." And we've given it away - (Let's talk about that.)
You mention women assume leadership positions. The latest two posts on my site are about speaking styles, and how they often differ between men and women. I would also say built-in to society, due in part to renaissance painting. They are from Deborah Tannen, a long time researcher. She has interviewed scores of women in leadership positions; and also their colleagues that are being led by these women. I would love to hear your reaction to that.
One thing was clear in the material about nude painting. You say "glorify the female body", but for who? Every painting has an implied observer, (perhaps more important than the subject), and the end point of that observation was some lewd fantasy. Perhaps there should be a caution label on every renaissance painting, observe with care, not to fall into your fancies?
How do I deal with the Patriarchy? I resist when I can - I speak out - I point to obvious abuses. Your theoretical way of framing the situation for women makes sense, but it is too theoretical. As I’ve said, focusing on the gender binary misses all sorts of other ways of living in the world. And the lived experience of women is missing from the theory - we do have subjectivity, and we come in multitudes. We aren’t just objects, or I don’t see myself that way. The young women showing lots of skin may just be glorying in their bodies, enjoying the gaze of everyone, not just males. There is pleasure in being connected or attuned to others; it’s not just calculated, unconscious or a ritual. It’s a way of being - and being, sense of self, ideas about why we do what we do - all very hard to capture in social science research. Probably the reason I enjoy reporting and writing is that it allows me to observe human behavior without reducing it to quantitative categories. That is one reason I’m troubled by the use of generative AI for self-expression.
Well … of course you are right about the male gaze and its impact on women. I call this the Patriarchy. But having fought this battle as a second-wave feminist for eons, I have to emphasize that women have subjectivity, too, and do make choices about how much to care or bother with what men think. I also think that getting beyond the gender binary takes this discussion (as it would for talking about the Tannen book) to a more nuanced, contemporary look at how gender affects the way we present ourselves. Everyone is performing, in Goffman’s terms, not just women. I think many cis-straight men are more aware than they were of the stereotypes they embody online, and LGBT+ people have long known this - as does anyone who didn’t grow up white in America (or northern Europe).
All of which is to say that selling ourselves as “merchandise” is not just a female thing. I like this discussion, but it’s not quite provocative enough for me 😉
So how do females deal with "the Patriarchy"? My notion is that it is as strong as ever, but only hidden under wraps of unconsciousness. The most awakened men, are only awakened so long is the hierarchy is intact. The divorce rate may be 32%.
You might not worry about what men think of how you dress, but the fashion industry does, and presents you with those choices. (Maybe they are wide enough?) Everyone is performing. I have always performed as neutral as possible, I choose to be unmarked. Others try to be as provocative as possible (a little less before being arrested).
I have the occasion now and again to be in a tourist location. You can see with ease who comes from where, for the greater part. (My sample size is only tourists.) I would say European girls, (really maybe 98%) from 14 to 34 or 40 are most comfortable with the maximum amount of skin exposed to the air. Just sit in a coffee shop on a busy central city corner for an hour. They parade by, (going where)? Some are with a guy, some are in a group of girls. They may be marked with tattoos and piercing's, or not, the guy is usually marked also.
First they have the smallest pair of shorts possible, and flip-flops (barefoot). So all legs and feet are out. Their tops are sleeveless, large arm holes, and very low neck and back. That's just about everything. Then the top belongs to their little sister, in that it can't go down to the shorts. This is what they love.
I am a human being (although male), and I am intensely uncomfortable if my shirt rides up on my stomach. In this climate I always wear a long sleeve shirt and most often long pants. I am not looking to cook my forearms or legs in the sun.
So what is the point with these females? Nobody is taking care of them either, in that from the back something might be riding up or hanging out unintended. Is this stylish? Many of them are not that shapely. Are they impressing someone, their girlfriends? Is the guy that is with them proud of his trophy? Generally he is dressed as the slob, unkempt hair and unshaven, (I wouldn't even dignify as a beard), and could care less. Is human trafficking just the nature of western girls, even if there are no buyers? Getting ready for when there is one.
Asian girls have the shorts, but they are careful with the sun, and even have a floppy hat.
THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST HALF OF THE ARTICLE.
The 2nd half, and I would have wanted to make it much more provocative, Is that females have been under the male thumb for millennia. How can they carve out a life, while pretending to conform to this rigorous tutelage?
Males set the household (society's) rules, and that is with all his straightforward logic. The female has claimed a chaotic nature, which is now called her creativity. But it is only the struggle to find wiggle room, going left and right, up and down, searching for an open space. All women's tendencies come from eons confined in this enclosure. This is also the origin of females speaking styles.
I think you have to say this, in order not to be supporting it. Men are not going to free you. They continue to lie to themselves, and they truly believe it. You've been sucked into the same story for some convenience or other.
The phrase in the article is: "To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social-presence of women, has developed as a result of THEIR INGENUITY in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
I ask, is that true? Then what is that ingenuity? How does it work?
.
Now this is a deep conversation to dive into and you've done a great job.
I tried to do what you did in two treatments where the first I address that what we wear communicates and try to tease out what 'looking good' means!
"Looking Good: Adjective - The presence in a group from which you present as one of the select and few most eligible or most desirable."
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/clothing-and-sex
The second is along the lines of your second part of the essay on female nudes. As Joseph Campbell wrote about the character of the feminine in the book Goddesses - Mysteries of the Feminine Divine:
“The thing to note is that all these female figurines are simply naked, whereas the male figures in all the caves are represented in some kind of garment, dressed as shamans. The implication is that in embodying the divine, the female operates in her own character, simply in her nature, while the male magic functions not from the nature of the men’s bodies but from the nature of their roles in the society.
This brings out a very important point for the whole history of the female in mythology: She represents the nature principle. We are born from her physicaly. The male, on the other hand represents the social principle and social roles.”
This last one is a super complex topic because everyone appreciates the beauty of a female body, comfortable in her natural role but many aren't comfortable with the naked male. We want to see them in their garments of society...
So much complexity!
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/rediscovering-the-goddess
I have to agree with the main premise - there are no unmarked women. It's the damndest thing. Everyone notices women - even other women. Your insight about woman being continually accompanied by her own image of herself is quite brilliant actually; you've managed to articulate things I've always known as a woman, but never put into words.
You're also spot on about the world treating a woman the way that she would treat herself. My parents desperately tried to teach me that growing up, but I insisted on learning that lesson the hard way.
Even though male dominance is more pronounced in Eastern cultures, the West still desperately tries to smooth over it, but I think it's hard-wired, and so it should be.
My husband and I got into watching NYPD Blue - neither of us had ever seen it, and I remember the puzzled looks on hubby's face when Andy Sipowicz seemed to attract very - out of his league appearance wise - women. I told him, of course he gets the girl! It's because he's the Alpha.
As for European nude paintings, my theory is that they were the Playboy magazines of the day. They were painted by men, for men, so they can enjoy the view without repercussions, and - because sex sells - so the paintings would sell. I like the connection you made between the blank expression of the nude to the adverts of today's magazines. This brings us full circle to the appearance of today's models and how modern women try so hard to emulate them.
I can understand how you would see the objectification of women as a sign of inequality, but we've come a long way from the days of Renaissance. Women are now considered equal in every respect, maybe too much. The pendulum has swung violently in the other direction, and now we have women assuming leadership positions in just about every scenario.
If you ask me, I'll tell you there are many positions right now occupied by women that women have no business occupying, but that would make my post much much longer. I sometimes consider with nostalgia the time when it was just fine for a woman to be a homemaker, and be there for her husband and kids.
I remember one day, yelling in frustration at my mother, "Why do men have all the power?!" To which my mom calmly answered, "Women have a different power - a power men cannot have." And we've given it away - and now we are punished by a world populated with too many boys who don't have good role models to show them how to be leaders, providors and protectors - but I digress.
To answer your questions - imo -
Being pretty enough to be painted (or given an opportunity she otherwise wouldn't have), is a blessing. And like all divine gifts, I think it's ok, so long as it is used within moral boundaries. It was Adam that blamed Eve for sinning, but God punished both according to their respective roles.
I personally love Renaissance nude paintings, because they glorify the female body, and don't demean it. So no, not a piece of merchandise, but definitely fine art.
I went to college, got my engineering degree. A noble pursuit, for sure. But my most important job was at home - hard-wired. I know it now.
Thank you for reading.
Hello Chantal, and thank you for your thoughts on this topic.
I don't KNOW these things that I wrote, so I want to throw them out there, to see the response. Actually I see it as basic to the man / women relations in western society. We are working around that fundamental bias. I don't know about other societies, so I am not comparing anything.
Actually I wrote this post a couple of months ago. I sat on it because I don't think my site is ready to receive it. Really, there should be 100's of comments IMO.
I said above:
"To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social presence of women, has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
Women develop a presence AS A RESULT OF THEIR INGENUITY! under such tutelage.
Both Eastern and Western, males are hierarchical. You say "smooth it over", but then "it is as it should be"?
You mention Alpha gets the girl, (or is it through ingenuity, that the girl gets the alpha???) To which your mom calmly answered, "Women have a different kind of power - a power men cannot have." And we've given it away - (Let's talk about that.)
You mention women assume leadership positions. The latest two posts on my site are about speaking styles, and how they often differ between men and women. I would also say built-in to society, due in part to renaissance painting. They are from Deborah Tannen, a long time researcher. She has interviewed scores of women in leadership positions; and also their colleagues that are being led by these women. I would love to hear your reaction to that.
One thing was clear in the material about nude painting. You say "glorify the female body", but for who? Every painting has an implied observer, (perhaps more important than the subject), and the end point of that observation was some lewd fantasy. Perhaps there should be a caution label on every renaissance painting, observe with care, not to fall into your fancies?
.