(Best viewed in Internet Explorer)
The capital of women
John Tierney has proved me with a quote to start a new post with:
"[...]Polygamy isn’t the cause of women’s low status in traditional societies, but rather a consequence of their trying to move up. The biggest losers from polygamy are the poorer men who end up with no wives. Women benefit because polygamy increases their number of marriage prospects — and in traditional societies, marriage is often the only way for a woman to improve her status."
This is so totally wrong for so many reasons. This guy assumes that given a chance to improve your economic/social status, that most women would want to marry a guy with lots of wives.
Movin' on up...
Well, I'm sure he'd have trouble imagining this if there were one woman with many husbands and picturing himself marrying in to that family for economic/social reasons. He couldn't imagine it because from the day he was born he's been a member of the sex that has more power.
His quote is nonsensical on many levels - if women didn't have low status, why would they go to the extreme practice of polygamy? Moving up implies starting at a low position.
But really, this goes deeper into beliefs in our society. Women as a second class to men is so present in our world that its representation is everywhere: Women - bitches, hoes, sluts, etc. Men - dawgs, players, etc. Sexual prowess based on having sex with many people is socially acceptable with men, and not with women. Primarily, the majority of prostitutes in our country are women, and when men take up prostitution they typically end up serving men. Pornography represents women as the object. But so does advertisements... by far, women are protrayed as sex objects more often in commercials and magazines more often than men... and if they are protrayed sexually, it is often from a position of power.
These aren't new concepts, but I think it is interesting to think about how women are still viewed as capital in our society today. Not only from men, but between women as well (or especially from women as well). Competition between women often amazes me... when men compete, it is often from meritocratic. Sports are important in this, but there are other forms that generally focus on easily measurable outcomes. Women's competition with women tends to focus on things that are more capitalistic in nature. Appearance, make-up, clothes, breast-size, etc... The majority of guys that I know could give a shit about the kind of shoes a woman wears, but women notice.
There are fundamental questions that need to truly be addressed in our society: Where does the value of women come from? How do women increase their value? And how should they increase their value?
"[...]Polygamy isn’t the cause of women’s low status in traditional societies, but rather a consequence of their trying to move up. The biggest losers from polygamy are the poorer men who end up with no wives. Women benefit because polygamy increases their number of marriage prospects — and in traditional societies, marriage is often the only way for a woman to improve her status."
This is so totally wrong for so many reasons. This guy assumes that given a chance to improve your economic/social status, that most women would want to marry a guy with lots of wives.
Movin' on up...
Well, I'm sure he'd have trouble imagining this if there were one woman with many husbands and picturing himself marrying in to that family for economic/social reasons. He couldn't imagine it because from the day he was born he's been a member of the sex that has more power.
His quote is nonsensical on many levels - if women didn't have low status, why would they go to the extreme practice of polygamy? Moving up implies starting at a low position.
But really, this goes deeper into beliefs in our society. Women as a second class to men is so present in our world that its representation is everywhere: Women - bitches, hoes, sluts, etc. Men - dawgs, players, etc. Sexual prowess based on having sex with many people is socially acceptable with men, and not with women. Primarily, the majority of prostitutes in our country are women, and when men take up prostitution they typically end up serving men. Pornography represents women as the object. But so does advertisements... by far, women are protrayed as sex objects more often in commercials and magazines more often than men... and if they are protrayed sexually, it is often from a position of power.
These aren't new concepts, but I think it is interesting to think about how women are still viewed as capital in our society today. Not only from men, but between women as well (or especially from women as well). Competition between women often amazes me... when men compete, it is often from meritocratic. Sports are important in this, but there are other forms that generally focus on easily measurable outcomes. Women's competition with women tends to focus on things that are more capitalistic in nature. Appearance, make-up, clothes, breast-size, etc... The majority of guys that I know could give a shit about the kind of shoes a woman wears, but women notice.
There are fundamental questions that need to truly be addressed in our society: Where does the value of women come from? How do women increase their value? And how should they increase their value?
posted by Will at 8:34 AM
2 Comments:
I'm not convinced that the differences between male and female sexuality you mention serve as evidence that women are still subordinate to men in the United States. If you're not too firmly entrenched in the Blank Slate doctrine of twentieth-century social science, it makes sense that the male and female of the species would have evolved different behavior patterns and preferences to maximize reproductive fitness. In our ancestral environment, a man sharing a wife with one or more other men could never be sure which of her children, if any, were biologically his. In this domestic arrangement, he would likely waste his resources supporting children that don't carry his genes. (Please understand the context of my use of the loaded word "waste." I'm not making a moral judgment on the behavior; it's wasteful strictly according to the logic of evolution.) A woman, on the other hand, has no doubt who the mother of her children is, so she may sometimes be willing to share a man with one or more other women—if she can get a decent share of his resources to help raise her offspring.
As a feminist, you will face a dilemma if you don't give evolutionary psychology its due. According to Tierney, a woman in a polygynous marriage has told the National Organization for Women that polygamy is "the ultimate feminist lifestyle" because it "offers an independent woman a real chance to have it all." In expressing disagreement with her, be careful not to imply that she's been brainwashed by the patriarchy into accepting a domestic arrangement that a man almost never would. This insults women by essentially calling them gullible.
#1: I didn't say women are subordinate to men. I say that they have lower status than men do.
#2: "Maximize reproductive fitness"? I always thought human interactions were more complicated than that.
#3: I'm not implying brainwashing at all. I'm directly saying that women start out at a lower status, because of this options that aren't appealing to men will be appealing to women. The reason polygamy is sensical to many is the nature of the difference between the social status of women and men.
Post a Comment
<< Home