Serious Question On The GD Gender Wars...

[WillyT]

Does misogyny come from heterosexual males who WANT women, but don't actually LIKE or RESPECT women???

Or is it something deeper than that?

:shrug:

[arcane1]

1. I've always assumed, generaly...

that it's due to men who want women, and hold that against them because they perceive it as a female power over men

then there are those who want women, but are pissed because they aren't wanted back :evilgrin:


:hi:

[WillyT]

2. Good Points !!!

I've always preferred the company of women. Per capita: less jerks than men!!!

:hi:

[salin]

17. Had a friend years ago

who fit your first description. I wouldn't call him mysoginist (he was the campaign director of a regional female candidate) - but exceptionally mistrustful of women. What struck me most was his obsession with the idea that when in relationships the woman always had more "power" over the man - and that the central power issue was sex. Seemed to think that all women used sex in this way (to get what they want). I tried to point out to him that perhaps either his judgement was skewed and as a result he behaved in ways that got that dynamic going... OR perhaps he just had really bad judgement in women.

He was a pretty decent guy as a friend -but not someone I would have ever dated. (Who needs someone reading all sorts of stuff that isn't there into every little interaction???)

[Wonk]

3. Not a definitive answer, but here's an interesting essay

by Barbara Ehrenreich

http://www.progressive.org/0901/ehr1201.html

(snip)

Perhaps--to venture a speculation--the answer lies in the ways that globalization has posed a particular threat to men. Western industry has displaced traditional crafts--female as well as male--and large-scale, multinational-controlled agriculture has downgraded the independent farmer to the status of hired hand. From West Africa to Southeast Asia, these trends have resulted in massive male displacement and, frequently, unemployment. At the same time, globalization has offered new opportunities for Third World women--in export-oriented manufacturing, where women are favored for their presumed "nimble fingers," and, more recently, as migrant domestics working in wealthy countries.

These are not, of course, opportunities for brilliant careers, but for extremely low-paid work under frequently abusive conditions. Still, the demand for female labor on the "global assembly line" and in the homes of the affluent has been enough to generate a kind of global gender revolution. While males have lost their traditional status as farmers and breadwinners, women have been entering the market economy and gaining the marginal independence conferred even by a paltry wage.

Add to the economic dislocations engendered by globalization the onslaught of Western cultural imagery, and you have the makings of what sociologist Arlie Hochschild has called a "global masculinity crisis." The man who can no longer make a living, who has to depend on his wife's earnings, can watch Hollywood sexpots on pirated videos and begin to think the world has been turned upside down. This is Stiffed--Susan Faludi's 1999 book on the decline of traditional manhood in America--gone global.

more...

[sandnsea]

14. Masculinity Crisis - not this post really, but interesting

I think what this post is referring to isn't really this, but more just a general misunderstanding of boundaries. Young men have been raised more to see women as equals and have started treating them like buddies instead of women. Male buddies say alot of things to each other that female buddies don't or mean something different when we say it. Like it or not, we're still different.

But, I think this quote is on target as to why the Republican Party has become so popular with a certain group I hesitate to classify. And there are others who prefer to have the male continue being the main breadwinner and are flocking to that party as well.

"The man who can no longer make a living, who has to depend on his wife's earnings, can watch Hollywood sexpots on pirated videos and begin to think the world has been turned upside down."

[rusk2003]

35. We are diffrent in as many ways as we are alike

Sure we all can name 100 ways we are diffrent but Iam sure we can name hundreds of ways we are the same. Any anway Men and Women can and should still have their Man Only and Women Only talk. AS for how much money you make it should not be an issue of gender but how smart you are and how sharp your skills are.

[Wonder]

34. Susan Faludi in her book Backlash

does raise some interesting and what I believe to be thoughtful points in regard to white collar unemployment and the inclusion of women in the workforce. Her premise was that part of masculinity was defined by their role as sole breadwinners within the family construct. Therefore, once women entered the work force this was perceived by some males and even on an unconscious level as a threat then to their masculinity. An assault perhaps that has created a reaction in some wherein they will vie to regain their masculinity. Perhaps then one could argue that masculinity is also defined as being the figurehead within the family due to the monetary contribution wherein they are the center of the family unit, the king of the castle so to speak.

much food for thought in this area. I read her book when it first came out.

[Shanty Oilish]

4. Deeper? Maybe shallower.

Maybe they just want control, but don't actually like or respect the controlled. Misogyny isn't confined to heteros, males, or sexually functional people.

[noiretextatique]

5. LOL....i think you hit the nail on the head

this line is from the film "desert hearts"

"you want things without loving them."

your momma raised you right, willyt :loveya:

[Maple]

6. Because from the day

we're born we are taught that women are 'different', 'other', usually 'lesser'.

It's a basic common theme to the 3 religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

But men also need women...for procreation, recreation, and a home.

And they are drawn to the 'lesser other' in spite of themselves because of those needs.

So...you may need 'em, but you don't have to like 'em.

And you don't have to be nice to them.

Which just creates a vicious circle because then women don't like you.

And how dare a 'lesser other' reject you when they should instead look up to you?

So the rejection/need grows, and so does mysogyny.

[jafap]

13. I think there are lots of misogynists or sexists

who have a wife or girlfriend. I think that alot of intellectual, lonely guys like myself tend to idealize women. Not that I have done a study or anything, but I am pretty sure that jerks and jocks are doing better romance-wise than saints and students.

[private_ryan]

15. "being nice" not getting you any girls?

n/t

[ForrestGump]

19. Maybe so

You sound like me in that respect, to a degree, and I've often noted the same thing. It seems like the ones who have all the romance are often those who least 'deserve' it, in that they're shallow, chauvinist pigs.

First, it's possible that our perceptions of such people are wrong. they might seem like misogynistic or sexist SOBs but that could just be a front to show to 'the boys.'

Second, it's possible that these guys really are that way, and that the women that are attracted to them are women that fellows like you and I would probably be better off without, anyway.

Third, regardless of how nice and good (etc) these women are - and even, to a lesser extent, the men - perhaps we're destined to one day make up for with quality what we're missing in quantity. It only takes that one right person to fit in a perfect match, or as perfect as it gets when you bring two different people together.....maybe the jocks and jerks, real or perceived, are too distracted by the pursuit of quantity that they will never have a chance to let the right person reveal themselves at the right time. Maybe they just won't see her.

I'd guess that all of the above are operating at the same time.

[private_ryan]

21. IMO

a lot of times guys are not themselves, they go the extra mile trying to be something they think women will like.
Be yourself faults and flaws included. You're bound to find one that will like you just the way you are.

[ForrestGump]

25. If I could figure out what it was that women wanted,

I'd be set. :-)

But you're right - "I Gotta Be Me."



Holy Reducing-Your-Chances, Batman!

[jafap]

47. this is the sound of me holding my breath

I think I have been pretty good at being myself, and at 41 it seems a little late to believe I am "bound to find" even a lesser of evils. Plus there is certainly no way for me to get back the fifteen years we could have shared. I sold my used bookstore about 5 years ago because I figured that I had asked out most of the women in that town of 5000, but I have found neither a decent job nor a significant other. (I did, however, make a trip to upstate NY and also to Deutschland/CH) I have resigned myself to my fate, but I am not happy about it. Now if you will excuse me, I need to go listen to Dokken's "Alone Again".

[shimmergal]

23. No, the shallow, chavinist pigs aren't so shy as the "good guys".

Shyness operates in each gender to keep people from finding the best match.

For the relatively unaggressive woman _or_ man, who can't pull off a veneer of confidence, it's a lot harder to meet "the one" who might really be a good partner. Especially in an open "dating game," the most choices go to those who put up a good front.

It's sad, but happens often.

[ForrestGump]

24. Yeah

But everyone knows - after George Harrison blazed a path for us in the '60s - that the 'quiet one' sometimes gets his/her woman/man in the end.

:-)

[NYC]

7. That's the way I see it, WillyT.

:hi:

[Wonder]

31. I see it that way too

the want is purely biological but it is really no love lost. I think then there are the socio and psychopathic considerations that factor in as well. When I read through some of the more hateful threads which seem intent on denigrating women as a whole... the guys that do seem angry with a very specific type of women, if for no other reason but they can't have her, but they want her (in terms of conquest I mean). This anger is then projected outward.

Again we could go back to the Carl Jung constructs, but I say why don't we forget those archetypes altogether, or be aware of them, but than transcend them or evolve past them. For the most part Jung's assessment is somewhat dated, and yet those archetypes he refers to have forever fixated within some who believe, their love hate passions when it comes to women and what defines them as masculine, is just genetically inherent and can not be transcended.

I say that is bull, the conscientious mind can transcend knee jerk human behavior if someone is interested in doing that, especially if that behavior is anti-social. Denigation of women is still allowed. And I wonder how some males are defining their masculinity, they may feel masculine only when exhibiting control over and hatred toward the female.

Who knows. I just stay away from those types. On forum unfortunately you have to come across the mentality more often than I would tolerate it in my own real life.

[Ohio Dem]

8. I don't think it's a "gender war."

I know what you mean, but it's no gender war. A gender war would be an all-out fight between men and women. What DU is going through (again, still?) isn't a fight between men and women. I'm male, and I don't think any of the women who have been speaking out recently about misogyny have anything against me. I may be wrong.

My point is, "gender war" isn't the right phrase. I don't know a better phrase, but "gender war" isn't right.

[WillyT]

9. Ok, How 'Bout 'Gender Flambe' ???

:shrug:

Sounds like a latin dance, tho!

:evilgrin:

[Ohio Dem]

12. I'm not sure what emblazed food has to do with this, either.

Although, there is a fire. No doubt about it.

But men vs women? Not really. A lot of men agree with the women pointing out that "bitch" probably isn't an appropriate word here.

[short bus president]

26. Here in the Lounge

it's a nice, cool, mellow 'gender frappe.'

:-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. You are correct

no issue with my DU brothers. They for the most part don't educate themselves on matters of sexism from right wing web sites.

[Wonder]

33. for the most part

that misogyny has been spoken out on as anti-social - has not been a denigration of ALL men, but more an awareness that some men here on DU have expressed misogynist sentiments. Of course that also doesn't mean those males that have come across as sexist are in fact misogynists. But the use of language is important to be aware of.

Misogynist and/or sexist language like anti-semitic and racist language can be indicative of hate and as we all know hate incites violence.

This is why I believe raising awareness and speaking out against misogyny and anti-woman language or negative stereotyping is important and has little to do with male bashing or denigrating all men, but more to do with expressing the awareness that sexist language does denigrate women. Funny how it works too... when in defense you bring it up some guys just turn it around...

Like during the civil rights movement when racist whites began insisting that the civil rights movement was actually reverse discrimination.

[graphixtech]

11. yes,

our culture messages, combined with personal pain.

jmho.

[cally]

16. I like your idea

WillyT. :hi: I also think misogyny comes from a desire to be better than someone else. It's so common in this culture for boys to be told to not act like a girl. One measure of manhood for some is to be better than females and you are seen as weak if a female wins.

I agree with some of the other comments. Most of the males at DU are not misogynist.

[Booberdawg]

18. Power and Control

FIRST! I don't think the vast majority of the men in DU are misogynist. As a whole I think the community of DU men are considerate and sensitive to the issues of sexism and misogyny.

I have a suspicion that misogyny is rooted in power and control issues. I base that on my own experiences and insights over my many years about people in general. I can't put my finger on a better way to explain myself other than to say that I believe men secure in their own masculinity, and perhaps sexuality, don't seem to be the ones displaying misogynist attitudes. I base that for the most part on my face to face observations over the years and not necessarily just here at DU.

Unfortunately it's the offenders who get the most notice and make the most noise. To me, it's telling in the G-R-E-A-T L-E-N-G-T-H-S some of the worst offenders will go to in order to justify, discount, and minimize misogynist comments when called to task on it.

I'm pretty middle of the road on this issue, as I am on most issues. I think there are extremes and over sensitivity on both sides of ANY issue. But, in no way am I suggesting that this or any other issue deserves to be discounted or minimized, or that it isn't a valid topic deserving of intelligent discussion, just because it results in viewpoints on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

In a message board setting in particular, I think people make comments that they would never make in a face to face setting. I also think some people don't really believe what they are typing but just like to stir shit. But for the most part I think there are people who might say something that they didn't intend to be offensive out of lack of insight, lack of empathy, or ignorance on the particular topic, and these people benefit from being shown another point of view. That's where I think most people, men and women alike, fall in DU.

I don't think misogyny is limited to heterosexual men either.

[slappypan]

20. Misogynists believe women only exist to meet others' needs

That is why they are against abortion rights and insist on making sweeping claims about women being "more nurturing." They just don't think women really matter in their own right, because to a misogynist a woman is not a person.

There are really only a few of them on DU.

[maxanne]

22. male privilege

is firmly entrenched, and when it is threatened, sometimes even the most liberal men can react badly.

[Scout]

28. "male privilege"

yeah, remember the reactions to the Male Privilege Checklist posted in Civil Rights forum long ago on DU1??

"sometimes even the most liberal men can react badly" ... I agree wholeheartedly!

[Wonder]

36. male privilege and misogyny do not seem indicative of lack of intelligence

while I quite franky read it as ignorant, I have found some of the most intelligent men to be misoynistic, but they rationalize it in ways that justify their superiority and will still argue how much like love women. I say no. they do not love women. they love ejaculating into them. In essence what they love is fucking women, beyond that is condescencion.

And quite frankly this kind of love of woman is masturbation, nothing more or less, because even there the focus is on the male ejaculation.

Another rationalization misogynist have is that they must preserve their masculinity and will not be browbeaten... go figure!

[maxanne]

50. true

liking women as sex partners is not the same thing as liking women.

[SOteric]

27. Even in the recent gender -related kerfluffle in GD

individuals of both gender vary greatly.

It's important to realise that not every man is a misogynist, and that those who are will vary amoung other misogynists as to the degree of their loathing.

So too, is the variance of the reasoning. There is a chilling, pervasive misogyny in civilisation which has existed for centuries.

Many theories put forth the notion that this pervasive misogyny is an attempt to control the reproductive options for women and limit them to the desired relationship.

Certainly the current Administration in the U.S. has some pervasive misogyny issues to answer for:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0310/goldstein.php

But more specific, individual instances or misogyny will vary in the reasons quite significantly. One person may hate women because of abuse by a woman in his or her childhood. Another may have been raised in a particularly misogynistic environment and have cultivated the belief that such opinions are normal, common and appropriate. Others may simply be fearful of the control that women seem to have over them. The reasons are myriad and multi-fold, and no one reason is necessarily exclusive of another.

[KCDem]

29. It's hard to get away from what we see as children.

I know men who consider themselves enlightened, and, to some degree, are. But, when push comes to shove, they expect the same out of their wifey that their father expected of his. Guess that's just a reflex that's very hard for some men to outgrow.

Also, what men want in a female friend, girlfriend, sex partner can be incredibly different from what they want in a wife.

Of course, on that note, we women can be the same way.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. But therein lies the rub. To quote Ruth Bader Ginsberg

" The differences between the sexes should be a cause for CELEBRATION, not DENIGRATION."

The fact that our hormones might mediate an AUTOMATIC response does not mean the automatic response should be considered the valid one.
If that were so, then when adrenaline says PUMMEL THE SHIT OUT OF SOMEON, that response would always be valid but we KNOW that it isn't if the adrenaline is mediated by say a SPORTING event rather than a LIFE threatening event.

The same goes for our conditioning societally. Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean there is NO POSSIBILITY for a shift.

[Wonder]

32. Another serious question is HOW DO MEN DEFINE THEIR MASCULINITY?

:hi:

[cally]

37. Why don't you start a thread on this

and the question of how women define feminity. If we could avoid the flame wars, I think it would be an interesting question.

[Wonder]

38. well cally

to tell you the truth, If someone would like to start either of those threads I would be happy to participate. Without going into any great detail the whole topic and based on some of the antics and some of the confusions I observed within the threads that seems to have created various reactions, I am not altogether encouraged to initate any thread on this particular topic.

I feel both genders have much owning up to do in terms of control issues and various back stabbings based firming in ones desire to control and utter lack of consciousness, and for the most part was most taken aback by the lack of consciousness exhibited by a small handful of the females that participated in those threads, not to negate the male blindness, but in addition to it.

While I have no problem voicing my opinion in threads open by others on this topic I have kind of a bad taste in my mouth on this topic and all its various off shoots to open a thread of my own. I do feel however both threads might field thoughtful discussion (with a stress on MIGHT), and would be happy to participate in either if another choice to either topic for discussion. Those being:

How do men define masculinity (how do women define masculinity)
How do women define femininity (how do men define femininity)

I feel both topics could use their share of scrutiny, and would encourage another to open either topic. If they are openned I would be happy to participate.

[geniph]

39. My husband's theory (which I partially agree with)

is that much misogyny arises from envy and fear of women's greater sexual response - in other words, that women don't have the same physical limitations with regards to sex that men do - they can have more acts of sex in a given period of time, and of course, there's the whole multi-orgasmic thing. He thinks this leads many men to denigrate women as either sluts or prudes, in an attempt to control this enviable sexual ability.

My own theory is semi-related; I think that misogyny originally arose from men's awe and fear of women's ability to reproduce, and a wish to control who fathered their children. Cultures that don't understand the male role in reproduction - cultures that believe women are inseminated by spirits, for example - are generally not misogynistic. Once a culture figures out that men father the children, but that they cannot be SURE which man, they often become possessive and controlling, driven by the same impulses that drives a male lion to kill cubs not of their fathering; it brings the females into fertility again, so that their own genes can be propagated.

[Booberdawg]

41. That's very interesting!

Thanks! :)

[Wonder]

42. at one point there existed matriarchal societies

I do believe there is much to be said for your husbands theory. More simply put and in tribal cultures there was much reaction some good some bad to both a women's ability to give birth (seen as a magic power) and her menses. In Native American cultures a women is not allowed to sweat with the group during menses as she is seen as stronger than the spirits, and her stronger presence would discourage the greater spirits from being invoked. The lakota Souix Nation honored the power and wisdom of the female elders in the tribe, also the Iroquios nation from where the colonialist got the US constitution. Some attribute the democracy inherent to many of the Native American tribes to the inclusion of female elders as equals.

On the other hand, I forget which tribe, but I read years ago some of the practices of an African tribe. In response to the females power of reproduction this one tribe had a right of passage ritual for the boys. At a certain age the tribes male elders would take those boys away from the tribes village. One of the rituals was having the boys perform falatio on the tribal male elders. The reason being was that the ingestion of the male seed strengthened the manhood of the boys as they passed from boys to men.

With that in mind, it could be argued that some violence against women is an unconscious reaction to what is perceived as the females feminine powers. Jung takes another bend in the road on that, with the male struggling to break free of the maternal and his angst with the mother maternal and the woman whore. Even this placing women on pedestal's is in essence a male reaction to what he preceives as her power, that being primarily reproduction and then as your husband extrapolates it being her sexuality as well. The pedastal is specific to the madonna which the male must know down of the pedastal in his struggle to break from the mother.

I don't want to be on pedastals of that nature and have never conducted myself in any way wherein I demanded to be idolized. Much of what you raise in your post I believe is unconscious reaction which almost stems from an inferiority complex wherein the male suffering from this must denigrate the woman in an effort to feel superior to her by way of control. Of course we understand once it is broken down that way this kind of a dynamic is not gender specific.

[Wonder]

43. an afterthought

and with your husbands theory in mind, I would go as far to say that because the sense of humbleness that let us say the power of the females ability to carry child translates in some males as a feeling of insecurity. Those males that are outwardly misogynistic become obssessed than with rationales aimed at protecting his masculinity wherein the aspects he holds most worthy are those aspects within humanity that are both anti-woman and anti-social.

Of course the most astute analysis of this must be placed in a broader context in relation to humanity as a whole. We do also all have each our specific histories which than will further enhance or exacerbate whatever negative dynamics we all have experienced in terms of parents and gender.

Interesting topic for discussion though (especially with out all the baiting and flaming).

[noiretextatique]

40. people learn misogyny, just as they learn racism

homophobia...and so on. a part of the problem in combatting "isms" is combatting the belief that these "isms" are natural, if not completely biologically predetermined, certainly justifiable in some way, e.g., religious/cultural traditions. i suppose it's difficult for some to accept being told their beliefs, sanctioned in many ways, and often encouraged and reinforced by experience (since your focus becomes your experience), are really just character flaws, when all is said and done. these character flaws, btw, are routinely manipulated by the same social/political forces who are the enemies of the people who allow themselves to be used....divide and conquer.

and the basis of these character flaws: the need to feel superior, to dominate and to control. the cure: an evolution of consciouness. much like other addictions, the first step is to admit you have a problem. and because of social conditioning and reinforcement...this path is sometimes the road not travelled at all.

feminism is a threat to the manfactured order that worked so well to control women and keep them in their place...with men having complete economic, social and political hegemony...meted out depending on class and race. it worked to keep men trapped in proscribed social roles as well.

the civil rights movement is a threat to the manufactured order that worked to control and limit the ability of people of color/glbt people/disabled people/and so on to participate as full citizens in american society...as the social, economic and psychological equals of the dominant cultural group.

the backlash against these movements continues...

if we learned nothing else in the past 20-30 years, we should all know that we can't afford to be complacent any longer.
zero tolerance.

[rasputin1952]

44. As I read the previous posts, I saw a pattern emerge...

that just might be worth looking into.

I did not read anything that had to do with personal responsibility.
I did see, a whole fistload of pretty good theories as to why there may be such a chasm.

But, if my theory on simplicity holds true, there is less here than meets the eye.

If there are some individuals that tend to irritate you, perhaps it is best to avoid them.

There are good men and women, and bad men and women; it is difficult to discern which is which in a forum such as this. With all of the falsifications that we are all constantly in contact with, sometimes it is difficult to discern just who is 'decent' and who is a slimeball.

Attitudes are acquired. I have never met anyone that was 'born an asshole'. They learned to take on those attributes, and generally worked pretty hard at it; since not many people like assholes.

It would be best if we all learnewd to communicate. Communication is a two way street, without listening and understanding, communication simply doesn't exist.

To return to the personal responsibility I spoke of earlier; we must all realize that each of us can be wrong. Acceptance that some of ouor behavior is not welcome, is a sign of a mature person. I do not need to be told innumerable times that my statements are offensive, once is enopugh, I can, and will, change my attitude if I deem it necessary or offensive. Sometimes though, I need to be nudged. I won't take offense at the nudge, but if I get sceamed at, you'll most likely lose me.

Take a deep breath, look at what was said, and see the wisdom in others. I try and do that with everyone I meet.

[noiretextatique]

48. you make some good points...one point of contention, however

most of the threads that started the eruption of other threads were in fact about personal responsibility. particularly in that monster "rape law," thread...the issue was exactly that. of course different people had various takes on it, but imho, that's the gist of what the law is all about...personal responsibility.
as to how acts in taking personal responsibility here, i think the more egregious examples of irreponsibility (some of it is willful) should be met with whatever is appropriate. this includes alerting moderators, and banning those interested only in disruption.
other than that, i agree with most of what you wrote, and others have plead for a more civil debate here, on all topics. i'm all for that.

[rasputin1952]

49. Thanks for the observation....

but it was this particular thread I was refering to.

There has been a rash of threads that have been derogatory recently, and when I have come across them, I have posted my dismay and some possible ways of alleviating the bad feelings.

One of the ways I think we can all agree on, is that we should actually look at our posts. I often go back to something I had previously posted, and realize I have changed my mind, or had been mistaken in the first place. I certainly don't think I am so brazen that I never make a mistake, and it might do others to look at things from different sides as well.

The thread the other night, (the 'slut' thread), is a perfect example. It moved so fast it was difficult to keep up, but when I felt the need to insert something, I did. Thankfully, so did many others, including yourself. While this was a wild ride, it showed that discourse is possible. I believe that if just one person had second thoughts on their behavior, that thread was a victory.

Same here, if just the seeds are planted, good things will grow. It takes time and effort, but good comes to all who persevere. I learned a long time ago that humility is a trait that is earned. Anyone can be arrogant, it takes a unique individual to be humble, even though he or she knows they are better than the individual they are taking on.

Live life to the best of your ability, accept others for what they are; but you certainly don't have to invite them into your home.

[Clete]

45. I think we have been both socialized to do role playing.

When one or the other doesn't want to play their role anymore it results in strife.

[Wonder]

46. "The Descent of Woman" Elizabeth Morgan (or get that monkey off my back)

I believe that is who wrote it. Basically it is Darwins theory of evolution but instead of it being from the persepctive of the male anatomy, Morgan follows the anatomical evolution from the perspective of the female ape's anatomy... Prior to the shift in the pelvis, male apes could penetrate female apes, at there discretion, at random and would penetrate her vagina which was exposed, from behind.

Morgan has one chapter dedicated to that point in time when the alignment of the spine changed when the apes moved from walking on all fours to standing erect and becoming bipedal. She argues that at one point this caused great confusion within the male ape. The shift in the female pelvic placement.

Before it shifted he could penetrate at random and from behind because the sway of the ape spine in essence exposed the female genitals from behind. Once it shifted, penetration from behind became more difficult, because the shift of the pelvis also shifted the female genitals to the front. In doing so this shift in anatomy also gave the female neanderthal more say in the matter. Morgan suggests that at this interval in female anatomic evolution, once the pelvis shifted, was when the struggle between the male and the female really began.

According to Morgan there was a transitional period wherein the male apes would try to penetrate as they had always from behind (and without consent in essence), but since the pelvis had shifted; female apes were finding it easy to just shake the monkey off her back.

Overtime a struggle ensued wherein the male ape had to struggle with the female ape in an effort to turn her around. In having to penetrate from the front of the women, that meant he actually had to deal with her as well, penetration for him no longer just based on his random choice. The rest is history.

Morgan's theories of course were all backed up from both an archeological and antropological perspective. I found her book interesting, the chapter I described most fascinating and thought provoking.