"Perfect masculinity is sociopathic." / The Weaponized Phallus

[Morgana LaFey]

Stan Goff said that:

http://home.igc.org/~sherrynstan/

Are you women familiar with him? My idea of a REAL MAN. Spent lots of years in the military -- Airborne, SPecial Forces, Rangers, the like. Retired Special Forces Master Sergeant, as a matter of fact. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Goff

Here's an article about his service during the Haiti invasion: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A15500

Here's his blog: http://stangoff.com

Here's his take on 9-11 (which I haven't read yet -- read down): http://www.narconews.com/goff1.html

Here's an absolutely mind-blowingly fabulous article that appeared in the Huffington Post (and which I must have gotten here) called

The Weaponized Phallus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/the-weaponized-phallus-a_b_34616.html


Here is a thought exercise. Think of all the euphemisms used to describe the distinctly male external appendage, or eroticized acts from the male point of view, that call to mind conquest, war, or violence.

Examples: I'd like to hit that ("hit" as act of aggression, "that" as objectification). He shot his load (gun metaphor).

snip

Here is the problem I am having with the weaponized phallus, a problem of a more limited scale than men's deeply enculturated hatred of all things female, especially the female body (which they see as a thing to be conquered, defiled, humiliated... taken). It's that fact that so-called "progressive" men (people really should look up the sordid history of that modifier), those who claim to stand for justice and against domination and exploitation, engage in the self-same, woman-hating, weaponized-phallus trash-talk as right-wing men.

And here is a small step I am proposing to left-wing men. Stop that. Stop it right now, and never do it again. Here is a short list, with explanation, that I'd like you to stop:

oh, DO go read it. It'll do your heart good to know there ARE men out there who not only get it, but encourage other men to get it too.

I propose we keep this article handy and pounce on various threads with a REAL MAN's angle on these specific 5 points.

[wtmusic]

1. "men's deeply enculturated hatred of all things female"

Bah. I love women (they typically don't love me back).

[Triana]

12. Umm...

...some of the most abusive men I've known have said "I love women". Oh and they DO! They get LOTS of satisfaction from establishing and weilding power over them in relationships (and elsewhere). And then - there's always sex. What man doesn't love that?

Not saying that's what you do, I have no idea what's in your mind or heart, but just from my experience, that's what I've often seen. Not always - but too often.

So that might be why women don't "love you back" as quickly or instantaneously as you'd like - or at all. They're probably just being careful and protecting themselves - which they should do and which no one is responsible for doing other than themselves.

[wtmusic]

19. point well-taken

and I was joking about women not loving me back. I'm happily married to a woman who I adore, for her strength and independence.

Do you really believe men (as in ALL men) are deeply enculturated to hate women? When anyone makes a blanket hyperbolic statement like that IMO anything they say is suspect.

[Triana]

20. where did I say that?

"Do you really believe men (as in ALL men) are deeply enculturated to hate women? When anyone makes a blanket hyperbolic statement like that IMO anything they say is suspect."

I never said or implied that here. Ever. If you've assumed that than your assumption is incorrect and therefore for me to answer a question based on an erroneous assumption is -- well...moot. Pointless.

Sorry!

[wtmusic]

21. you didn't

it was my impression that your post was in support of the link referenced in OP.

[Triana]

22. I can understand that...

...but once again these are erroneous assumptions and inferences of the OP that you made yourself. Then, you attempted to project those erroneous interpretations onto me and Goff, and began asking that YOUR erroneous assumptions be defended -- by someone else who isn't responsible for them and who never made them. You did.

It makes no sense to defend against something that was never said or inferred (except in your mind, which I can only guess is some defensiveness and fear manifesting itself in your first response and I'm sorry you are feeling defensive about the issue).

You asked me: "Do YOU believe"...not "does Stan Goff believe...".

In your response you yourself made the inference that "men" means "ALL men". That was YOUR interpretation, not mine and not necessarily Stan Goff's. You'll have to defend your own (mis)interpretations of the OP, I cannot and will not do that for you.

Now off of this diversion that you've instigated and back to the OP topic:

I continue to agree with his general stance that patriarchy, male dominance, societal and parental teaching that women are inferior humans, and the male sense of entitlement in general are issues in today's society - issues that need to be acknowledged and dealt with, and I remain happy that he is doing that.

[wtmusic]

23. erroneous?

OP: "a problem of a more limited scale than men's deeply enculturated hatred of all things female"

This statement, by any reasonable interpretation, indicates generic "men", meaning *every* man.

Yes, I asked you the question. It is YOUR erroneous assumption that because I asked you a question I already knew the answer. Can I take your agitated defense to mean that you don't agree that "all men have a deeply enculturated hatred of all things female"? Can't have it both ways.

Re: "I continue to agree with his general stance that patriarchy, male dominance, societal and parental teaching that women are inferior humans, and the male sense of entitlement in general are issues in today's society - issues that need to be acknowledged and dealt with, and I remain happy that he is doing that."

I couldn't agree more. I will, however, continue to take exception to the idea that that applies to all men, and put forth that anyone who thinks so is in dire need of therapy.

[Seldona]

2. "Perfect masculinity is sociopathic."

Unbelievable that ANY man would not take offense to that, let alone bother reading anything beyond that tripe.

Thank god for the ignore button.

[wtmusic]

3. Hard to take offense at such unresisting imbecility

pity would be a better word.

[Morgana LaFey]

4. Oh, tsk, tsk

It's not my remark, nor did I say I agree with it. OTOH, the MAN who did say it seems to know what he's talking about on a good number of things. I would think most people who are interested in women's issues (and just why are YOU in this forum, anyway?) would want to find out why he said that.

He has a whole book that probably gives many answers to the question: Sex and War http://www.lulu.com/content/276367

[wtmusic]

5. Not implying that Morgana

and what's wrong with a man being interested in women's rights? Seems like we could stand a little more of that kind of thing.

[Morgana LaFey]

7. Most of the men who come here

are indeed VERY interested in women's rights -- interested in quashing them. Oh, they don't think of it that way. But that's the bottom line.

And when I say "most" I mean 100% of the ones I've seen.

NOW. Can you tell me any reason I should expect any man wandering in here and being immediately dismissive and insulting really IS interested in promoting women's rights?

[wtmusic]

13. I believe it's hurtful to women's rights

in the same way that people taking similarly illogical points of view is hurtful to the antiwar movement.

Actually your thread showed up in Latest, which I check out all the time. So be ready for an objective point of view once in a while.

[Morgana LaFey]

16. Illogical? Subjective?

You're acting like an ass. A SEXIST ass. Is that your intent?

I'll go further. I remember your post in the thread about 51% of women now living husbandless, to the effect that you have problems getting dates. Here's a clue for ya: check your misogyny. Smart women don't take up with women-hating men if they can avoid it and some of us have developed a 6th sense that warns us away from men who are basically garden-variety women-haters.

[wtmusic]

18. how anyone can read sexism into that

is beyond me. Either you have one twisted view of the universe, or someone had a very bad day today. OOPS! I made another sexist remark! I'm not sure why, but I'm sure you'll explain it to me...(btw, I'm happily married to a woman I love with all my heart :loveya:)

[benevolent dictator]

26. Because

men are socialized to believe that they, and the arguments they make, are rational and logical, and therefore women, and the arguments they make, are illogical and irrational.

It's not a "twisted view of the universe," it's how our patriarchal culture trains us to think.

I find that most of the men who respond to accusations of sexism with "but I LOVE women!!" are usually not only sexist and misogynistic, but they are also completely unwilling to look at their own words and behaviors or make any effort at change.

[Katherine Brengle]

28. But, but, I have TONS of black friends!!!

That's the same line as "But I love women!"

But somehow so many men manage to miss this.

[mongo]

29. Talk about your cop-outs

men are socialized to believe that they, and the arguments they make, are rational and logical, and therefore women, and the arguments they make, are illogical and irrational.

In other words, there is no objective way to discuss. You are always right, but any man can't see that because they are taught to believe that your arguments are irrational.

Wow.

[Katherine Brengle]

30. Your response doesn't do a great job of discounting that...

I think you could benefit from a reading of The Mismeasure of Woman by Carol Tavris - second time I've suggested that to someone in this thread.

It's not anti-man or anything, so if you have the time, I would really give it a shot.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. The current stereotype of "Perfect masculinity"

is some guy who's big, buff, aggressive, and uninterested in anything but sex, war, sports, food, and gadgets.

[Atargatis]

14. So I take it you didn't bother to read what prompted that

particular phase as the author discusses the dangerous and anti-survival form the cultural construct of "perfect masculinity" takes as men tie themselves into knots trying to achieve some twisted version of "masculinity" which can then result in some of the same men taking out their frustration on the women in their lives? It can destroy men's sense of self worth when they find they can't match up to the "perfect masculine" ideal which can result in them acting out in ways that harm them and those around them.

It sounded to me as though the author is critical of the construct, not the men. So, how do you feel about an externally "imposed" construct which is so far from most men's reality as to be ridiculous; and how do you think it effects those men who aspire to it? How do you think it effects those around those same men?

Or did you just come around here to slam anyone who would have the guts to question "the norm"?

[Morgana LaFey]

15. Thank you for adding all that --

what most men do not realize is that FEMINISM (probably esp. radical feminism) would liberate men in precisely the way that would address and eliminate what you describe as the essence of Goff's criticism.

You see, for centuries if not millennia, we have been living with various PERVERSIONS of the feminine archetype, along with various PERVERSIONS of the masculine archetype. Liberate all of us, is what I and other feminists say, and then we can all live lives of self-actualization unfettered by limiting, externally imposed (but internally adopted) gender roles. IOW: Oh, yeah, we are ALL oppressed by oppression against women.

But, you see, most men don't understand that and if they did still may not be that interested because it's such a high to be "better than" a whole segment of society. We are all wounded human beings (as a result of how we were raised: in a seriously flawed, aka patriarchal, culture), and too often we desperately seek to assuage the pain of that by finding ways of feeling superior to others. This is, I truly believe, at the core of what drives the whole Republican ethic and ideology. Howard Dean captured one manifestion of that very well when he pointed out, "For Republicans, if you're rich you deserve it, and if you're poor you deserve that too."

Somehow this society is raising severely wounded men who are simply unwilling to reach for their own liberation by allowing women to be their full equals. And, to be fair, it's also raising severely wounded women who don't understand their power, and the need to assert it. It's a societal problem, but it does depend on each of us (who can) participating in the fixing of it.

[Atargatis]

17. You're welcome.

:-)

The idea of anyone outside of ourselves defining for us what is "the norm" for us is a form of abuse. By limiting our options to a societal construct which ignores our individual circumstances, gifts, skills and what have you, we destroy the pieces of ourselves and others who won't slide neatly into the culturally designed/defined box. I don't know that I'll ever understand why there are people who expect people to figuratively and actually chop off pieces of themselves in order to "fit in".

When I read in your post "severely wounded men who are simply unwilling to reach for their own liberation" I remembered this quote from Harriet Tubman; "I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." It's impossible to educate or help people if they deny they need help or education.

[Triana]

6. I like Stan Goff!

He's one VERY WISE and clueful man, IMO. And brave...I've mentioned him in here a few times, particularly his take on the patriarchy/male dominance as it relates to sexual abuse, violence, and war - and how all that is related and I believe it is.

[noamnety]

8. I will arm wrestle any one of you all

for top honors in the stangoff fan club.

That is all.

[Quantess]

9. I would venture to guess that men also have a problem with the idealized "phallus".

How would you feel, if you were a man, and you didn't live up to the idealized, glorified, phallus, as seen in all the advertisements? Have you NOT seen any evidence of this crushing pressure with your own eyes?

If you honestly answer no, then, I tell you to look harder and more insightfully, and you will see many men being seriously hamstrung by fear of sexual mediocrity.

[noamnety]

10. A couple of points

1. This is the Women's Rights forum. Not the gosh-there's-a-lot-of-pressure-on-men-to-have-a-large-penis forum.

2. This comment appears to be unrelated to the OP, which is about the pervasive message that the phallus is a tool of aggression, and how men can (and should) respond to that message.

[Triana]

11. thanks lwfern...

...for pointing out the attempted diversion from the subject matter in the OP. :applause:

from http://www.youarenotcrazy.com:


Through diversion the topic is changed, often turning the tables on the partner so she must defend herself on an unrelated topic. None of the abuser's diversions answer the partner's question or concern in a thoughtful and considerate way. The abuser blocks her attempts to gain information or open communications by diverting her from the issue with accusations and irrelevant comments. Often the partner does not notice that the original topic is no longer the topic. She has been diverted.


Good catch! :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Hmm. I reckon at least 60% of that makes sense, and at least 20% doesn't.

His first point, while one I've seen made before, is not one that strikes me as persuasive. Using "balls" as a euphemism for courage, or expressions like "colder than a witch's tit" (is that a real idiom? I've never heard anyone say that) isn't going to offend anyone who isn't actively looking for an excuse to take offence, and such people generally enjoy being offended anyhow so everyone gets what they want.

His second is I think the most important of the lot. In the secondary school I attended "gay" was not merely an all-purpose term of contempt, but the single most common and most derogatory term of contempt. That clearly is a) going to offend a great many people, perfectly reasonably, and b) lead to the continuation of anti-gay prejudice in a way that talking about "pussies" isn't going to lead to a continuation of anti-female prejudice (although "stop behaving like a woman", while far less common, are in the same category).

His third point I don't think is worth taking seriously, although it's not exactly wrong.

His fourth point is, I'd say, the second most important. It's one that's increasingly widely agreed upon, although still not sufficiently so. Physical appearance is not an important property; the extent to which it's portrayed as being the most important thing about women in films and to a lesser extent in other media is worrying. I think his term "media-constructed" indicates a fundamental misapprehension, though - this is less the case today than it ever has been in the past; if you read e.g. fairy tales, the description of a princess as "beautiful" almost always is clearly intended to imply "virtuous etc", except when it's followed by the word "but", and in those circumstances the character is usually presented as extra-unforgivable as a result of not living up to their beauty. This isn't a new thing.

His fifth point I also agree with, although it's a less important one than any of the others because the application is so much more limited. But many of the attacks on Coulter etc even here on DU disgust me - her personal appearance is not relevant to her politics. Similar comments (notably "fat") are sometimes made about male political figures; they're rarer; I think they're just as unacceptable. "You're ugly" is no substitute for "you're wrong": the Democrats fielded an (in my view excellent) presidential candidate who was not unfairly charicatured as "Lurch" from the Addams Family at the last election; being ugly does not make one a worse person.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. I take issue with this --

"His second is I think the most important of the lot. In the secondary school I attended "gay" was not merely an all-purpose term of contempt, but the single most common and most derogatory term of contempt. That clearly is a) going to offend a great many people, perfectly reasonably, and b) lead to the continuation of anti-gay prejudice in a way that talking about "pussies" isn't going to lead to a continuation of anti-female prejudice (although "stop behaving like a woman", while far less common, are in the same category)."

Perhaps, to you, it does not sound all that offensive and does not seem to promote a certain way of thinking about women, but to a woman it does.

In a word, it portrays all things weak, pathetic, not worth paying attention to, as feminine.

Just because you may not understand the impact of something, doesn't mean the impact is nonexistent.

And "stop acting like a woman" is nothing close to uncommon - I have heard it used more times in my life than I could ever count - also, "like a little girl" and other variations thereof.

If you are really interested in this kind of stuff, you might take a look at a book called The Mismeasure of Woman by Carol Tavris - it's very enlightening - and not completely biased to one side, which you will see if you get a chance to read it.

[Triana]

31. Just because you may not understand the impact of something, doesn't mean the impact is nonexistent

...thank you Katherine!

That certain males refuse to believe that animosity towards women as inferior humans exist simply because THEY do not see or experience the impact of it themselves - is the epitome of male privilege - not being aware of it because THEY never experience it. Therefore, they believe it does not EXIST.

But it DOES. Just not for THEM.

[Katherine Brengle]

32. I got a lesson in this myself this week --

and it really hit home -- when you are not a member of a group experiencing oppression, it is oh so easy not to see it for what it is.