I don’t see why you couldn’t have left the blog as material for others to direct people to. Choosing not to add to it anymore is no reason to obliterate the posts already in existence, or the discussions people had in the comments. It’s like suddenly, gender has become a non-priority to the point it makes sense to physically remove your contribution. I suppose that was to be expected. When the subject is what’s being done to women and how it can and should be addressed, sooner rather than later it gets dropped by the few men who chose to engage for a split second. As patriarchy never ceases to (successfully) teach, there are more important things to focus on.
None of the comments or or discussions are gone, and no, gender has not become a “non-priority.” I’m working on moving pieces to another platform and reorganizing/editing a lot of what I’ve put out into a more coherent vision. I hope you can understand that after more than two years of hosting this blog, over which time my ideology and just basic writing skills and style have changed dramatically, there comes a time when those kinds of breaks are necessary. But it has nothing to do with a change in position on gender (or prostitution, or anything else).
Jonah, thank you for contributing a much-needed voice to this discussion. Your comments have been thought-provoking and marked by compassion for the non-privileged and well-articulated criticism of the status quo. Best wishes on your endeavors.
Jonah, I’m writing in the hope that I can reprint one of your pieces, “Feminism is not a sex aid for men”, on the profeminist website XY (www.xyonline.net). XY is one of the foremost profeminist men’s websites in the world. It has a comprehensive collection of articles and resources on men and gender issues, and a thorough resource of links to other key sites and publications. We would love to add your piece to the collection.
We would of course acknowledge its source and, if appropriate, provide a link to your site.
Please note that XY is not-for-profit and run entirely by volunteers.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,
Michael Flood. mflood@uow.edu.au
I am thinking on writing a book on the pathology of gender (i.e., with the thesis that gender roles are, themselves, pathological; we gender men to be narcissists and women to be neurotics, or narcissistic supply). I think approaching the subject from a practical standpoint can help to avoid the terrible quagmire of the nature vs. nurture argument (just how MUCH of “gender” comes from biology and how much from socialization is a moot point if the reinforcement of it leads to the hierarchy of patriarchy). It’s a ridiculous argument anyway; plenty of things are natural (racism, for example, or at least the tendency to exclude those who are different from an in-group, to “other”), but is it something that most liberals would agree should be reinforced in children? (Even most conservatives only outspokenly endorse certain forms of racism and xenophobia, like anti-Muslim bias). Aggression is a natural human tendency. Does that mean we should reinforce it, encourage a child we see hit another child to hit him harder next time, really show him who’s boss? Again, most liberals would not endorse that, at all (and neither would a lot of conservatives).
So, if reinforcing the gender binary results in personality disorders (or difficulties functioning happily in the world in highly gender-accepting or gender-socialized people, who may suffer from varying degrees of narcissism or anxiety/depression), including the reactionary mental disorders caused by the cognitive dissonance of rejecting one’s own enforced gender role and accepting/fetishizing the opposite biological sex’s gender role (trans and queer theory confusion), if it leads to the pathologically interlocking relationships of men and women and results in a hierarchy of power which infects all systems and all relationships regardless of whether they are romantic in nature and, if they are, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or otherwise, what is the point in even arguing that such a system or paradigm is “natural?” Why would we want it?
What is the point in arguing, for example, that women are “naturally” nurturing and submissive, and men “naturally” emotionally detached and dominating? Do we make excuses for and encourage violence in our children because it is “natural?” (Some people might say yes, but most would say no). Do we excuse murder and other violent crime in society because it is “natural,” and deliberately raise our children to be sociopaths? No? Why, then, would be deliberately raise them to be narcissists and neurotics? Why would we reinforce either feelings of superiority or inferiority in them?
Ergo, the “nature vs. nurture” argument is moot; the point is that we should try our best to eliminate the worst of “gender”‘s destructive consequences, by raising girls to be more assertive and ambitious and boys to be more sensitive and cooperative (to counterbalance any biological tendencies), and trying to raise all children with a vision of mutuality, reciprocity, equality and kindness, instead of reinforcing any of the worst of what nature may or may not have given us (and taking a very individualistic approach to children’s education, as some girls may need more sensitivity training than assertiveness training and some boys may need more assertiveness training than sensitivity training; basically, seeking to strike a balance in self-confidence and self-interest vs. selflessness and cooperativeness in all people).
In sum, a proposal for eliminating the idea of gender (as opposed to biological sex) by seeking to empirically prove that it is, indeed, a pathology that is bad for humanity, regardless of the extent to which biology influences our personalities, capabilities and temperaments as male and female bodied people.
I know this is what YOU write about (and radical feminists too) and assume someone has already written this book or is in the process of it…any ideas?
After about two years of running this blog, I've decided to shut it down and focus on some other projects. In the meantime, check out these great organizations and resources! Your feedback, and support was always really appreciated, and I was happy for the little community of people I was able to help put together here. See you later!
I don’t see why you couldn’t have left the blog as material for others to direct people to. Choosing not to add to it anymore is no reason to obliterate the posts already in existence, or the discussions people had in the comments. It’s like suddenly, gender has become a non-priority to the point it makes sense to physically remove your contribution. I suppose that was to be expected. When the subject is what’s being done to women and how it can and should be addressed, sooner rather than later it gets dropped by the few men who chose to engage for a split second. As patriarchy never ceases to (successfully) teach, there are more important things to focus on.
None of the comments or or discussions are gone, and no, gender has not become a “non-priority.” I’m working on moving pieces to another platform and reorganizing/editing a lot of what I’ve put out into a more coherent vision. I hope you can understand that after more than two years of hosting this blog, over which time my ideology and just basic writing skills and style have changed dramatically, there comes a time when those kinds of breaks are necessary. But it has nothing to do with a change in position on gender (or prostitution, or anything else).
Jonah, thank you for contributing a much-needed voice to this discussion. Your comments have been thought-provoking and marked by compassion for the non-privileged and well-articulated criticism of the status quo. Best wishes on your endeavors.
Jonah, I’m writing in the hope that I can reprint one of your pieces, “Feminism is not a sex aid for men”, on the profeminist website XY (www.xyonline.net). XY is one of the foremost profeminist men’s websites in the world. It has a comprehensive collection of articles and resources on men and gender issues, and a thorough resource of links to other key sites and publications. We would love to add your piece to the collection.
We would of course acknowledge its source and, if appropriate, provide a link to your site.
Please note that XY is not-for-profit and run entirely by volunteers.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,
Michael Flood.
mflood@uow.edu.au
Hi Lonesome Yogurt,
I am thinking on writing a book on the pathology of gender (i.e., with the thesis that gender roles are, themselves, pathological; we gender men to be narcissists and women to be neurotics, or narcissistic supply). I think approaching the subject from a practical standpoint can help to avoid the terrible quagmire of the nature vs. nurture argument (just how MUCH of “gender” comes from biology and how much from socialization is a moot point if the reinforcement of it leads to the hierarchy of patriarchy). It’s a ridiculous argument anyway; plenty of things are natural (racism, for example, or at least the tendency to exclude those who are different from an in-group, to “other”), but is it something that most liberals would agree should be reinforced in children? (Even most conservatives only outspokenly endorse certain forms of racism and xenophobia, like anti-Muslim bias). Aggression is a natural human tendency. Does that mean we should reinforce it, encourage a child we see hit another child to hit him harder next time, really show him who’s boss? Again, most liberals would not endorse that, at all (and neither would a lot of conservatives).
So, if reinforcing the gender binary results in personality disorders (or difficulties functioning happily in the world in highly gender-accepting or gender-socialized people, who may suffer from varying degrees of narcissism or anxiety/depression), including the reactionary mental disorders caused by the cognitive dissonance of rejecting one’s own enforced gender role and accepting/fetishizing the opposite biological sex’s gender role (trans and queer theory confusion), if it leads to the pathologically interlocking relationships of men and women and results in a hierarchy of power which infects all systems and all relationships regardless of whether they are romantic in nature and, if they are, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or otherwise, what is the point in even arguing that such a system or paradigm is “natural?” Why would we want it?
What is the point in arguing, for example, that women are “naturally” nurturing and submissive, and men “naturally” emotionally detached and dominating? Do we make excuses for and encourage violence in our children because it is “natural?” (Some people might say yes, but most would say no). Do we excuse murder and other violent crime in society because it is “natural,” and deliberately raise our children to be sociopaths? No? Why, then, would be deliberately raise them to be narcissists and neurotics? Why would we reinforce either feelings of superiority or inferiority in them?
Ergo, the “nature vs. nurture” argument is moot; the point is that we should try our best to eliminate the worst of “gender”‘s destructive consequences, by raising girls to be more assertive and ambitious and boys to be more sensitive and cooperative (to counterbalance any biological tendencies), and trying to raise all children with a vision of mutuality, reciprocity, equality and kindness, instead of reinforcing any of the worst of what nature may or may not have given us (and taking a very individualistic approach to children’s education, as some girls may need more sensitivity training than assertiveness training and some boys may need more assertiveness training than sensitivity training; basically, seeking to strike a balance in self-confidence and self-interest vs. selflessness and cooperativeness in all people).
In sum, a proposal for eliminating the idea of gender (as opposed to biological sex) by seeking to empirically prove that it is, indeed, a pathology that is bad for humanity, regardless of the extent to which biology influences our personalities, capabilities and temperaments as male and female bodied people.
I know this is what YOU write about (and radical feminists too) and assume someone has already written this book or is in the process of it…any ideas?