HYPOAGENCY – Hypoagency and Blaming Everything on Men

[Bonobo]

http://www.genderratic.com/p/2645/hypoagency-hypoagency-and-blaming-everything-on-men/


Female hypoagency is what we call the cultural tendency to deny that women have agency. We are talking about imputed rather than real lack of agency. This means that when a woman does something, her agency in that act is denied, so that if that act is something bad, she will be immune from blame.

A necessary corollary of female hypoagency is male hyperagency. Under male hyperagency men are held responsible for all the things women are not. I hope the sexism is obvious enough not to need further explanation and that the misogyny and misandry of this system is obvious too. One common form this takes is projecting women’s inaction, failures or the negative consequences of their actions onto men, as a culturral norm.

WAR – This is the claim that “men start wars” and that war is a male problem that men foist off onto innocent civilian bystanders. This relies on a completely uninformed and naïve understanding of war as some kind of sport that all those rough boys go off and do and the stray rounds fall on peace-loving innocent bystanders – in other words a complete denial of the benefits that women and others on the winning side derive from war, and a denial of women’s role in sending men to war.

POLITICS – This is the claim that men have all the power because they hold the majority of political office, despite the fact that women outnumber men as voters, so are responsible for all these male politicians being voted in. This ignores the troublesome fact that women make up the majority of voters. The engrained belief in hypoagency is what makes this denialism possible.

BENEVOLENT SEXISM – Every time women enjoy any kind of advantage due to gender – “privilege” – that has to be spun as being due to male action, or else it has to be spun as some kind of disadvantage. Labeling an advantage “benevolent sexism” accomplishes that.

[leftyohiolib]

1. in the war catagorie also "men start wars"- the men who were voted in by the majority female voter

thanks

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. File this under "shit you didn't learn in school"

http://www.academia.edu/255290/_Our_Last_Hope_Womens_Votes_for_Hitler_A_Reappraisal

Men and women vote the way they do for millions of reasons. But men and women both do vote, so men and women are proportionately responsible for the result.

[leftyohiolib]

4. only if there were exactly the same number of men as women but that's not the case

[fadedrose]

2. I used to see men as being favored over women...

But now, I think it was maybe just "white" men.

Lately I see white men as an endangered species. My opinion is formed mainly by watching TV. Have you noticed how many programs are hosted and guested by females - and some are not that good? (Rachel the exception, she is better than any living male, white or otherwise) Black men or hispanic seem to come after females in the hiring list of media agencies.

But I don't agree with the OP that females are the cause of so many wrongs. Sorry to butt into a men's group. I still like men, even if some of you blame me for everything.

[leftyohiolib]

9. i dont blame wymyn, and i think that any blame like "it's all the woman's fault" is too simplistic

but i understand b/c i've been hearing so much of how priviledged i am just for being white and priviledged for being male now im sexist because i open doors for wymyn - sometimes i feel the same way.

[In_The_Wind]

5. "AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service" ... You are not alone!

10:53 AM
Automated Message

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Mar 18, 2013, 10:45 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

HYPOAGENCY – Hypoagency and Blaming Everything on Men
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11147307

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Nothing but feminist bashing. Is this really the new DU?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 18, 2013, 10:53 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: imo: he is correct. The person who sent the alert must hate men. Can we not put hate_away from our lives! Can we not look for the good in each of us? Lighten up ~ francis!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I vote to hide the entire Men's Group. Too bad I'm only hiding this one post.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't agree with it, but I think it's interesting. Some truth in it, but a bit too skewed. That's opinions for ya..
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: As sick as I am of the gender wars, and the religious wars, on DU, I don't really see a reason to hide it. My suggestion to the alerter is to debate and challenge it.


Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree, does the mens group have anything better to do than attack feminists? Is that the reason for their existence? Bonobo, has a real issue with women. The hate for women drips off his every post. Also, it's typical MRA bullshit.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see way more men bashing. Not hide-worthy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

As a female: I support you!

[Bonobo]

6. Thanks!

I didn't think my hatred for women was dripping... I was pretty sure I had wiped all the woman blood of my face! Damn!

[In_The_Wind]

11. Bonobo. I look to find the best in everyone. If I want the dark side it is also there.

It is well known that: I like most men most of the time.
I also have very few female friends. My choice.
Men have usually been straight forward with me.
While often women gain my trust only to stab me in the back.
For any woman to become my friend is to her credit.
My standards are high. My friends know that I value integrity above all else.


Also it is my belief that:
even a strong man can benefit from the friendship and support of a truly caring female.

[theKed]

7. Seems there's some tourists about

That don't like the article in question.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I think it's interesting that both of the ones who would hide it...

... state that they're doing it primarily because it was posted in the men's group.

Nope, no bias in DU.

I'd be willing to bet that we have the highest proportion of frivilous alerts on DU.

[Gore1FL]

14. Is that called "womansplaining?" when they do that?

I assume "womansplaining" is an OK word to use; "mansplaining" apparently is.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. why don't you tell everyone why?

Ha, ha! See? You can't, because no matter what you say, you're just "mansplaining!" "La La La, can't hear you over the noise of the mansplanations!"

[Gore1FL]

16. Ahhh! You are mansplaining to me about mansplaining womansplaining.

What we need is Hervé Villechaize to Da plane at this point.

[opiate69]

17. Boss!!

[LadyHawkAZ]

10. They missed the huge, glaring category of sexuality/sexual expression

I can't think how: it's got to be the most obvious example.

This is presented in a gender framework but it's not an exclusively gender-related problem. No one, no matter their sex, race, religion, or other affiliation, really likes to give up something that benefits them, even if it benefits them at the expense of other people. You can see this everywhere from class issues to marriage equality to American exceptionalism- both people as individuals and societies as a whole tend to be self-centered and egocentric, and it's hard to convince them to give up something that either makes their lives easier or sets them above another rival group. We've structured our societies to encourage this attitude, and unfortunately there's no quick or easy solution to it, even though everyone seems to expect one to pop up.

With regards to the specific gender-related privilege issues, I have faith that we will eventually figure it out and start working together towards a truly equal, balanced society, but it's not going to be for a while yet, not while we're still dealing with the fallout from the attitudes of the past. It's going to require unified effort as well as time, and right now we don't have anything resembling unity. If we give it a couple of generations and keep working towards the goal, things will change. We are a transitional generation, with the usual transitional problems; people need to keep that in mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I don't know if that's a universal truth: I think people- not all people, all the time, but many-

are sympathetic to justice arguments, fairness arguments, equality arguments.

If no one was ever willing or even receptive to the idea of giving up anything for anyone else, civilization as we know it wouldn't exist.

I think on questions of race, gender, orientation, etc. there has been remarkable change and progress in recent years. Not that those divisions and issues don't still exist, not that there isn't still a ways to go, but I do think that attitudes are changing drastically.

[LadyHawkAZ]

13. Nothing's ever universal; there's always going to be exceptions

Last edited Mon Mar 18, 2013, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

For the most part, though, those willing to give up a privileged position fall into two categories: the opportunists, who are looking to obtain a different type of privilege for themselves and are willing to sacrifice the current one for it, and the visionaries, who can see the bigger picture and the new, different ways a more balanced society will benefit both themselves and the people they care about. Everyone's looking for a way to benefit, that's a survival instinct that's hardwired into us, but the definition of "benefit" varies widely between different people and different groups. So does the definition of "people they care about"; that can be anything from immediate family to the entire world population. The big problem of social change is getting the non-visionary, more egocentric types to give up what they have for a newly proposed social structure, when they aren't able to see a benefit to themselves. It scares people. The wingnuts in this country, for example, know that, and will push the fear of SCARY BLACK MEN! or BABY KILLERS! or GAY PEOPLE! as hard as they can, to slow that change down.

The change and progress in the move toward social equality, just in the past century or so, has been phenomenal. It's the only reason my natural cynicism hasn't collapsed into absolute misanthropy- obviously there is a thin thread of unifying force somewhere in the fucked-up mess that is humanity, in spite of the fact that we ignore it so often or try to beat it to death when we see it. I suspect that a couple of generations down the road, we will see racial, gender and orientation issues become mostly non-issues, IF we can keep on message and don't let the wingnuts or extremists frame the debate. There's hope.

ETA: after viewing yet another porn thread full of yet more true benevolent sexism- women can't choose sex ever, you know- I think I should have gone for the misanthropy. Maybe there's less hope than I thought.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Women can't hear what men don't say.

In that sense, in the absence of pushback, no one should be surprised that the sounds in the echo chamber becomes accepted as truth.

WRT "Benevolent sexism"... I'm kind of happy that what I've been bitching about all these years is becoming recognized, even if a woman-victimization term needed to be invented to explain why it's a problem.

If men are getting it, it's "privilege" if women are getting it, it's "benevolent sexism". Fine. Now that we've settled on what to call it, let's fix it.