Yes, Patriarchy Is Dead; the Feminists Prove It

[thucythucy]

29. Well, we can go round and round on this.

See my post 28, in response to Major N, for my quick take on casualties of militarism, men vs. women. In short, I think in any calculation of who suffers from militarism (which I consider a corollary of patriarchy, that is, either caused by patriarchy, or used to justify it, or concomitant with it) you have to include those who suffer/die due to mass bombardments, occupations, counterinsurgency campaigns, famine, epidemics all due to warfare. To tease out American military casualties of the 20th century as a primary data set is I think misleading. I mean, there's a whole world outside of the US, and thousands of years of history that also have to be considered. I know this isn't directly relevant to your post above, but figured I'd add it into the mix while it was on my mind.

As far as men defending hearth and home, perhaps if women in all these instances were given military training, and access to arms, not to mention some modicum of political power, these various awful situations might come out differently? Generally speaking, it seems to me, it's been men who've decided to enforce the notion that a woman's place is in the home, even if it is obviously militarily disastrous. Even allowing women into the workplace can be an issue: Albert Speer kept urging Hitler to allow women to work in the armaments factories, as they were in the US, Britain, USSR (in the USSR they were also flying combat missions and even, some of them, fighting on the front lines, not to mention as partisans). This went against Nazi ideology, of course, and like all right wingers Hitler decided better to lose the war than compromise on ideology. Of course, after the war all those manufacturing jobs in the US especially reverted to their "male only" status. Not to mention "whites only" and "non-disabled only." Passing strange, isn't it, how a group of people can be perfectly competent at some job one year, and then too fragile, impaired, or unsuited the next?

Interesting point about women going off to join the Visigoths. One theory of why the Roman Empire collapsed as it did -- when by and large the populations of the "civilized" regions outnumbered the invading "barbarians" -- is that most people who were inhabitants of the Roman Empire basically didn't give a fuck who governed them--life as a slave or landless peasant doesn't inspire one to fight and die for the Empire. And there are accounts of Puritan women, kidnapped during Indian raids on New England settlements (for instance, during "the Deerfield massacre&quot who chose to stay with their captors, when offered the choice of returning to their families. Life as a Puritan woman was by all accounts pretty awful, life with "the savages" was much preferred. And of course those who complained about the Puritan view of women ran the risk of exile (like Anne Hutchinson) or hanging (like the majority of the Salem "witches&quot . Thank god, goddess, or flying spaghetti monster we've outgrown that sort of nonsense.

I've been thinking about your point about the "White Feather League" or whatever it was called, and your calling out feminists who indulged in this sort of shaming of military age men as hypocrites. I'm not quite sure "hypocrisy" is how I'd term it: but it certainly was reprehensible. Of course, when push came to shove it was each individual man who had to decide for himself whether to enlist or not, at least until the draft took hold in all the various nations. So they also have some responsibility to bear, don't you think?

Anyway, since you bring up that era, I'd have to say "white feathers" is pretty small potatoes compared to the hypocrisy that was rampant those years. I mean, take "poor little Belgium." Here's a nation, the king of which raked billions from the central Congo, in a campaign the barbarity of which is really almost unrivaled in all human history, getting bent out of shape over being invaded. Compared to what the Belgians did to the Congo, German atrocities during the occupation were pretty tame (not to minimize anyone's personal suffering, and truth be told the German occupation was hardly benign). And there's Great Britain championing "poor little Belgium" and denouncing German imperialism. I mean really, England calling out another nation on its imperialism? Then there's Russia, coming to the defense of its "Slav brothers" in Serbia, all the while keeping a tight, one could say hermetically sealed lid of oppression on Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine... Russia was called "the prison of nations" and suddenly Czar Nicholas II is taking on a role as "the Great Liberator?" Now THAT'S world class hypocrisy right there. Makes even Dick Cheney look like a relative amateur.

Interestingly enough, all the major decision makers of "The Guns of August" were men. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only woman who was even close to holding political power among the major powers at the outbreak of the Great War was Tsarina Alexandria--who argued against Russia joining the war. So it's hard for me to fault feminists too much for also being swept up in the war fever, as opposed to anyone else. More troubling to me in fact is how almost all of the socialists in the German Reichstag voted for the war--along with socialists in France and Britain. So much for working class solidarity. Maybe if Juares hadn't been assassinated things might have been different, but I tend to doubt it.

Speaking of commercial fishing boats (sort of) you should check out Lucy Gwin's "Going Overboard" -- about her being the only woman working on the ships that serviced the offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico in the 1970s. Don't worry, it's not a feminist rant. But it is a really good read, should have won some awards or something, IMHO.

"If domination...Hillary would be a coal miner, not a candidate for president."

Well, that's a handy slogan but hardly applies. The patriarchy, if not dead in America, is definitely gasping. But if the patriarchy weren't about domination and power, I tend to doubt that every single president in our nation's two hundred thirty plus year history, not to mention the overwhelming majority of senators, congress-critters, governors, legislators, Supreme Court judges, etc. would just happen to be men. Hell, if denying people the right to vote for the first century and a half (give or take) of the nation's political existence wasn't about power, what on earth WAS it about? And please don't say "protection."

Anyway, the point is one only talks of "protecting" those with a relative lack of power, which obviously you know. Empowerment, as opposed to "protection," is what any liberation movement is about. Of course, with empowerment comes responsibility. But I for one would prefer to be empowered--and responsible--than "protected" at the expense of my fundamental rights, no matter how benign or even beneficial that protection might be. "Protection" can always be rescinded. Empowerment--political rights--not nearly as easily.

Best wishes.