|
xssve -> RE: Misogyny and BDSM (1/6/2010 8:41:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Daddy519
I'm new to the forums, and maybe its just the small sample size but I see some disturbing trends where posters seem to have a strong misogynistic leaning.
There's a part of me that thinks they are merely trolls seeking reaction, and if that's how they enjoy filling the emptiness in their lives the more power to them.
But...there is a part of me that wonders if some who truly hate women see BDSM as an outlet for their anger?
It lends credence to some articles I've read by the anti-BDSM crowd that all dominants are misogynists (these articles exclusively attribute dominance to males). But we all know that's bullshit.
Is this a new phenomenon, Where places like CM have become venues in which misogyny can be worn like a badge?
Now that I've laid in some background, I can address this question: prejudice is apparently an adaptive trait - I recently read about a study that demonstrated that presented with an exemplar of a certain thing, the propensity is to extrapolate it as a general rule, and apply whatever reaction generated by a particular specimen to the entire class of similar objects as a rule.
Thus, if for instance, one perceives a threat to ones utility due to the actions of a particular individual, the tendency is to predict similar behavior in similar individuals. It's a species of categorization, abstract assignment and classification of objects and phenomena according to their perceived characteristics: hot and cold, hard or soft, animal, vegetable or mineral, etc.
Abstraction is abstraction, and with experience, one typically begins to discover other distinctions, exceptions, overlaps, even common cause, if the object happens to be other people - if it becomes advantageous to exaggerate what be a minor irritation in any way, then that exaggeration will tend to be promoted and promulgated.
In the case of women, who by long tradition have been classified as chattel, some men feel their needs and desires, which they consider to be theirs by right, threatened and thwarted - the emancipation of women is very threatening to this sort of internalized construct of the "natural order" - they would very likely have the same reaction to similar behavior from a man, but since they cannot extrapolate this as a rule w/regard to "men", a class to which they themselves belong, they do make further taxonomic divisions, "conservative", "liberal", and often will associate the offending party with the class they are in conflict with, women in this case.
In most cases, it simply reflects everyday competition: external characteristics lend themselves to singling out statistically large numbers of competing individuals, and at the same time, reinforce group identity of whatever group vehicle one happens to be riding in.
Thus, your typical WASP male, having common cause with other similar individuals, will tend to identify with those individuals, and depending on the utility of it, may profess disgust at divergent "types" as a practical matter, i.e., whether or not he genuinely feels this way, or is convinced rationally of it - that's how group identity works.
This generally describes our relationship with other objects, and what you really have is a curve or continuum ranging from healthy disgust - women spend too much time in the bathroom, use inordinate quantities of paper products, etc., men think farts are funny and they're sloppy, etc. - to an internalized state of sociopathic animosity.
The latter is actually probably more rare than it might seem, most prejudice reflects some current class struggle in social politics, and there is and possibly always will be both militant forms of feminism, and a commensurate reaction formation of misogyny, real or presumed.
In short, we tend to identify with those similar to ourselves: men with men, women with women, children with children, etc., and the more political/social distinctions three are that affect our respective rights, privileges or options, the more exaggerated the identification becomes.
i.e., highly androcentric men will tend to see less radicalized men as quislings at best, and pussies most likely - i.e., when one has a strong identification with the masculine, feminization is the worst possible insult.
That's the kind of stealth misogyny that I find more disturbing, as it usually issues form those purporting to be defending "feminine virtue", and the underlying assumption is always one of feminine inferiority.
Of course, a lot of very intelligent women know this, and play the feminine role to the hilt, just as men can increase their chances of getting into a more independent minded woman's pants by being more realistic and fair minded.
In the end, it's all strategy sexual and economic, and generally not anything to get worked up about until it threatens to become institutionalized and create significant social-economic distortions - which it almost invariably does, as various individuals internalize what are essentially individualized strategies.
Since the thread went that way, it is naturally in the interest of some men to convince women they are all slaves by nature, and deride them for not acting like it (if they really were, they wouldn't need to act), but at the same time, there are women for whom this is actually kind of appealing, they are comfortable in a more passive role and everything works out more or less as you might expect: the people who are comfortable with it are comfortable with it, the people who aren't, argue or do something else
It works until they emerge into the larger community and start trying to market it as a broader, institutional value or preemptive model - reality - and run into people are decidedly not comfortable with it, and not at all passive on the subject of holding onto that for which they've fought long and hard to attain.
And round and round it goes.
|
|
|
|
