Have you ever had to co-exist with something that could hurt you? The poem, “There is a Lion in My Living Room” caught the feeling of that habituated fear.
Transcript:
There is a Lion in My Living Room
I feed it raw meat
so it does not hurt me.
It is a strange thing
to nourish what could kill you
in the hopes it does not kill you.
We have lived like this
for so many years.
Sometimes it feels like
we have always lived like this.
Sometimes I think
I have always been like this.
Written by Clementine von Radics in her book “Mouthful of Forevers” (Andrews McMeel Publishing 2015).
Defining Misogyny
Misogyny is the power structure in a patriarchal society. It’s the societal constructs that keep women a few notches below men in power and authority. Men and women are not equal; cannot be equal.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that men are cruel or not loving. A man can love his wife and daughters and want what’s best for them, and still be a misogynist. The loving misogynist says, “I love my wife and daughters and want them to be happy! And what makes women happy is doing what men tell them to do.”
Misogyny motivated by love is still misogyny. “Remember, you may not like it when others in power are making decisions in your best interest without your input, but that’s simply because you fail to understand their motivations.” — some random person on the Internet being sarcastic about religious leaders.
If a man isn’t kind, then society allows him to yell at and abuse women as long as he doesn’t take it too far. A misogynistic society doesn’t penalize men for keeping women in their place.
Kate Manne’s book Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, argues that misogyny (like racism) is not about personal feelings, it’s “a social and political phenomenon with psychological, structural, and institutional manifestations”, and it’s mission is to maintain the status quo of gender hierarchy. Misogyny operates as patriarchy’s “police force” to enforce gender roles, punishing those (usually women) who deviate from them, and keep everyone (again, usually women) in their rightful places, and while obviously misogyny is directed at women, and this is the topic of Manne’s book, I would argue that if women under patriarchy have a place to be kept in, so do men, whose deviation is, in some ways, even more threatening to the status quo. [fn 1]
Christianity is misogynistic. Women are second place. Paul told women to keep silent in church, even though Jesus told Mary it was good for her to ask questions. Despite Jesus treating women as actual human beings, he didn’t elevate them to positions of authority. Jesus called twelve men as apostles and everyone he sent on a mission was a man. Sure, there are a few women in the scriptures who have some authority, like Deborah or Miriam (Moses’ sister). They are exceptions to the rule of patriarchy though — their presence didn’t create equality for women in Christianity.
So why do so many Christian women support the patriarchal, misogynistic patterns of Christianity?
Feeding the Lion
This article proposed several reasons why women support patriarchal religions. The specific religion being discussed was the Southern Baptist Convention. Some women have been ordained as pastors of local congregations, and then those congregations get expelled from the Convention. Women are subject to a “stained-glass ceiling.” We live in a time in which women hold high political office, run large companies, lead military men into battle, and yet millions of women still give their time and money to church groups that won’t allow them to lead men.
Why?
Complementarianism. Complementarians believe that God created men and woman as equals, but with separate roles for each. “We do not get to dictate what manhood and womanhood are all about. Our Creator does,” is how Mary Kassian, a women’s studies professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explains her support for complementarianism. Complementarians say that “some governing and teaching roles in the church are restricted to men” and cite scriptures that prohibit women from assuming authority over men.
This is the “separate but equal” doctrine that the LDS Church teaches too. Church leaders are a little squishier with their rhetoric than the Southern Baptists though. Witness all the recent attempts to convince women that they actually have priesthood authority and have had it all along! It’s limited to carrying out the calling that men select for them, but it’s there. The Southern Baptists do not offer such retconned slop to their women.
Fear. This is the biggie. Fear of community retribution. Fear of not having your family in the eternities. Fear of losing connections and friends.
We feed the lion. Men can cut women off from their communities and families if women speak out too much and demand too much equality. See Kate Kelly, who was excommunicated for founding Ordain Women and pushing for equality. [fn 2]
As the poem says “It is a strange thing to nourish what could kill you, in the hopes it does not kill you.” The verb ‘nourish’ goes beyond just feeding the lion. Nourish, nurture — these words have bigger connotations than just food. The Church relies on women for so much unpaid service. The lion needs more than just raw meat once in a while; it needs the hearts and souls and labor of women. And in exchange, it does not kill them. It exhausts them, but it does not kill them.
Remember Elise’s post about women ‘quiet-quitting’ Church? So many comments came from women who are exhausted from nourishing the lion. They tiptoe away quietly, hoping to avoid being killed or mauled for not feeding the lion anymore.
The last two sentences in the poem separate the poet from the lion. “Sometimes it feels like we have always lived like this.” That phrase “sometimes it feels” signals that the poet is remembering that the inevitability of the situation is just a feeling, not the actual truth. And then the last line offers just a glimmer of hope about breaking away. “Sometimes I think I have always been like this.” That change in the pronouns – the poet is mentally separating herself from the indivisible unit of lion and nourisher. “Sometimes I think” is the very beginning of exploring the idea that she does not always have to be like this in the future.
There is a lot of work left for the poet to do. This poem is just the beginning. It won’t be easy to break away from feeding the lion because the threat is real. No one would ever say that there is nothing to be afraid of from a lion. If you’ve been feeding what frightens you for your entire life, there’s a reason you’re doing that. It’s a survival skill. Stay alive until you’re strong enough to flee.
Or not. Many people will feed the lion their entire lives.
Questions:
- Does this image resonate with you? Have you had to “feed a lion” in other contexts?
- I fed the lion for most of my life. My awakening had a lot to do with realizing the lion was going to kill me anyway. I couldn’t feed it enough (be heterosexual). The lion has no use for people like me. What does the lion want you to do to nourish it?
- How do men have to feed the lion of patriarchy? What are the risks for a man who stops feeding the lion?
[fn 1] I haven’t actually read Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. I pulled this quote from a review.
[fn 2] Is there a book about Kate Kelly and Ordain Women? I know there are online essays and blog posts. Has anyone published the book yet?
Wheat & Tares 
We “appease” the lion, the system, the invader because we believe that “there is an eventual saturation point” or “enough is enough”. We believe that “if we give this to them” they will no longer have the motivation to “stop”.
And sometimes the invader has a sense to “stop” – to convert from a full-fledged invader to a mere parasite that consumes “just enough but not too much” to maintain the relationship.
When we are younger, it “costs us less energy” or it seems to “reward us” better – so that appeasement can occur, that parasitic relationship can exist, we can support that individual’s or that community’s agenda.
But sometimes, it seems easier to “stop ourselves” because our perception of the “appeasement” and “parasite” options is that they are no longer viable. What scares me the most is that there are stark gender-based difference at every age group about suicide – the ultimate “giving up”. That the system is contributing to killing our men – whether it is the concentration of economic power, not transferring power to men in healthy ways, not sanctioning or encouraging emotional language and coping tools, not paying attention to the needs and accomplishments of our men – and likely more then I have thought about. If we are talking about transferring power, respect, and autonomy to women – we need to also be talking about transferring power, respect, and autonomy to men without power.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide#:~:text=100%2C000%20in%202020.-,The%20total%20age%2Dadjusted%20suicide%20rate%20in%20the%20United%20States,females%20(5.7%20per%20100%2C000).
I very specifically limited my church activity in part because of the values clash between myself and the church organization and doctrinal teachings about gender and gender performance.
This values clash was the “final straw” and I am super careful about “keeping a boundary” between me and that lion because I see that threat for what it is.
But I am aware of the guilt and shaming of my husband regarding that values clash. There are undercurrents of fear running throughout the extended family because “I put distance” instead of “toughing it out like I was supposed to”.
People periodically attempt to hold my husband accountable for my choices (as his “priesthood duty”) – because they cannot go to toe to toe with me about them.
Feeding the lion is what Stockholm Syndrome is. You feed that lion long enough and you start thinking of it as a friendly pet, that you love, but HAVE to feed and nourish or it will kill you. And an angry lion might just kill you even when you have been feeding it daily for years. It may even act all loving like Siegfried and Roy’s tigers, then get startled and kill you anyway. Don’t EVER start to think that the lion has your best interest at heart because you feed it. The lion (or tiger) may really care about you and appreciate you feeding it, and still kill you because it doesn’t grasp that grabbing you in its teeth and shaking you will in fact kill you. Like Siegfried and Roy’s pet tiger, it just doesn’t understand at the moment it gets frightened, that it can easily kill you. So, don’t ever think the lion’s expressions of love mean it won’t kill you if you make it angry or afraid.
I am married to a really great guy. He supported my attempts at career as I followed him around with his Air Force assignment, moving to a new area on average of once every two years. But, a person cannot finish college while moving every two years, a person cannot advance in a company moving every two years. The wife just gets the kids settled into a new house, new schools, and the powers that be in the military are already looking at where to send him next. But when our oldest daughter was 19, she got engaged. He actually yelled at her, “No daughter of mine is going to drop out of college and get married to some guy in the air force!” Ummmmm…….which was EXACTLY what he had asked me to do at 19. He could see that would be not in our daughter’s long term best interest. But he totally failed to see the sacrifice he had just EXPECTED me to do out of love for him.
This is how loving misogyny works. Men just expect the women who love them, or the women who believe in the church, to just do things that are good for the man or the church, but are not in the woman’s best interest. They don’t even think it might be a bad idea for the woman to sacrifice her own career, and be the loyal wife doing everything to advance her husband’s interests at the expense of her own. Then what happens to that woman if he divorces her, or abuses her, or even if he dies. There she is with children and zero work experience or way to support herself and her children. The lion ended up killing her even when it said it loved her.
I may catch some heat for this, but I think misogyny is one of those words that has recently begun to be used differently from its usual meaning. We need a word that describes people who truly have antipathy, disgust, contempt, some other negative feelings towards women. I think misogyny has been that word in the past. The above discussion is describing chauvinism or sexism, in my mind. If we use misogyny to describe people with more benevolent motives, we lose the power of the M word to describe people who actually dislike women. It’s a real thing and it needs a good undiluted label.
@mark, on the contrary, I think it’s important to label benevolent patriarchy for what it *truly* is: misogyny.
Benevolent patriarchy is rooted in the assumption that woman are incapable of or not worthy to or not supposed to lead. That they are inferior. That’s misogyny.
Russell Nelson and Dallin Oaks are misogynists and sugar-coating that is giving them more credit than they deserve.
As a male RN, I feel like I have a unique perspective here. Being trained as an RN was my second career after having a well-paying early career in operations/IT. My wife has always worked as a teacher. In my courtship phase, I was adamant in selecting a companion who did not want to be a SAHM. I wanted someone “equally yoked” with me, in most areas like education, career-orientation, etc.. I felt it would be beneficial to have a dual-income household and I was willing to sacrifice and optimize both of our careers.
When we had our first and only child 9 years ago, I was in the middle of a career shift. I was doing all of the feeding and my wife was pumping. I was getting up multiple times per night to feed (breastmilk via bottle) so my wife could sleep and teach. I was the primary parent and was fast-tracking my RN studies. Having a child changed my wife. She decided she really did want to stay home during those early years. So she took a pause from her teaching job and did the full-time mom thing for 1 year and made money as a paid blogger on the side. Financially this was a tough time because my new career had just started and I was at the bottom of the totem pole in experience and earnings. But we had both worked for a long time prior to my career shift and had significant savings, so we were fine.
My wife regrets not staying home more with our child. I think she underestimated how hard it would be to both work and be a mom of a young infant/toddler. And let’s be honest, US does not have a good family leave policy. She took 3-months unpaid leave after the birth and then had summer. She cherishes the 1 year she had. We tried to have another child, but we started much later and it wasn’t possible. During Covid, she went back to school and got her master’s degree. I had to drop out of the labor force to support her going back to school while she worked full-time.
As time has passed, she is incredibly grateful that she perservered. She loves her career and she has taken on more of the parenting role. I probably have done 70-80% of cooking/cleaning throughout our marriage and do most of the parenting stuff (school selection, medical appointments, making lunches, buying clothes, haircuts, etc.). She makes it a priority to use her time-off to volunteer at class. It’s been a difficult dance. Now though, she out earns me by quite a bit as my RN career has had starts and stops due to supporting her. It’s okay, but we have stayed in the same geographic area because she has such long tenure in the school district when it would have been beneficial for us to move to a higher paying state for my career.
Bottom line: it’s really hard to try to be an egalitarian couple, especially in a society (including church) that reinforces strict gender roles. I feel like I’ve done our best, but I feel like the Lion is the subtle organization that reinforces traditional gender roles. Case in point: 3 times a year we have 1/2 days where a parent is expected to pick up their child at 12:30 pm the entire week. This presumes there is just one stay-at-home-parent always available, presumably the wife.
@Anna So ironic that your husband did not want your daughter to drop out of college and get married young to a a guy in the Air Force. I would be interested in knowing what happened if you feel like you can share. I’m so sorry you did not get to experience the career that you should have been able to develop/pursue. Is there a chance that your husband regrets what he did in not supporting your professional development and education and perhaps wants a better outcome for his daughter?
Janey,
Thank you for broaching this important topic. I want to clarify one thing you said which I no longer believe is correct. You said:
“Christianity is misogynistic. Women are second place. Paul told women to keep silent in church, even though Jesus told Mary it was good for her to ask questions. Despite Jesus treating women as actual human beings, he didn’t elevate them to positions of authority. Jesus called twelve men as apostles and everyone he sent on a mission was a man. Sure, there are a few women in the scriptures who have some authority, like Deborah or Miriam (Moses’ sister). They are exceptions to the rule of patriarchy though — their presence didn’t create equality for women in Christianity.”
I no longer believe Christianity was meant to be misogynist originally, with women in second place. I think the culture around us influenced and changed Christianity to become misogynistic. I will take each point you made to support your premise and explain why I don’t accept it.
The verse where Paul told women to keep silent at church has been rejected by the consensus of biblical scholars as being the words of Paul (see Daniel O. McClellan on FB). This was written into the original writings of Paul many years after Paul’s death by some other person. We can assume this was done to consolidate power. Earlier in the original writings Paul specifically gives women directions as to how women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy at church (see 1 Corinthians 11:5). This is in direct conflict with the verse in 1Corinthians 14:34 saying women shouldn’t speak at church.
You bring up Mary. Mary has been called the apostle to the apostles for a list of reasons. She was the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection. Jesus sent her to tell the apostles. The original meaning of the word apostle is “messenger”. There is also reason to believe that Mary help as high a spot in the hierarchy as Peter. Peter was often pointed out as the leader of the early church because of his testimony of Christ “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Martha states the same testimony of Jesus in connection to the resurrection of Lazurus. Biblical scholars have found that the original text had Mary’s name here and that later someone altered the text to call her Martha instead of Mary (making two separate person’s called Mary in the same story). This may have been done to consolidate power away from Mary as a possible head of the early church or it may have been done to just make the story more readable with different names for the women.
Junia was a woman and an apostle of note. Pheobe was a deaconess. If you want to contemplate biblical women with authority see 2 Kings 22:14-20 and 2 Chronicles 34:22-28 where Huldah the prophetess say “Thus saith the Lord” to King Josiah after he seeks her counsel.
The biggest reason the bible doesn’t include many women of power is because of how it was compiled. To understand this better I suggest you read “The Gnostic Gospels” by Elaine Pagels. There were originally two branches of the church in the early centuries after Christ. One of the churches focused on personal manifestations of the spirit, had rotating short term lay leadership that included women in the highest leadership. They had their own cannon with many books that supported that view such as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Acts of Thecla. The other branch of the church consolidated authority in men with life time appointments. Members were discouraged from seeking their own personal guidance from God and encouraged to only follow leaders in authority. Their cannon became the bible. They became the Catholic church.
So Christianity did not have to be misogynistic. In “The Making of Biblical Womanhood” by Beth Alison Barr she shares that women often had authority in the church during medieval times. Of course we know that changed. Another example of this evolution occurred even within our own church. Women were given the priesthood in the first Relief Society meeting (read the notes in the josephsmithpapers.org). They gave blessings regularly until about 1910. Joseph F Smith put a stop to that in his efforts to consolidate power in the church through correlation (see “Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism” by Maxine Hanks).
You remain correct that regardless of this patriarchy remains in charge. But do not justify it by the bible. Joseph was correct that there were translation problems in the bible. I would say there were also canonization problems in what was included and excluded from the bible. Following Christ does not mean you have to accept complementarianism or patriarchy. Leaders of the church are mistaken when they use Jesus Christ and the bible to justify their sometimes benevolent oppression of women.
I agree with you that it is the entrenched culture of the church, and yes, women do uphold it, as well as men that are hurt by it, as Amy skillfully explained. I don’t have an answer for you. The lion still sits in the middle of the house. I could flee, but there are many vulnerable people I can’t take with me.
lws329, thank you for that additional information. I think Christianity changed a lot from the time of Jesus’s death until the time that the New Testament was canonized. I recently read a book called How Jesus Became God, that went through just the changes that moved Jesus from an itinerant preacher to becoming “the son of God” at his baptism, to becoming the one and only God and a part of the Trinity to boot. Now, I don’t agree with everything in this book, but the process the author describes was eye opening in just how much changed from the time some of Jesus’s teaching were written down, to when the gospels and other books were actually written.
There is also good evidence that women were ordained and led congregations that has mostly been erased to the point that people think that “because Jesus didn’t ordain women…well, Jesus didn’t ordain anybody, So, there’s that.
I think that, while Jews are patriarchal, they were less misogynistic than the Romans, and Christianity ended up following Roman culture and attitudes with several beliefs much more than Jewish. By the time Christianity got established, it was a long way from what Jesus actually taught. The Christian church ended up very misogynistic in spite of Jesus treating women as human beings.
Jacob, I said it was difficult to get through college, not that I didn’t DO it, in spite of the difficulty. Before my husband retired from the A F after 20 years, I got my Master’s degree in Social work. Some of that was transferring credits to a new university, then finishing up so I could graduate after he had moved to the next assignment, and some of it was getting lucky enough to find a graduate program close to where we were assigned that took one year to complete instead of two. And he supported me finishing up my education. And although he did ask me to drop out of college to get married, the A F was not really his choice either. Back in 1960s and 70s there was still the *draft*, and so the Air Force was not his first choice either but better than Vietnam. And we got supper lucky that he never saw combat or got himself killed, or we ended up divorced as so many military families do. It is NOT an easy life being career military. And the decision to stay in after he finished his first enlistment was a joint decision, but that is another story. So, while it was difficult having any kind of career, I kind of started the actual career more after he got his twenty years in, and our children were teens. I was lucky that I never *needed* to support myself and children. I saw so many military wives not be so lucky.
As to our daughter, she did drop out of college, and never made it back to finish. But after I sat her down and pointed out that her guy was abusive, she gave the relationship enough time that they broke up without getting married. So, she dodged that bullet and ran right into a different bullet. But that is another story.
I am with Mark. Misogyny is literally “hatred of women,” from Greek, misogynēs “woman-hater,” from miso- “hatred” + gynē “woman.” We have a problem in our society for changing the meaning of words, and then using them as clubs. For example, I might disagree with a friend on welfare reform, but that doesn’t make one or the other racist, but the use of racist as an epithet will stifle discussion. There are real misogynists in the world. Calling lots of people misogynist because their wife supported their husband’s career, or because they belong to a church that doesn’t give women the priesthood, or because they think that women’s sports should be reserved for biological women does a great disservice, because the real misogynists who beat their wives, or who rape them, or who yell at and belittle them, or who will not promote them at work, etc., benefit greatly when their number is included to include decent people with whom we disagree about some point. One might call me misogynist because my wife stayed home and raised our children, but does she see me that way? No, she quit work of her own accord when child number one came to us. Her income was greater than mine at the time, and her choice to stay home required serious budgeting and sacrifice–and she never once heard me complain, nor did I hear her. Our choice to engage in complementarianism, if that is what we did, doesn’t make me a misogynist, nor does it make her a supporter of structural misogyny. So I respectfully disagree with the OP’s assertion that “the societal constructs that keep women a few notches below men in power and authority.” Misogyny, at least in the dictionary’s definition, requires actual hate and malice. Many men love their wives and daughters, work for women at work, and hear no ill-will to women because of their sex. They might be benighted, or behind the times, or not woke, but they are not misogynists if their hearts bear no hatred. A patriarchy need not be misogynist, though it could be sexist, chauvinistic, etc. A problem with calling everything misogyny is that we then also call almost everyone misogynist, and that doesn’t help the discussion move forward.
Misogyny isn’t a feeling. In the post, I addressed that. Literally saying “misogyny isn’t about personal feelings.” Misogyny is the power structure in a patriarchal society.
I just looked up ‘misogyny’ on dictionary.com and we’re both using the word correctly. It has two meanings.
I don’t think I’ve heard ‘misogyny’ used much to describe outright hatred and abuse. That’s just called ‘abuse’ or ‘rape’ or whatever actually happened.
Nitpicking word choice doesn’t move the discussion forward either. Outright hatred, like incels bear towards women, is harmful. But the benevolent misogyny is also harmful. It’s harder to identify because to outsiders, it looks like the man is being all kind and loving and the woman is being unreasonable and emotional by trying to make him shut up and go away. Benevolent misogyny is a real mind game. Hateful misogyny is easier for outsiders to condemn, but benevolent misogyny makes you feel like you’re insane. Both are harmful.
Look, I may catch some heat for saying this next part — but I notice that it’s two men who are pushing back against using ‘misogyny’ to describe the power structure. Not a great look. I, a woman, get to choose which words I use to talk about this power system that nearly broke me. And the fact that the men who were calling me crazy and trying to portray me as the emotional, out of control, unreasonable one were being loving and concerned, and gosh it’s just that they’re not woke, made my situation a 100 times harder to break out of because it’s harder for bystanders to see the ‘benevolent misogyny.’ Beating a woman for wanting to be equal is wrong; telling a woman she needs to take medication and pray for humility and repent for wanting to be equal is also wrong.
They are both misogyny. That doesn’t mean we call everyone a misogynist. Only people who genuinely think women shouldn’t be equal to men are misogynists. If you don’t want the label, then support equality for women.
**
Thanks for sharing stories, all. Jacob L, I liked that attitude that you actively looked for a woman who wanted a career! It is hard to have it all. Your perspective was both interesting and important.
Anna – pretty wild that your husband saw the way marrying a military man would limit her, and didn’t process all that you had given up. I have career military men in my family, and their wives have not been able to have careers. The frequent moves made it impossible.
lws329, thanks for the historical context. I admit I don’t dive deeply into history. Current Christianity is misogynistic. As with every problem in religion, God never makes any course corrections. We humans do that.
I read the book that Anna mentions to: How Jesus Became God. It was all about maintaining power over believers.
Trump seems to be the embodiment of misogyny on the abusive end, what do his female supporters see in him?
Would Kamala Harris be able to attract the women’s vote as well as democrats and undecided?
”I would argue that if women under patriarchy have a place to be kept in, so do men, whose deviation is, in some ways, even more threatening to the status quo.”
In my experience, men do experience misogyny to the extent they act traditionally “feminine.” How many boys have been cussed out, assaulted, and/or murdered for being queer or even for acting too emotional, too shy, or too sensitive? All men know the fear of society not deeming them manly enough—even if you’ve done the work to outgrow it, you know what that fear tastes like. It makes life worse for everyone. I’m grateful that our society is becoming gradually more accepting of men expressing femininity. We all benefit from blurring that line and anyone who tells you otherwise is still tasting the fear.
I was my most misogynistic when I was at my most Mormon. A mission companion once told me, “I really think women just aren’t cut out for missions” and I just laughed and shrugged in halfhearted agreement. (In hindsight—WTF?) I was at my lowest point in life when I was a YSA RM struggling to get a girlfriend because I had basically been told I would be blessed with a beautiful and demure wife for my faithful missionary service and it just wasn’t happening. (In hindsight, well yeah—who wants to date a depressed, entitled RM who’s been taught that women are inferior and has been forbidden from flirting for 2 years?)
In short, I was a Ken. Without a Barbie to validate my existence, I felt worthless and was incapable of forming healthy relationships with women. Feminism pulled me out of it (thanks Facebook). Feminism is the antidote to misogyny and coincidentally the antidote to men feeling terrible about themselves. The best thing church leaders could do for the mental health of men in the church is ordain women.
Kirkstall – YES! Well-said. Misogyny takes aim at all the ‘womanly’ traits whether it’s a man or a woman exhibiting them. Men should be able to be soft and vulnerable. We’ve all got the same range of feelings, but men are punished for showing emotions other than anger and the like. Equality would help both genders. I’m more masculine than the ideal LDS woman. A man who likes more feminine things should be allowed and encouraged to do what he likes; what makes him happy. The patriarchy hurts any who don’t conform to it, whether they’re men or women.
I was at my most misogynistic as a faithful TBM as well. I had fully embraced the ‘complementarianism’ doctrine. We were separate but equal, with differing roles. I was doing my best to fit in and appease the patriarchy. Since I’ve stopped trying to smother the masculine parts of my personality, I’ve made so much progress towards self-acceptance and true happiness. And it hasn’t freaked out men! I’m the office’s “heavy hitter” and the only woman on the team, and the other men on the team are just thrilled I’m there. None of them are misogynists and I’m really flourishing in a work environment where I don’t have to tiptoe around and be feminine enough not to intimidate patriarchal men.
kirkstall’s comment made me think about how misogyny and homophobia have similarity in contempt for the feminine. And probably coexist in individuals for that reason. I get a lot of abuse from drivers as a cyclist, but the one that puzzled me and seemed the most hateful was being called a f**t. My interpretation was that certain males think cycling is feminine, and therefore objectionable, maybe the tight clothing, shaved legs, absent massive belly?
Mark, yeah, the dude who called you f**** was a real misogynist. Probably the kind who beats his wife. With this thinking, “gay” is tied to anything he hates. He was just expressing hatred in the way he thought you would be most insulted. You after all have no right to be on *his* road. You are not a monster truck. And I am probably stereotyping but he was probably driving a Chevy or Ford truck with a Trump sticker or flag.😉
And you are right. Hatred of anything feminine is a big part of homophobia. The two are very much tied together. Under this system, gay is so much worse than lesbian, because being attracted to women is “good” and being attracted to men is “feminine” and bad. It is why trans women are hated more than trans men. Well, who wouldn’t want to be a man, if you can cut it. There is grudging respect for any woman who actually can succeed in this man’s world—-if she is on his team. So, Republicans love MTG for her tough act, but hate Hillary because of her tough act. And heterosexual sex is so superior to lesbian sex that experiencing the good kind of sex would “cure” them. (Except I understand that many bi women feel that sex is better with women because they are more loving and not just out to finish.) That is why some men are actually turned on by watching lesbian porn. They are thinking “boy if they are so turned on by this inferior type of sex, think how turned on they would be by the “good” kind.” It some why men think rape will cure lesbians. And being “the bottom” in gay sex is SO bad.
Yes, misogyny has two meanings. One is personal hatred, and the other is systemic built in discrimination. One is easily recognizable that the guy is a jerk, and the other is the air we breathe. It is just so much a part of the world we live in that we don’t even see it. But we know it is there by the effects it has. English is bad and confusing that way, many words have multiple meanings.
And it might help to see misogyny of a spectrum that runs from the good guys like my husband who just can’t see how they harm those they love, all the way to the Trump like men who rape, intimidate, and are open in their contempt. The loving kind of misogynist has no intent to harm, but just doesn’t think about how the system harms women. It is the system and God set it up and we poor little men can’t do anything about it because that is the way God set it up and if women have a problem, their problem is with God. They may really like women, enjoying their company much more than men’s company, and respecting their “widowed mother who raised six children on her own” (Hinckley) and still not see the problems in the system that make it so much harder for the “widowed mother” than the widow father. So, my husband really is a great guy, but he has a couple of blind spots as do most men and most women. He is even the kind of guy who supports his lesbian daughter, the trans sister in law, and you would call him a woke feminist. But we ALL have blind spots.
So, let’s put woke feminist males with blind spots on one end of the misogyny scale, and homophobic jerks in pickup trucks flying Trump flags, and yelling at bicycle riding guys and beating their wife at the opposite end. (So, down vote me for the stereotype. I’m good with that)
As to why some women are driving that pickup truck with the Trump flags flying, it is so much better to be an Aunt Lydia than a handmaid. And if we are stuck in the Hand Maids world, or the church, who wouldn’t pick being the powerful female instead of the abused one? So, women feed the lion extra good treats so the lion eats somebody else first. It is the joke about pushing your friend down when running from the grizzly bear. You gain power by supporting the system that hurts you so it will hurt you less. It is why MTG will be in a better position if Trump gets elected than Hillary. She pushes other women down so she can get favored treatment from the grizzly bear.
Beautiful sum up Anna. My observations on this topic are about something that exists on an almost subconscious level in interactions between men and women. Both men and women participate in this.
For the women, this means you unconsciously defer to men and accept without much fuss that men dominate discussions and conversations (particularly in groups that consist of mostly men and fewer women, but it also can occur between one man and one women).
For the men, this means you have an unconscious expectation that when you speak, women will listen to you and stop speaking. They will defer to you. Because this is how interactions with girls and women have occurred all your life, you are unaware of this. However, even the most woke man will generally feel disrespected if a woman successfully interrupts him or talks over him. The contrast is that the same man will interrupt a woman and talk over her, and feel afterwards that he was perfectly respectful, and in fact, not even notice that he made sure that woman wasn’t heard, while he had the privilege of being heard.
Women know that they will be considered .itchy if they don’t seamlessly cooperate in this and defer to the man. However, in reality, to be heard, a woman often has to interrupt and talk over the man (and be seen negatively in a way men are not seen negatively when they do the exact same thing). Women often choose to not be heard so they can fit in and be seen as a good woman by both men and women. For a woman to speak up regularly she has to get to a place in her maturity that she no longer cares what people think of her. Meanwhile, men speaking up is accepted, expected and rewarded at young ages. This has profound implications for the personal development of men and women.
For example, I was just listening to a podcast today with a discussion of the early Mormon church and adoption sealings. The podcast consisted of historians, two or three men, and a female historian who had written a book on the topic (I think maybe she was a guest on the show?). They were discussing patriarchy, and polygamy and if historians can bracket their own emotions and judgements, or evaluate these things morally. They talked over this woman constantly and hardly allowed her to speak. When she did speak, she had to interrupt, but often didn’t get to finish what she had to say. It was like they were completely unaware of the way they dominated the discussion and didn’t allow her to speak.
This is what I mean when I refer to structural or unconscious patriarchy or misogyny. We have been enculturated to behave in a certain way as men and women. It deeply affects our personal development as well as our interactions. It is something I only gradually came to see and understand.
lws329
I likewise was listening to that podcast this week and similarly frustrated that the woman never got to speak. I understand the zoom meeting dynamic as it’s hard to tell when it’s your turn but if I do speak over someone I try to return to them when I’m done, recognize I cut them off, give them the mic, and go on mute. There was none of that in the podcast and it made me sad. I really wanted to hear from her.
lws329
I’m curious. What is the podcast? The topic is something I am very interested in.
Misogyny is the structure upon which patriarchy and sexism rest. We need only look to the draconian indifference which women have endured as their bodily autonomy has been taken away. The largely male legislators who have passed these forced birth laws seen completely ignorant of female reproduction and the cost and toll of pregnancy. Sepsis? Not a problem. Future infertility? Not a problem? High infant and maternal death rates? Not a problem…and on and on.
The cries of women are just women crying.
Valerie,
It was Radio Free Mormon, Dating Fanny Alger [Mormonism Live 189]. Really really interesting. Apparently sealings didn’t start with polygamy, they started with adoption.
With Kamala Harris now the democrat running for president, should we expect to see misogyny from the republicans. They say they have attack ads for Kamala, I wonder if any women vet them for misogany? Will republican women, or undecided women see it?
We had a woman PM and she copped it a lot.
Yes. And likely many Republican women will believe it’s perfectly justified. I have an independent friend sharing videos of Kamala making a fool of herself with a word salad, and making fun of her. It’s only going to get worse.
How do men have to feed the lion of patriarchy?
Boys grow up to be men, and I think the type of socialization and media they consume play a huge role in how they perceive the world. A few years ago I read an essay in The New York Times that really resonated with me. It basically decried the lack of complexity that existed in children’s literature for boys. My wife and I talked about this at length. Here is the quote from the essay (“What We Are Not Teaching Boys About Being Human”) that really resonated with me:
In addition to devouring the Dogman series (excellent, by the way!) and The Diary of a Wimpy Kid, we mixed things up with Babysitters Club books and Sister Magic and a whole bunch of other “person-drama” stories that were more complex and exposed my son to more feelings, dialogue, conflict, etc. Last school year, he and his best friend were the only 2 boys invited to the all-girl b-day party for the twins in his class. He drew her the most adorable card with unicorns on it and made her a friendship bracelet. I was really proud of him for being able to code-switch. I chalk that up as a win. It starts with the next generation. Another observation: this past week I’ve been in Utah County. I was in the Provo rec center and I saw a pick-up game of intense basketball. Two or three HS aged girls were playing (and I mean really playing) with the guys. No big deal. There is hope for the future.
Is it misogyny to share “videos of Kamala making a fool of herself with a word salad, and making fun of her”? The word salads are a part of who Ms Harris is, and I think that their use is probably fair game, as is her opponent’s legal status. I think that one can oppose Ms Harris for president and not be a misogynist or a racist, but I agree with Geoff that the Republicans should vet their advertisements to ensure that they don’t appear to be anti-women. I hope that the race proceeds on merits, qualifications, capabilities, and positions, rather than on gender or ethnicity, but I am not going to bet the family farm.
I suppose the word salad is fair game, however, I have always abhorred personal attacks that are about little or nothing involving the candidates political stands, but only exist to denigrate them or make them feel shame about their personal characteristics. That’s why I have never voted for Trump. He made fun of a man with a speech impediment in his first campaign. Personal attacks that include misogyny is one way to attack someone for personal characteristics, but I still feel it is hurtful to put together spliced videos of people of either sex just to make them look bad and laugh at them. And it’s true, in some ways, being a woman can make a person more vulnerable and likely to be considered silly and a light weight in connection with these sort of attacks.
You probably won’t understand what I am saying in light of our current political atmosphere. However, it hurts me inside when a woman I considered to be my sister in the church, a friend and a Christlike person, puts up videos making fun of other people. We only feel it’s okay to do that because we see them as being on the other team, and I think somehow as less than human and deserving of basic respect.
lws329, it pains me, too, when members of the church make fun of people to embarrass them, or to make themselves look superior. We need a little more civility all around, especially from those with the name of Jesus on their lips. Can Mr Trump address Ms Harris’ weaknesses without attacking her sex? Only time will tell.
I am not sure what word salad means. I see her laugh ridiculed too.
so you have a choice between a convicted felon who plans to dismantle democracy, but is apparently a good speaker and doesn’t laugh.
and a woman who has integrity, and is happy.
Normal politicians question their opponents policies.ie higher tax or lower for the very rich. It doesn’t have to be about personal attacks. That’s trumps way but does not help.
IMO….an article written by a person who quite clearly holds men in contempt; and maybe in active hatred. While I can empathize with her feelings – I have to say that growing up as a man isn’t really all that great either. You produce something or you die. You’re placed into “the grinder” at a young age….and when you’re ground into dust…..you’re tossed to the side. You outta try it out sometime.
While it is fashionable to blame men for all of the social ills in the World; you really should try living a lifetime as a man – especially in this culture. You’re valued only as long as you produce something and provide for other people. You’re generally not loved for “who you are – and for just being you”; but rather for what you make, who you provide for, what you wear, what you drive and the work position you hold at any given time. When any of these things diminish for any reason – a man’s worth goes to zero pretty quick.
We raise young men to go “into the grinder” at a young age; with expectations that really no one can meet. And, once a person is ground into the dust….they’re thrown away and the next “piece of meat” goes into the machine…..
Yes, there are some exceptions to this (for both Men and Women) but REALLY……..
As a man, lefthandloafer is writing clearly as someone how holds women in contempt and maybe active hatred. While I can empathize with his feelings, I have to say that he is clearly missing all the gazillion benefits he also has as a man that a woman never has (while women also have all the nagatives). Really, . . .
Men also clearly suffer problems in our culture. As the mother of 5 sons I agree with lefthandloafer, and I don’t see his statement as reflecting hatred of women. I see his statement as a reflection of the negative effects misogyny has on men.
Women having problems isn’t exclusive of men having problems. In fact, I think they are connected. Let’s make room for men to be more nurturing and valued for themselves instead of just providing a paycheck. When women are supported to be their full selves a couple can more readily meet the man’s needs as well as the woman’s.
I don’t want my young men thrown in the grinder, and I hear you, it’s waiting for them. Even and especially in the church the grinder waits to discount and throw away young men that aren’t competitive, athletic, successful and willing to disregard their own feelings and needs. We need to change the whole dynamic.
I agree, lws329, that men/boys have difficulties to deal with and that many of these problems are because of the partriarchy. When lefthandloafer basically writes, “You think women have it bad, wait until you hear about men,” however, that is a straight-up patriarchal victimization trope (hello Trump) that perpetuates the partriarchy when it realizes it is under attack. I’m responding tongue-in-cheek to lefthandloafer’s first comment, which is completely out of the ball park. And the second comment also contains all sorts of ridiculous claims as well. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should take a hard look in the mirror, listen to more women, and then come play ball. I’m a father of 5 sons myself and the answer is feminism. And that ain’t what lefthandloafer is selling at all.
I’m quite sure that some other W&T readers will remember a podcast about the patriarchy a few years ago (I’m not finding it readily in my search.)
One aspect of a patriarchal system that stood out to me is that in patriarchy, most men are harmed, and all women are harmed. It is really a system of concentrating power at the top.
In multiple comments there is a sort of us-vs-them mentality between all the people who are adversely affected by the power concentration. The propensity for “infighting” is a feature of patriarchy, not a bug. Why? Because it deflects ire from being aimed where it originates – at the top.
Some examples of women “feeding the lion” I find particularly stomach churning are older women performing genital mutilation on girls in some cultures, Eliza R Snow recruiting and training women to be polygamist wives, Ghislaine Maxwell doing similar for Jeffrey Epstein, etc. That sort of thing is bottom of the barrel. It demonstrates how low things get.
I will be surprised if Trump is able to restrain himself from blatant sexist attacks on Kamala Harris. Remember how he treated his white (sometimes Hispanic), male Republican opponents? He insulted Ted Cruz’ wife, and claimed his father assassinated JFK, for hell’s sake.
Some Took My Handle: “Feminism is the answer”?! You’ve been smoking some bad juju, Mate.
@lefthandloafter: Yes, obviously, which is why my 5 sons are well-adjusted and not worried at all about the male problems you idenity. I mean, you could look in the mirror. Your comments suggest you’re the one with the problems and should try drinking something else. Or you could read a book on the topic. Something in sociology. Or get off of right-wing media which keeps promoting the male sterortypes you complain about. I don’t know, just a few suggestions. I’m happy with what I’m doing. Doesn’t seem like you are.
Equality is the answer. The sort of feminism that I identify with is working towards equality. Not tearing men down, but lifting women up to an equal place. A world where feminine qualities are valued as much as masculine qualities. Where a man can openly display qualities typically thought of as ‘feminine’ and not be ridiculed for it. Where a woman can be assertive and ambitious, and not be seen as a threat.
I was going to say it’s a bit pie-in-the-sky, but then I remembered that I am in a situation with that equality. My co-workers and colleagues really do treat me as an equal and it’s wonderful. I was always missing this sort of respect at Church and in my family. It’s possible for men and women to be equal. And everything is better for everyone with equality.
Someone took my handle: Your Arrogant Presumption is so very offputting and infantile. You know nothing about me – and therefore am in no position to counsel me to do one thing – versus another. Sure I have my own problems – as I suppose you have as well. I don’t attempt to solve anything off of Right or Left Wing Media; and actually abhore most of the thousands of “talking heads” on both sides. We have our minds, our reason and our experiences; and yes, the proven wisdom of others.
Unfortunately, there’s also a great of deal of insanity (and assinine stupidity) being offered up all around us.