Urban v's the Commentariat

[littlebabyjesus]

tbf he started off with a sweeping statement and became a bit more nuanced as he went on. I still think he has it wrong about the nature of human interaction, which is a bit evo-psychy.

And the nature of male domination, where it exists, is far more complex anyway. There are other ways to dominate, for instance by being rich. And money trumps gender generally, I would say, in terms of social power.

 

[el-ahrairah]

yeah, that's why it was so hard to see what he actually meant.

well, it's all class isn't it, but within classes gender.

like, an upper class woman lacks the social power of an upper class man, but has far more social power than a working class man, because of class.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I followed that for a while but then got out while the going was still good. I will try and find your post but if you happen to have a link I'd be grateful. In the meantime I'll have a go:

50 men and 50 women spawn on to God's green land. All else being equal, the men will tend to dominance because they, as a rule, are stronger and can physically force the women to do what they want. I contend that this will hold true regardless of cultural preconditions of the people. That is, whether they are a group of people plucked from 1990s Britain or a pre-agrarian, pre-capitalist tribe.

Because...? I'm asking because I don't want to just assume you're some kind of social Darwinist or biological determinist.
After all, muscle power isn't the be-all and end-all of dominance.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not advocating anything.

I'm saying that men have historically dominated women through the threat of physical violence.

Reductivist.
Men have historically dominated women because over time a narrative of male dominance was constructed in order to naturalise patriarchy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about patriarchy.

No, you were talking about a small number of men and women.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You were making a generalisation about 'human nature', no? And the inevitability that if males are physically bigger they will dominate.

If tommy has an open mind, he'll know there's no such thing as "human nature" - that "human nature" is a social construct used to excuse and/or explain behaviours that invariably emanate from motivation rather than from a vacuum.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, and this is where I think the intersectionalist approach falls down.

For example, a woman may experience sexism in the workplace but it is fairly unlikely that she faces actual physical threat.

Frankly, that's a poor example, given that a significant minority of claims of workplace sexism involve physical sexual harrassment. "Fairly unlikely" doesn't cut the mustard.

She is being belittled or whatever because she lives in a patriarchal society, which ultimately derives from the exploitation of force. But as in many circumstances it is now split from physical strength then there is an opportunity for change (hence attacks on patriarchy).

But the point is that the inequality here didn't derive from class.

Didn't it? How was and is modern sexual inequality in the workplace constructed?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sorry, but I genuinely can't see how you're interpreting it in this way. Some men may not have (partly due to codification of structures I mentioned above), but that doesn't change the statement that men as a collective group did. An example: 'the British in the 19th century exploited people in other countries'. Doesn't mean every single British person did, but the British as a collective group did.

It means that those with the ability to exploit, did so.
Those with the ability to exploit were invariably the ruling classes and the bourgeoisie.

So, not a "collective group" that's in any way representative of "the British" in the 19th century.

 

[ViolentPanda]

actually i completely see what tommyb was saying now, i misunderstood initially thinking he was making some evo-psych argument that men dominating women is nature's way, but actually he's just saying that the patriarchy exists and is a real thing.

Telling us something we're already well aware of, but doing it wordily and self-righteously.

 

[ViolentPanda]

and this "will hold true regardless of cultural preconditions of the people."

Yes, because physiology will always override intellect, comrade.

 

[smokedout]

PD should demand all women be given access to light weaponry and combat training from school age to correct the imbalance

 

[smokedout]

Except Laurie Penny because she'd just shoot herself in the foot

 

[BigTom]

Except Laurie Penny because she'd just shoot herself in the foot

I'm now imagining Laurie in a revolutionary setting to be like Hugh Laurie's character in Blackadder Gone Forth.

 

[J Ed]

Fuck off Graunid http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/29/game-of-thrones-racism-sexism-rape

 

[tbtommyb]

actually i completely see what tommyb was saying now, i misunderstood initially thinking he was making some evo-psych argument that men dominating women is nature's way, but actually he's just saying that the patriarchy exists and is a real thing.

Well yeah, and hopefully no-one would contest the existence of a patriarchy.

It's where it originates from is the interesting thing. The counter-argument to my proposition, as far as a cursory reading indicates, is that human society was broadly egalitarian until the arrival of agriculture and domestication created the first means of production (e.g. ploughs), which favoured men, hence the class-based explanation of the origin of patriarchy.

But to me there's a logical step missing there as it doesn't explain why the creation of means of production should favour men, unless there was already a presumption in favour of men. A woman is, after all, as capable as a man of creating a means of production.

 

[butchersapron]

But didn't. This is nonsense. What happened? Why are we here now? What's your explanation for why things changed from what you suggest was reality?

 

[tbtommyb]

Reductivist.
Men have historically dominated women because over time a narrative of male dominance was constructed in order to naturalise patriarchy.

Patriarchy is 'male dominance' so that definition is circular. And that wasn't my argument.

Because...? I'm asking because I don't want to just assume you're some kind of social Darwinist or biological determinist.
After all, muscle power isn't the be-all and end-all of dominance.

You kind of answered this yourself when you jumped at a class argument:

It means that those with the ability to exploit, did so.
Those with the ability to exploit were invariably the ruling classes and the bourgeoisie.

 

[tbtommyb]

But didn't. This is nonsense. What happened? Why are we here now? What's your explanation for why things changed from what you suggest was reality?

Do you mean what is my explanation for why the development of means of production favoured men rather than being equal?

 

[butchersapron]

Do you mean what is my explanation for why the development of means of production favoured men rather than being equal?

I mean expand on this:

human society was broadly egalitarian until the arrival of agriculture and domestication created the first means of production (e.g. ploughs), which favoured men, hence the class-based explanation of the origin of patriarchy.

 

[tbtommyb]

I mean expand on this:

human society was broadly egalitarian until the arrival of agriculture and domestication created the first means of production (e.g. ploughs), which favoured men, hence the class-based explanation of the origin of patriarchy.

oh right. well, if we state that patriarchy ultimately derives from class, and it did not meaningfully exist before there was class, then it follows that patriarchy comes after the arrival of the means of production that created class.

So from this, I do not see why the arrival of the means of production and the concept of class should necessarily have caused a disadvantage to women that previously did not exist and ultimately let to a patriarchy.

If I have misrepresented the argument I apologise.

 

[tbtommyb]

If tommy has an open mind, he'll know there's no such thing as "human nature" - that "human nature" is a social construct used to excuse and/or explain behaviours that invariably emanate from motivation rather than from a vacuum.

Really? Is that conclusively proven, or an assertion you've made?

 

[tbtommyb]

Telling us something we're already well aware of, but doing it wordily and self-righteously.

I fit right in here, don't I?

 

[Balbi]

Got people on twitter tweeting about #poorphobia, which seems like a way for them to include class in the identity struggle

 

[J Ed]

Laurie Penny on UKIP http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/ukip-understands-people-will-always-want-someone-blame - could have been a lot worse.

 

[Theisticle]

Laurie Penny on UKIP http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/ukip-understands-people-will-always-want-someone-blame - could have been a lot worse.

Nor without saying anything original or insightful. Just a regurgitation. Lazily calling Ukip the far-right is not helpful. They are no doubt a racist party but such a comparison is spurious.

Also, I don't understand how you can write a serious political blog and include:

"In reality, one of the hands is under the table pointing a gun at your nethers, like Johnny Depp as Eyeless Jack in Once Upon A Time In Mexico, and I absolutely promise you that that’s the only time I’ll ever mention Johnny Depp and Nigel Farage in the same sentence."

 

[butchersapron]

Is that the piece that required her going to Brussels to write. Note that she's allowed attack people for going to private school. That piece is terribly written and edited. And it bashes people who bash UKIP by calling them racist whilst bashing UKIP for being racist. And yes, it could have been worse - that just shows how bad it is.

 

[killer b]

that line about johnny depp. Jesus.

 

[J Ed]

Is that the piece that required her going to Brussels to write. Note that she's allowed attack people for going to private school. That piece is terribly written and edited. And it bashes people who bash UKIP by calling them racist whilst bashing UKIP for being racist. And yes, it could have been worse - that just shows how bad it is.

I was just expecting a Laurie Pennyised version of the stuff that's been in the Sun lately.

 

[killer b]

British people - and, in particular, the English people - will giggle it all the way into Downing Street, accompanied not by a Wagnerian overture but a farting trombone.

 

[butchersapron]

I was just expecting a Laurie Pennyised version of the stuff that's been in the Sun lately.

It sort of was wasn't it? Just with added finger-wagging. If 'the organised left' is her and her mates then no wonder people don't go near it - that's not something that her last - key - paragraph could ever see.