Dr Cynical's Sororial Whispering

I feel that I should make it clear from the outset that this article is intended for women. If you're a bloke and you do read on, I hope you don't get any paranoid ideas that I'm saying there's something intrinsically wrong about being male---it's just that, biologically, emotionally and culturally, men are unable to empathize with certain aspects of the female experience. If it's any consolation, guys, I don't understand rugby players, but that doesn't mean I feel threatened by them.

Personally, I don't find that any reasonable discussion of gender issues is helped by blaming the problem wholesale on men as a category.

All men are bastards.

That's the kind of gross sexist overgeneralization I've come to expect from women.

Touch\'e---we need to seek out the real enemy if we are to make any kind of progress. There is nothing biologically inherent in the male of the species which predisposes him to cruelty, other than the statistical likelihood of superior physical strength, just as there is nothing biologically inherent in the female which predisposes her to acquiescence, other than her generally inferior musculature. Thus we deduce, unsurprisingly I hope, that it is our culture which we must examine. The fact that the culture of today was largely shaped by the men of yesterday does not mean we can blame its consequences on the men of today. Although, in any individual case, `I was only conforming to my cultural stereotype.' cannot be regarded as an excuse for or justification of any act of physical or emotional violence, it is surely the case that, were our culture more amenable, this kind of activity would occur much less frequently, even as an idle or facetious notion. Above all, we must not condemn men without first understanding them.

I don't think too many people would argue with the proposition that there is a strong perception of women as objects, as property, if you will. Our culture exposes itself in ritual---men mark their women with engagement rings until such times as the prospective fathers-in law give their daughters away, with the change of ownership being marked by a change of name. It's not surprising, indeed it's useful, that this culture differentiates between objects available and unavailable for possession by means of title---`Miss' or `Mrs'. While many people these days regard such formalities as old hat, the attitudes cling on underneath.

However, there is a more insidious sense in which women are perceived to be objects---almost the grammatical notion of object as `thing done to', only one step away from `victim'. A man, on the other hand, is an agent, a `thing doing'. Sex, for instance, is largely considered to be something men do to women.

Erica took Jim back to his place and made love to him.
That sentence is odd. Respectable women don't take men places. Respectable women don't make love. Respectable women lie back and think of England. Compare it with:
He made love to her over and over again until she just couldn't take any more.
The only thing odd about that sentence is its optimism. As for homosexual men, they don't `make love'---they `bugger'. Oh, and I nearly forgot---there's no such thing as a lesbian---all she needs is a good fuck.

Our culture respects men who do what they like to whom they like. Our culture respects women who cooperate agreeably with `honourable' intentions. Consequently, our culture promotes male agression and female acquiescence. It is this culture which is the enemy, but how do you fight a culture?

I never cease to be distressed by the naive among us, in this case mostly men resentful that machismo has somehow snubbed them, who believe that the best way to overthrow a culture is to ignore it. This is a bit like saying that the best way to relieve a famine is to eat some food---it's all very well for you if you've got some food, and it's certainly true that if everyone ate food there'd be no famine, but it isn't possible for everyone to eat food---that's what makes it a famine. Similarly, you personally can ignore the culture, and if you're lucky the culture will ignore you, but most people can't ignore the culture---that's what makes it the culture.

The trouble with culture is that it's intangible. It's a ragbag of statistical average and historical baggage, with no obvious place to grab a hold. You can't just go up to it and say `Oi Culture! I want a word with you...'---you might as well argue with a blancmange. Culture does not respond (except rudely) to logical argument---the larger the grouping, the more likely it is that the herd instinct will take over and the intellect will cut out. There's no point in trying to advance gender issues by reasonable discussion---apart from anything else, at the critical moments, men's minds have usually ceased to be rational and are busy reverting to the cultural norm. Culture cannot be convinced---it can only be subverted, for the weak point in culture is not any particular thought or item or tendency---the weak point in culture is the very mechanism by which it operates, and that mechanism is language.

As feminists, the language we use is much more significant than any individual issue we may choose to raise. We may be talking about rape or battery, sexual harrassment or job discrimination, but we must remember, in our selection of words, that we are fighting the cultural disorder of which these are merely symptoms. Consider:

Rapists are evil.
or even
Rape is evil.
Most men, in fact most rapists would agree! These statements may be true in some abstract sense, but we aren't having a reasonable discussion, and we're not going to get anywhere with copy like that. I mean,
Excuse me, are you a rapist?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am.

Well you're evil then, because rapists are evil.

Oh goodness me! I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I'll collect stamps instead.

Absolutely.

We've got to wake up to the fact that we're cultural terrorists, and if we actually want to make any impact, we've got to tolerate innocent victims. Hit 'em where it hurts, sisters, straight between the legs:

Men are evil---they commit rape.
Obviously, some men commit rape and are thus evil. Equally obviously, other men, as individuals, are disinclined to rape and are thus, at least in this respect, not evil. The point is that these latter men are not `Men', in that they are not conforming to their cultural stereotype. Our comment may draw a response from some which goes roughly like this,
I've never raped anyone and I never intend to. Why are you trying to make me feel guilty about being a man?
God, what a weed! The poor guy is clearly no threat to women, but he equally clearly wishes he was. The shrivelled remnants of his ego quite obviously feel guilty about not being a man. He'd be a nice guy if he wasn't desperate to fit in with the lads---I just wish he'd stop whining.

Rome was not burnt in a day. It will be a long time before the decay we seek to inculcate in the `men do; women are done to' culture brings about its ultimate collapse. The culture of consent (men do if women let them) is a useful step along the way---yes, there's an obvious male frustration inherent in that offer-and-rejection notion, but there's an equally obvious cure---women and men can choose together. I don't know if anyone out there is paying the slightest bit of attention to this article, but if we can carry on the struggle, keeping the real enemy, `Men', in mind, then we may eventually bring about the day when men slough off their oppressive masculinity---wahey! let's bonk!


Dr Cynical, which is not, of course, her real name, is a Reader in Experimental Tactlessness at the Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh