Patriarchy Is the Oppression of Men

maretel11Have fun debating this one, disinfonauts!  Asha James (a woman) writes at a Voice for Men:

We cast others into the roles of agent and patient. Agents do things, patients have things done to them. People prefer to deliver pain to agents, even those agents who act in the benefit to others, than patients. Agents, good or bad, are seen as both capable of enduring more pain than patients and elicit less sympathy when they do so.[1]

This dichotomy divides people into those who can expect to draw upon the resources of society to be protected and provided for, and those who can’t.

This dynamic can also be titled ‘hyperagency’[2]. Hyperagency is the perception that a group of people has more agency than they actually do. Being cast in the role of hyperagent has significant drawbacks for groups so cast and throughout history we can see groups of marginalized people cast into this role as scapegoats. They are seen as having disproportionate influence on society, thus responsible for all of its ills, thus punishment or confinement of the hyperagent group is justified.

Hyperagents suffer from hyposympathy relative to hypoagents. Hypoagents are greatly enfranchised over hyperagents in their ability to expect and demand that others protect them when they are victimized and provide for them when they require it. Hypoagents weild power through the creation and exploitation of hypersympathy. Hypersympathy is an artificially inflated sympathy based on reducing other’s perception of one’s agency.

Hyperagents, on the other hand, are considered the appropriate dispensers of violence on the behalf of hypoagents. Hyperagents are also expected to buffer hypoagents from directly experiencing violence or depredation.

Men, in every society on earth, are cast into the role of hyperagent. They are expected to assume positions of overt power in the family and in the political, legal and financial spheres. This is an expectation of their gender role and one they have to fulfill least they be seen as ‘not a man’ and thus worthless to their families and society.

Needing to be emphasized is men’s lack of agency regarding assumption of the position of hyperagent.

Men are forced to assume the role of hyperagent in various ways. Some men have it thrust upon them as a condition of being male; for example in communities that have a cultural practice of appointing men as heads of households (even though there is evidence indicating that men have less actual control over their households relative to the true head of the home, the woman who has taken him as husband.) Men are also expected to acquire hyperagency through participation in systems that expect sacrifice of emotional and physical health as a cost of participation.

Forcing men into hyperagency as a condition of their gender role enables a vast reserve of vulnerable men—made vulnerable by society’s relative indifference to their suffering and deaths–for society to sacrifice when and where it requires such sacrifice.

Without the perception of male hyperagency, cultivated through cultural rules about ‘heads of households’ and the ‘stronger sex’, there would not be this battery of human bodies to throw into the woodchipper.

Read more here.

, , , ,

  • DrDavidKelly

    So what you’re saying is that we have a selective bias towards some ‘types’ of peoples. Is the author suggesting we are also inherently racist? I resent the notion that all men are motivated by corporate take-overs and battle. I’m every bit the mother to my kid. Look at the sinking ship scenario: women and children first. I suspect it’s an ancient biological hiccup or something … ??

    • atlanticus

      The author is arguing the opposite of what you think she’s saying; it’s nurture or society, not nature.

      “Hyperagency is the perception that a group of people has more agency than they actually do. Being cast in the role of hyperagent has significant drawbacks for groups so cast and throughout history we can see groups of marginalized people cast into this role as scapegoats. They are seen as having disproportionate influence on society, thus responsible for all of its ills, thus punishment or confinement of the hyperagent group is justified.”

      By the way, this isn’t exactly a new point of view. “Patriarchy hurts men too” has been part of the …whaddaya wanna call it…”gender discussion?” at least since the 90′s and probably before.

    • marshall

      you couldnt be more spot on. people like this who generalize and lump people into categories are the true bigots. this is another short cut to thinking and experiencing.

      • atlanticus

        “people like this who generalize…”

        Again…I’m not certain that you guys are actually understanding what she’s saying. You seem to be reacting to an assumption about what the author intended without reading carefully.

        • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

          Happens a lot here.

        • marshall

          i like what she is trying to do, i respect it, but where is the evidence. her belief is one thing, its an interesting read, but ill be the first to admit my beliefs are probably wrong most of the time, but i try anyway. im saying, ultimately, dont put too much stock into this, because there has to be an agenda, and cretins buy this kind of potential rhetoric all the time.

          • atlanticus

            “im saying, ultimately, dont put too much stock into this, because there has to be an agenda”

            You don’t have to worry so much. I hold the radical belief that women are not hive mind.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            is anyone else tired of the “where is the evidence” trope? I know evidence is valuable in -certain- spheres but I don’t know if i have the correct words to phrase the distinction between a place where a call for evidence is useful, and where it is just a tedious brick-wall of an “argument”.

          • Andrew

            What do you think the agenda is?

          • neroden

            The situation has weakened in recent years, but every time you’re told “Be a man! Suck it up and deal! Take charge, you’re a man! Why didn’t you protect your wife/daughter/mother/grandmother/random woman friend?” you’re being oppressed by the patriarchy, because hell, why shouldn’t you let someone else take responsibility for things which are not your problem?

            Which is rather the point of the article. And it’s correct. The evidence is all over the place — are you seriously saying you’ve never seen this mentality?

          • marshall

            im in the Army, replace man with soldier, and you would have a point. ive heard insecure women say those things to men before (case by case), but of course that is a different situation. ive never heard society say that, but as ive said before, if the voice of society is the media, then the point is moot, because the media has a Malthusian bias as a false paradigm. there is no evidence that proves your point is correct, it is just an opinion.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        Cool some self reference here: you’re generalizing and lumping “people like this who generalize and lump people into categories” into categories and de-facto calling yourself a true bigot.

        • marshall

          so prove it, where is your evidence.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            prove what? What are you talking about? I was simply pointing out the silliness of your conjecture (unless you condone bigotry and it was your cryptic way of saying so).

          • marshall

            there was no generalization in my comment, that’s what i stated to prove.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            I think your reading comprehension is in question here. But that’s okay, I know not everyone remembers how to parse compound-complex sentences. However, I suppose if I were to call those people idiots, that would be generalizing and I would be a bigot, right?

          • marshall

            good proof. ok, you are avoiding the here is anearlier statement i posted to put things into perspective for you. oh, she is a bigot, her article is anti malel.

            “i like what she is trying to do, i respect it, but where is the evidence. her belief is one thing, its an interesting read, but ill be the first to admit my beliefs are probably wrong most of the time, but i try anyway. im saying, ultimately, dont put too much stock into this, because there has to be an agenda, and cretins buy this kind of potential rhetoric all the time.”

          • Guest

            You really can’t read, can you? I’m starting to feel sorry for you.

          • atlanticus

            Could you please explain why you believe that her article is anti-male? To me, it is obvious from context that the author intended the article to be pro-male in the contrast to the perceived “anti-male” view of a specific strain of feminism.

            Are you a feminist? Do you believe that feminism is pro-male? This isn’t a quiz; I’m genuinely asking your point of view…

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            it really seems like you agree with, but misunderstand or misrepresent this article…

            Saying written words have an agenda is like saying singing has sound. It doesn’t mean anything. If you were to say what that agenda was and maybe what bothered you about it, then….. something something…

          • atlanticus

            I’m starting to feel sorry for you, so I will explain in simple language:

            When you said the phrase “people like this”, you WERE generalizing. Since your claim was that people who generalize are bigots, this would also make you a bigot.

            This is similar to the bumper sticker which reads “all generalizations are false”; it is a joke. The joke is that by including the word “all”, the statement itself is a generalization.

            Chaorder Gradient was pointing out an amusing hypocrisy in your statement. Do you understand yet?

          • marshall

            haha, there are people like her who organize into groups, who wantt o be recognized as such, so therefore generalizing them is lending credence to their existence and empowering their cause. its just like proponents of the existence of race; they want to be put into a group and deny the individual.

          • atlanticus

            -_-

            Did you even read my comment or did you just reply with a non sequitur because you didn’t understand what was said?

          • marshall

            dont know what just happened….it auto submitted for some reason, didnt finish my barely readable rant.

          • marshall

            “Without the perception of male hyperagency, cultivated through cultural rules about ‘heads of households’ and the ‘stronger sex’, there would not be this battery of human bodies to throw into the woodchipper.”

            this last statement from the article sums it up for me. see supposes that men are put into the position by society, but men are in the position we are in through 300,000 years of cultural and biological evolution. men are individuals who have feelings and thoughts. the problem with lumping men and anyone for that matter, into a group or type, or whatever, takes away every other dimension to the humanity of that individual being grouped. people dont think of themselves like this, and i think that this observation by the writer is just a smartly written opinion, but isnt really study worthy simply because life and people arent just so one dimensional.

          • Andrew

            > the problem with lumping men and anyone for that matter, into a group or type, or whatever, takes away every other dimension to the humanity of that individual being grouped.

            > men are in the position we are in through 300,000 years of cultural and biological evolution.

            So 300,000 years of cultural and biological evolution have taken away most dimensions of the humanity of every man?

            > people dont think of themselves like this,

            I disagree. Most people classify and stereotype themselves.

          • marshall

            “So 300,000 years of cultural and biological evolution have taken away most dimensions of the humanity of every man?” your words, not mine.
            we agree to disagree. i think most people dont classify themselves at all, they just float around like jellyfish and react to stimuli, or move from target to target, reacting to things based upon experiences from their past.

          • atlanticus

            You’re innocent. If you knew how easy it was to manipulate people, you would know better.

            It has little to do with how they classify themselves (or rather, that is secondary), but how the society they are entrenched in (the water surrounding the jellyfish) shapes their behavior.

          • Andrew

            I was attempting to relate your comments about the lumping together of men being dehumanizing and 300,000 years of evolution making us what we supposedly are.

          • atlanticus

            1. She isn’t talking about the actual people. She is talking about the perceptions of the society forcing various pressures onto the actual people.

            2. I agree with Andrew. Most people do indeed follow whatever is the path of least resistance. If society pressures them to fill a certain mold, they will do it.

          • marshall

            nah, no such thing. perceptions of society are false; perceptions of the individual are real. now, perceptions propagated by the media, (that could be substituted for perceptions of society) yeah i would agree with you if you said that because there is a clear Malthusian bias in the paradigm. like Andrew and I have done, we just have to civilly agree to disagree. my extensive experience with people tells me that there is no mold, everyone ticks a little differently. many perceptions are just false because those perceptions are how our brain simplifies the world to make room for more relevant information.

          • Calypso_1

            At what point does a perception become false? If the brain has simplified the world, what is the nature of the information that is more relevant? How does a system that has false perceptions determine the relevancy of it’s perception, the assignment of information value and thus how much room to give it?

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Everyone breaks the mold eventually, but before the mold is broken, it has nonetheless shaped the most important early stages.

          • atlanticus

            “my extensive experience with people tells me that there is no mold, everyone ticks a little differently.”

            And yet you are unable to understand that that is YOUR experience and that it might be different from my own or others’ experiences. Amazing.

            Yes, people are different. No argument there. I would not be so disappointed with people attempting to shove themselves into molds if I didn’t think it was wasted potential.

          • Andrew

            > perceptions of society are false; perceptions of the individual are real.

            Please explain. One person can perceive reality, but when most of them agree the perception becomes wrong?

          • marshall

            who agrees? noone agrees, of course, they can be tricked into believing under a false paradigm, which happens.

          • Andrew

            So by “perceptions of society are false; perceptions of the individual are real,” are you saying there is no such thing as society, only individuals?

            And if there were a “true” paradigm, could people agree to it?

          • Andrew

            I’m not sure it’s just societal pressure and the path of least resistance. Many people (I’d say most, but I’m unfamiliar with normality) are punished or abandoned for individuality or honesty by their families, and by the time they reach “adulthood” they too have rejected their true selves, so, lacking their own identities, desperately want to be what they’re told they’re supposed to be.

          • Calypso_1

            We are individuals?

          • Andrew

            Well, we are. You aren’t.

          • Calypso_1

            That’s what we thought.

    • marshall

      also, men are motivated 99% of the time by women (see battle and corporate takeovers), or to please them. civilization was built to protect women and children for crying out loud.

      • atlanticus

        Yeah, she said that here: “Hypoagents are greatly enfranchised over hyperagents in their ability to
        expect and demand that others protect them when they are victimized and
        provide for them when they require it.”

        “Hypoagents”, in this scenario, is women and children.

        • Calypso_1

          Hypoagent ⇔citizen.

          Those that seek agency & dominion have a vested interest in maintaining the ‘need’s of the stultified hypogenic masses.

          • atlanticus

            Very true.

        • marshall

          women and children in that case would be patients, according to her take. hypoagent would be a lacking male.

          • atlanticus

            “hypoagent would be a lacking male.”

            That is absolutely untrue. Please read again. Please read the very next paragraph.

          • Andrew

            It’s interesting that children tend to be classified with women, seeing as how about half of children are male.

  • atlanticus

    I kind of wonder why this was tagged “wharrgarbl”…I suppose because “Good German” thinks that men are naturally everything Valerie Solanas thought they were…what a confusing world.

    EDIT: *forehead slap* …really boys? Really? A feminist or “feminist” can AGREE with you and you still think she’s a cunt? LOL!

    • Matt Staggs

      I wanted to see if anyone read the tags. :)

      • atlanticus

        Hilarious. And depressing.

      • Calypso_1

        inserting fnords might also create some bizarre webs within search analytics.

  • Anarchy Pony

    So what she’s saying is that patriarchy hurts men by forcing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on them? And that the stress and suffering this often puts on them is then essentially ignored? And then they also receive a greater degree of blame for society’s ills? I guess I can sort of see her point, I dunno if I’m entirely convinced by it, but I see it.

    • atlanticus

      Perhaps truer in another era, but then, if the premise is that patriarchy hurts everyone, then the modern circumstances should only illustrate how patriarchy has weakened in recent generations…I’m not sure what replaced it, since I wouldn’t exactly call it equality…

      …I think, once, there used to be this thing called “adults” and it didn’t mean porn.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        i patriarchy harms children in any way, certainly it harms male children. Thus could it not be seen as a self-replicating downward spiral of harm.

        but if one believed patriarchy helped male children then…

        Hmm both extremes are so far apart it is certainly clear why this argument has so much energy on each side. Its almost as if a middle ground doesn’t exist.

        • atlanticus

          The middle ground is for everyone to wear eyeliner and fishnets and have an orgy! So…the Rocky Horror Picture Show?

          No, maybe it’s a snotty rendition of “Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better” from Annie Get Your Gun…

          I am absolutely certain that musicals can solve this important issue.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            Woot! Count me in! I call Doc FrankNFurter! :-)

      • Andrew

        Kyriarchy.

        • atlanticus

          Well, yes, and I’ve said as much elsewhere, but I still do wonder if the neotenization is a necessary side-effect to that aim…

          • Calypso_1

            I think you will find learned helplessness to be the effect that regresses to neoteny in such an environment.

          • atlanticus

            Hardly the effect feminists of an earlier era had in mind…so in your mind is this neotenization the effect of a deliberate process (i.e. advertising-to-our-basest-desires + increasing-government-control), or an accidental by-product, an evolution (domestication) of sorts?

            Did “they” know what they were doing to the masses?

    • Calypso_1

      Could it also be considered that this disproportionate stress and suffering might be at the root of certain social ills that are largely considered as issuing from male dominance?

      • Anarchy Pony

        Meaning that the ills may be a result of a semi-subconscious retaliation brought on by resentment caused by such stress?

        • Calypso_1

          Perhaps acting out internalized pain less so than retaliation but I was thinking along the lines that an environment of suppressed stress & suffering may create a culture with impoverished perceptions & cognition.

          • Anarchy Pony

            Well that is almost certainly true.

          • Aoi Warai

            I think she’s basically summarizing (in more philosophical form) the observations put forward by Warren Farrel in ‘The Myth of Male Power’ (youtube it): if power is defined as “control of one’s life”, and men are socialized to view their own disposability as a “glorious male validation”, then how do we convince ourselves that we are empowered?

            The definition of masculinity: To be unflinching in war, to be a willing victim of violence, degradation, and abuse without complaint, to not react to these things in order to display strength or inspire confidence, to seek after life threatening career fields (working in mines, oil rigs, firefighters, soldiers, police, factories, etc), to constantly demonstrate willingness to die and be maimed without fear or respect for one’s own health and safety — this is what we traditionally expect of slaves or brainwashed minions, not free empowered human individuals.

            There is an inherent irony in the notion that “society devalues women” — women are to be protected, preserved, kept alive, kept safe. “Women and children first” to the lifeboats; a man is chivalrous if he is willing to go down with the ship so a woman can escape. If a woman is raped, molested — insulted or degraded in any way — a man is honor-bound to retaliate. His personal honor is in jeopardy — “what did you say about my momma!?” Everywhere you look, it is the height of outrage to injure or disrespect women — “you don’t hit a woman” — really? Not even if she hits you? “No, you’re a coward if you hit a woman back after she hits you”.

            Obvious abuses of women condoned by traditional culture aside, the only question I’m asking here is where is the proportional outrage for such sleights against men? There is no such outrage, because we are all incultured to view the abuse of men as routine. A real man simply “takes it”.

            This is the definition of masculinity in MOST cultures: to die for one’s wife and children, one’s family, one’s country or in-group, to weather abuse and indignity. Women’s value is not traditionally defined in terms of such extreme self-devaluation.Women have inherent value, inherent desirability — men must cultivate, prove, or otherwise fabricate their own worth, since they have no inherent value. Traditional femininity might be depicted as being passive, dominated, or bullied, but it is the height of shock and tragedy for a woman to sacrifice herself in any situation, or be willing to subject herself to violence without flinching (indeed, it is treated as so melodramatic that it is regarded with a certain disbelief — Joan of Arc is not a typical female heroine, and even she is depicted as extreme and possibly mentally ill for her self-sacrifice)

            If this is what defines the “hero” or “ideal male”, then this is not a society in which men are necessarily “empowered”; their power is defined as their willingness to be disposable, in essence, to be worthless, to be without desire for self-preservation. This is especially romanticized when a man dies to save a woman, especially a mate.

            Watch a violent movie if you doubt this. Count the number of times a man is depicted visibly being beaten, mutilated, killed. Compare it to the number of times a woman is depicted visibly the victim of violence. Then ask yourself the number of times the protagonist sacrifices himself without flinching, like a suicide bombing zealot, for a woman. Does the protagonist win the woman’s affection or respect by his willingness to suffer abuse?

            Obviously, this is just pop-culture analysis, but it’s a challenge to find examples in literature or cinema, or really in the minds of most people you know, where associations with male disposability and the pedestrian nature of violence against men is NOT so common that people are acutely aware of it. Or concerned about it for that matter. “Men don’t need my concern, they can take of themselves, fend for themselves, they’ll be fine… f*%$ them”

            Something missing from most modern discussions of patriarchy is the ability to distinguish orthodox classical forms of patriarchy, where men literally own and control all aspects of society, in a ritualized or formal way, and vestiges of patriarchy that manifest in softer less formal ways. So there has been some change, but people speak as if there has been none. Women enjoy full enfranchisement, and are the property of no one: this is one of the basic features of ACTUAL patriarchy — “women as property (because they are women)”.

            In today’s society, we really don’t experience real patriarchy except in strict religious fundamentalist communities.

            Not to sound self-contradictory, but while we’ve abandoned much of patriarchy, traditional definitions of male and female still persist, even within the assumptions of most modern feminists (men are responsible for everything in the world, thus they are to blame; until women are considered “to blame”, how can they be considered fully responsible for their own lives, and fully considered equals?) Despite certain degrees of progress, traditional definitions of gender roles and how to value people as men and women haven’t changed much. We still don’t bother to challenge them today, in our enlightened age of feminist criticism and gender neutral expectations — we still expect men to be traditional assertive men (disposable, fighters/defenders, strong, uncaring/unflinching, doers, non-communicative) and women to be passive (obsessed with perceived value of self/others, appearance/fashion/style/beauty oriented, critical, judging, talkers not doers).

            Women and men are still trying to embody the Victorian ideal (yes, even people with “progressive” notions of gender roles: women are still “vulnerable by nature”, and men are still “invulnerable by nature”, even for university educated feminists). No one can live up to contradictory ideals (assuming anyone can live up to any ideal in reality).

            We’re still big fat hypocrites and not very self-aware. What else is new?

  • John Adams

    In the interests of balance and equality, perhaps the author should consider matriarchal power in society.

    • John Adams

      Thank you for reinstating my original comment.

    • Andrew

      If you can find or write a good article about it, submit it.

  • Diana Davis Rumbold

    Just makes my head hurt. Oppressors are the oppressed, slaves have control of the slave owner … Anyone feeling a tad Orwellian, or is it just me?

    • Andrew

      Frederick Douglass wrote quite insightfully about how slavery necessarily degrades slave owners.

  • Airl

    This woman’s lumping of all males as one “type” to therefore be assessed is what created sexism in the first place. We are not all the same across a gender, and more specifically not all of us men care to be hyper-agents as she assumes. This is regardless of the culture surrounding our growth. I can only speak for myself but as I aged and began to reason for myself, the things I was taught as a child were up for review. The idea’s that did not withstand my critical gaze were brushed aside. Finding my self-worth in embodying the stereotypical man was one of those things.

    “But Generals are male because only men are so motivated by the
    expectation to assume hyper-agency that they will endure the emotional
    strain of sending thousands of people to their death.” It’s the talk of absolutes that frustrates me. ONLY men are general because ONLY men are motivated by hyper-agency. I reckon there’s plenty of women alive that would kill thousands to become “hyper-agents” and achieve a position of power. Not to mention the many men that do not care to kill thousands (or kill at all) to achieve a state of hyper-agency,

    Lastly, I don’t even consider hyposympathy to be oppressive. I don’t want your sympathy to begin with.

    • atlanticus

      Now imagine that a man says that that a woman is only stupid and weak because society made her that way. Imagine that a woman replies that she is neither stupid nor weak regardless of society and therefore, that he is a misogynist.

      Out of curiosity, how sympathetic would you be to her claim that he is a misogynist?

      You misunderstood the point on hyposympathy. It would be the “hypoagents” obtaining the “hyposympathy” FROM you, the “hyperagent”.

      • Airl

        I would be sympathetic to her claim.

        You misunderstood the point on hyposympathy, not I. “Every cultural institution that casts men into the role of overt
        hyperagent disenfranchises men as a group emotionally. They become
        victims of hyposympathy and are incapable of rousing concern from others
        for their vulnerabilities.” One of the main points the author makes is that Patriarchy oppresses men through hyposympathy, not the other way around. Perhaps you need to take a look at your own “reading comprehension skills” before bashing those of others.

        • atlanticus

          Tsh, well goddamn, you’re right.

          I was about to get all snarky on you, but I did indeed say hyposympathy. The endlessly recursive jumping to conclusions must have rubbed off on me…

          Perhaps you should teach the remedial reading comprehension class. ;P

        • atlanticus

          Oh, by the way, that’s good that you’d be sympathetic. I just wanted to check for hypocrisy; you passed. :P

          Out of interest of furthering the discussion, do you think that a woman saying that most other women are stupid because of society is also a misogynist?

  • Guest

    ‘have fun debating this one’
    But you deleted my comment.
    I’ll repeat it.
    Would it be more balanced if the author considered matriarchal oppression too?

  • Ted Heistman

    This is all well and good, except that Patriarchy doesn’t really exist in the United States or English speaking countries in general or Europe except , in certain Fundamentalist sects. I’d say much of the Middle East and Asia is still pretty Patriarchal though. Certain tribes in New Guinea and the Amazon are pretty Patriarchal. It seems to be associated with pederasty, so that’s bad. I know in Fundamentalist Mormon sects a lot of “excess” males get banished so that’s another thing that hurts men. In China, female babies get aborted so now there is an excess of males with no chance of finding wives. So I agree that Patriarchy has some negative effects on men. I guess in Western culture there is still some cultural residue of it.

    I think this hyper-agency thing is a good concept to describe how people view authority figures like the President, who may have way less power than people think.

  • http://pneumerology.com/ pneumerology

    I am a white american male: the most powerful creature on earth.
    I must use this power only for good.

    • Ted Heistman

      I think that source of power is illusory.

      • http://pneumerology.com/ pneumerology

        nonsense… I just need to find the “ON” switch

        • I_abide

          It’s next to the any key.

      • Lookinfor Buford

        She mentions that..

        “Needing to be emphasized is men’s lack of agency regarding assumption of the position of hyperagent.”

  • Lookinfor Buford

    I completely agree with this woman. There is hope after all.

  • bobbiethejean

    *Clears throat authoritatively.* I have but one thing to say to this…….

    Wharrgarbl.

    That is all.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      Well Said.

  • Lookinfor Buford

    Does this mean it all boils down to penis envy?

    • atlanticus

      I think you’d be shocked at the disparity between male-to-female sex reassignment surgeries versus female-to-male…then again, that could have more to do with the limits of technology…I don’t know. (Actually, I can’t find any hard numbers on this).

      I’ve only known two female-to-male trans-people in my life, versus approximately just over ten male-to-female.

    • Andrew

      It all boils down to sub-atomic particles.

  • atlanticus

    I’m very disappointed in several of you. Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Remedial classes will be held in three weeks. Those who have been rebuked for your poor comprehension skills will be required to attend.

  • Adam’s Shadow

    Heteronormative Patriarchal Hegemony! Heteronormative Patriarchal
    Hegemony!! Heteronormative Patriarchal Hegemony!!!! Heteronormative
    Patriarchal Hegemony!!!!!!!!

    And such.

    But I get it – men as well as women have unrealistic and oppressive roles thrust on them by a male-dominated society. That’s cool. I just can’t help but come to the conclusion, once again…

    That we’re all fucked.

  • Graham

    Hi Andrew. I logged in with a permanent avatar this time. I wrote this. If you want to publish it in any way I could abridge and redraft it – http://erskinebeach.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/structure-and-stricture/