"Of Frogs And Men" by men's issues blogger, William Collins (2018). I found this a fascinating & insightful review of the book "Transforming Men: Changing Patterns of Dependency & Dominance in Gender Relations" and the topic of gender relations in general, that causes me look at some issues afresh.

tenchineuro · 2021-11-27T23:35:39+00:00

For Dench the key anthropological problem for a society to solve is how to make constructive use of men.

So men are tools.

For Dench, patriarchy was a piece of theatre, a subterfuge expressly designed to tie men into familial relationships whose purpose was twofold: to extract benefit from men whilst minimising the threat of men reverting to a feral state.

Feral state?

Karen Straughan has made a similar argument about the family, but without calling men feral.

“By rejecting men and allowing them back on terms acceptable to themselves as major guardians of the general interest, women in concert act as filters for a natural resource which would otherwise at best be lost to society, and at worst pose dangers.”

So the author think that women are the moral agents in society, and again men are tools through which they exercise this moral agency.

“Western society is sliding away from patriarchy and from the control over men which it gave.”

Well that's clear enough.

“In a few years time, when it has all come down to earth with a bump, statist feminism may be remembered chiefly as an ideology which simply failed to understand how to manage men.

Again, men are tools, tools that feminism is not properly managing.

“The feminisation of the state launches a new offensive in the gender war. It is now an orthodoxy that one of the primary duties of the state is to protect women’s interests against men. Anna Coote and her colleagues (1990) write that fathers are no longer essential to the economic survival of family units. And Polly Toynbee (1989) can calmly incite women to forget about fatherhood and just look to the state for all the provisions needed to enable them to have careers and operate effectively without men. Quoting Toynbee: ‘What it (the state) can do is shape a society that makes a place for women and children as family units, self-sufficient and independent’”.

Well, can't disagree with this.

“What men need is demands upon them to make them grow up.”
This is Jordan Peterson’s message. The radical element in the MHRM should be considering whether there is an alternative to the traditional interpretation of ‘demand’.

I disagree with Jordan here as what he seems to mean is that men need to become slaves to a system (marriage) which offers him obligations but no security and no benefits which can't be permanently withdrawn for any reason or none. Mind you, marriage can be good, but men always have a state issued Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

This is long...

But what I'm seeing so far is that men are not human beings, but tools for women and society. Also that men need to 'step up and do better' if they want to be recognized even as tools.

While this seems to be somewhat anti-feminist, it's certainly not pro-male.

EDIT: From one of the comments... * I believe Professor’s Dench has many good points, but his narrative is infused with demeaning, humiliating and marginalising imagery and concepts, and by using these, he has simply bought into hatred and violence which the extreme feminist belief system uses to outcompete and marginalise men.

mikesteane · 2021-11-28T04:57:05+00:00

One of the best posts in a very long time.

mikesteane · 2021-11-28T04:48:32+00:00

From the article:

“Most men still do not feel under too much attack. But at the bottom of society there is a growing lump…..who are unemployed and probably unemployable, unfulfilled, have no self-respect because they know they are despised, and who have little incentive to be nice to anyone, even or especially women.”

Yes, it is the lower socioeconomic groups which are being trashed most. That’s why the association of feminism with “the left” is such an egregious fraud.

wntk · 2021-11-27T22:26:30+00:00

Here's the official description of the book on websites, though I found the article in my original post more interesting:

"Transforming Men: Changing Patterns of Dependency and Dominance in Gender Relations"

by Professor Geoff Dench

Synopsis

Using the story, "The Frog Prince", as a symbol of traditional awareness of the potential marginality of men in society, "Transforming Men" proposes that much of patriarchy is a theatrical illusion. Presenting men as more important and powerful than they really are should be seen as a way of controlling them*, rather than as a system for dominating women. The author believes that both men and women need to feel that other people are dependent on them.*

Dench states that women acquire a sense of responsibility through the direct dependence of children, but most men can only come to experience responsibility via women. If women reject the male breadwinning role, then men will never develop the altruistic incentive. Dench urges that men need to be given a greater stake than women in the public realm in order to be the main family providers and become caring members of society. Dispensing with male privileges and formal positions, the author continues, will simply reveal and revive older and deeper problems, to which patriarchy itself was a historical and sociological solution.

Dench does not deny the possibility that if men did behave as feminists have asked or expected, then certainly we would be living in a far better world. However, he asserts that it is too simple to just blame men for the fact that this has not happened; perhaps the real failure lies in feminist approaches and theories. Thus, Dench persuasively argues that feminism may be making the male problem worse, not better by insisting on everything from absolute parity to role reversal.

"Transforming Men" contains examples of many different feminist viewpoints, including those of Margaret Mead, Betty Friedan, and Camille Paglia. It also uses contemporary cultural instances, such as popular movies, television shows, and books, to emphasize its points. This volume presents an intriguing argument regarding feminism versus a patriarchal society. It will provide stimulating reading for all those interested in the feminist debate.

tenchineuro · 2021-11-27T23:10:15+00:00

"Transforming Men: Changing Patterns of Dependency & Dominance in Gender Relations" and the topic of gender relations in general, that causes me look at some issues afresh.

So tell me, do you believe in the patriarchy and that men as a class oppress women as a class for men's benefit?

EDIT: OK, I'm reading the article now. But the idea here still seems to be that there is something wrong with men and that men must change.

Dench does not deny the possibility that if men did behave as feminists have asked or expected, then certainly we would be living in a far better world.

wntk · 2021-11-28T00:12:34+00:00

"But he certainly argued strongly for the crucial importance of family. And families include fathers, and fathers mean patriarchy. Aargh! But Dench did not understand patriarchy in the feminist sense – namely a conspiracy by men to oppress and exploit women. For Dench, patriarchy was a piece of theatre, a subterfuge expressly designed to tie men into familial relationships whose purpose was twofold: to extract benefit from men whilst minimising the threat of men reverting to a feral state. From this perspective, patriarchy is closer to an exploitation of men by women rather than the reverse. This aligns with my own view as expressed in The Empathy Gap, though Dench would not have taken my evolutionary approach to it."

wntk · 2021-11-29T01:27:23+00:00

Extract:

“It is significant that men’s competitiveness is highly generalised, even pervasive. This is perhaps partly an adaptation for survival in chaos…To be certain of winning approval, and thereby getting out of the forest, it is important to be the best at whatever it is which is being valued and judged….The boys or men in the forest are not the ones who set the rules, or who decide what society will reward….the prizes are partly sexual and the operative community values which govern approval and define what life is for are widely felt by men to be female.”

Note Dench’s description of the forest as “chaos”. This paragraph expresses a key concept: that the much-derided male competitiveness and hierarchies arise, not from toxic masculinity, but as the only means males have of acceptance into society. This is why the following is so accurate…

“When I see Susie Orbach arguing that men should take emotional responsibility for themselves and find a masculinity that is more fulfilling and less precarious it looks like Royalty telling the masses to eat cake. It’s just not relevant to men’s objective situation, which is more insecure than women’s.”

wntk · 2021-11-29T01:30:46+00:00

Men’s Emotions

In one of my favourite passages, Dench tells of a young man, probably Asperger’s, who has been prosecuted for hacking into dozens of computer systems. The press have a field day mocking the lad for his alleged inability to express his emotions. Dench writes,

“But why should he have to talk about his emotions? They’re his after all; if he did come out with them other people might well find them unacceptable, or use them against him in some way. Men’s silence may well have something to do with the fact that male feelings are much more likely to prove unacceptable than those of women, which is why men say ‘ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies’. So let him button up. Emotional espionage has to be resisted. He knows what he feels and he can talk about it if and when he wants to. Keep right on, son. Don’t let them grind you down.”

Elsewhere Dench observes,

“That is perhaps why so many otherwise resolute men seem so weak-kneed and tongue-tied in female company. They are suppressing their emotions in the hope of staying in charge of themselves.”

wntk · 2021-11-29T01:33:12+00:00

Female Moral Force

“Men are primed in all cultures to be responsive to women’s needs and wishes, and to the values espoused by women. Feminism has confused this impulse considerably by introducing the notion that women would prefer to do for themselves many of the things which men were traditionally expected to do for them; and a half hearted New Chivalry has consequently tried to articulate around the paradoxical project of helping women to be more independent of men.”

This is another key observation. When men ceded moral authority to women, back in the mists of evolutionary time, no limits were placed on what direction women’s demands might take. This evolved proclivity – call it chivalry or gynocentrism or the empathy gap or simply female moral force, as you prefer – was initially related to optimising reproductive success, as all evolved adaptations are. But it can be deployed for whatever purposes women desire; men are programmed to assist. It is a psychosocial pathology which has always been inherent in Homo sapiens, but lay dormant while social, economic and technological conditions kept women predominantly within the domestic sphere.

“Female power seems magical to men because it is not vested in individuals but arises out of collective support and moral cohesion.”

This is another nod to the power of female in-group preference which men underestimate. Conversely, feminism over-estimates male power due to failing to appreciate that men lack in-group preference. Patriarchy, in the feminist sense, is not only false but impossible.

“Women’s voices, organised through a multitude of voluntary associations and committees, living fragments of the female church, have tremendous moral force to endorse or condemn public policies…..political correctness in the public arena (is) currently exerting even greater secular influence. It is wielding the traditional moral power of the female church but in a new and particularly overt manner. I would expect this to be self-defeating quite quickly as it tries to monopolise influence by combining both formal and informal power, which men will not see as equitable and be happy to play along with for long.”

Absolutely bang-on. This again alludes to the attempt by feminism to extend the informal female power of the domestic realm into the formal world of affairs and work, thus leaving men subservient in both. Unfortunately, most men still fail to perceive what is happening, being perpetually bamboozled by the narrative of female disadvantage. It remains to be seen whether the majority of men will “play along with it” indefinitely.

SolarEngine89 · 2021-11-29T08:37:45+00:00

Anti-scientific bullshit. Or, rather, outdated bullshit. Great apes have pair bonding and social structure. Males have role in society.

His starting ideas are wrong, so the whole article is wrong.

Comments