Have journalists conspired today to annoy me? Mark Regnerus of The Washington Post just came out with the following gem: "Women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation)." Of course, every aging man, whose sexual prowess and attractiveness decline with every passing year, has to feel the need to bring women down with him.
Mr. Regnerus, do you honestly believe that your money and "maturation" (meaning, drooping sexuality) really make you more attractive? Keep dreaming, my friend! As much as your resources might "rise", the very language of your article demonstrates that nothing else is "rising" all that much for you anymore.
Here is the link to Regnerus's "I'm-so-terrified-of-impotence" rant:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042402122.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
8 comments:
Clarissa, making allusions to somebody's impotence due to ideological disagreement - this is not right... I am sorry.
I am wondering if your disgust about attaching "market value" to human beings (the disgust I share) is interfering with perceiving the article as a whole? But what if he said "chances", or "probability", instead of "market value"?
The guy is almost apologizing - "I know it does not sound politically correct, but this is the statistics"... I believe his statistics is sound, and that he should not be denied the right to say what he says because one should not say things which are not propelling feminist agenda. Not talking about the things which are widespread sounds ostrich to me... Nor should one attempt to discredit his opinions with allusions that they are consequence of his personal sexual problems. IMHO.
One may not like the society where "resources" are valued higher than sexual prowess, but there is no point denying that current society does function that way. One may hate it, but the function of the society is not only helping each individual reach his or her ultimate freedom of expression, the function of the society is also to physically preserve itself. Thus, every healthy society needs certain minority of movers and shakers (to avoid stagnation), but it also needs majority of traditionalists. (By traditionalists I mean not even Regnerus - apart from his choice of words, he is making reasonable effort trying to be non-biased - but all those women who see "resources" as attractive, and all those men who see fertility and youth as attractive.)
And, by the way, why look at "maturation" through the sexual lens only, and why equate it with "drooping sexuality"? Is maturation good and attractive thing in women? If yes - why is it bad in men?
I am also afraid we are underestimating the power of biology, and that society made of people too concerned with freedom of expression will die and give way to the societies which may be much less enlightened, but where women marry young and have five children per woman. Unless we bomb them. Or, on a positive note, unless we develop the society where having enough children to carry on our value system will be as valuable to us as our freedom... Not just the fate of less fortunate or less educated of us. Which indeed may mean marrying younger.
V.
My friend,
if it's ok to have "all those women who see "resources" as attractive, and all those men who see fertility and youth as attractive" (which it totally is), then it must also be ok to have women like me who see MALE youth and fertility as attractive and crucial.
If he suggests that my "market value" is declining (which he has a right to suggest), then I should have a right to declare why HIS market value is nonexistent for ME. He defines my market value in biological terms. Well, look how much we have in common: I also define his value in biological terms. He is discrediting my existence in biological terms, I'm discrediting his in the same terms. When somebody looks at people in a certain way, he should at the very least be prepared to be analyzed in the same way. If it's ok to measure a woman's value biologically, why shoudln't it be just as fine to measure a man's worth in a same way?
As for the argument of let's procreate to defend our values, I never found it convincing. I can't engage seriously with the destiny of future generations that I will never see.
And somehow I don't think that this journalist cares in the least about future generations.
"But what if he said "chances", or "probability", instead of "market value"?"
-That's the thing, V. They never do. Their language betrays them. These people see women as a commodity and it always comes out. I've heard conversations turn to "market value" in connection to women (never men) more times than I can remember. These chauvinists are raging against women who don't agree with being commodities. They are trying to push us into the same roles because they aren't prepare to interact with us as human beings and not things.
"Not talking about the things which are widespread sounds ostrich to me... "
-This I didn't get. Which widespread things did you mean?
---then it must also be ok to have women like me who see MALE youth and fertility as attractive and crucial.
Did I (or Regnerus) say it is not OK? Maybe I misunderstood him, but he was not talking about which values and selecting criteria women or men SHOULD have, he was talking about what they usually have in our society. Unfortunately.
---I've heard conversations turn to "market value" in connection to women (never men) more times than I can remember.
Well, then Regnerus is better than many, since he does talk about the market value of men as well.
---He is discrediting my existence in biological terms, I'm discrediting his in the same terms.
"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth"? Then how can we consider ourselves and the ideology which inspires us superior to theirs?
---As for the argument of let's procreate to defend our values, I never found it convincing. I can't engage seriously with the destiny of future generations that I will never see.
Are you indifferent to future generations only around this particular issue, or in general? How about polluting the environment? Disarmament? Prevention of technological catastrophes by investing into safety measures?
Well, I agree that procreation should not be motivated by defending values... But simultaneously still see there is some problem. Conservatives are procreating faster than liberals. Look at Palin... :) And as long as the family is the main agent of socialization, this ensures their advantage. That's why I think that it would be nice if liberals were more fond of procreation. Not out of duty towards the society or towards liberal ideology - this will be so wrong and counterproductive for so many psychological reasons - but just because they would want to, and see it as less of a conflict with everything else they want to do with their lives.
V.
The point of my post was, of course, to make people angry. Being reduced to your biological functions is very unpleasant. If it hurts you to be seen in this way, good. This is how women feel every day of their lives.
I would not mind as much if my value (market or otherwise) were based on seeing me in terms of my finances or my "maturation." These are the things I can control. But women's value is always calculated in terms of their biology. So, yes, women's reproductive functions decline with age. Just as men's sexual functions do. If it's ok to judge me as a human being in these purely biological terms, then I should be able to judge men in these same terms. Women have tried for ages to make men see how painful this is. Intellectual arguments don't seem to be working, if such articles continue to appear. Maybe a practical demonstration of how it feels to be reduced to a piece of meat will work.
""Eye for eye, tooth for tooth"? Then how can we consider ourselves and the ideology which inspires us superior to theirs? "
-I'm definitely not trying to me superior. I'm engaged in a practical demonstration of what it feels like to be judged exclusively based on your biology.
"Conservatives are procreating faster than liberals. Look at Palin... :) And as long as the family is the main agent of socialization, this ensures their advantage. That's why I think that it would be nice if liberals were more fond of procreation."
-I honestly believe that having children in order to promote a political agenda sounds like a really crappy motivation. If my parents told me that one of the reasons they had me was their desire to defend progressive values, I would not be happy. To put it mildly. As much as I hate Palin, the best I can do to counteract her personal bran of insanity is to decide if/when I procreate based on my personal needs and desires. Not in response to her life choices. This would mean giving her too much power over my life and my body.
"Not out of duty towards the society or towards liberal ideology - this will be so wrong and counterproductive for so many psychological reasons - but just because they would want to, and see it as less of a conflict with everything else they want to do with their lives."
-Didn't you feel that this nutso article suggested that women who do not procreate according to this "journalist"'s idea of when it's right to do so are not really valid human beings?
The funny thing is that this article (by pure coincidence, of course) came out right after a group of scientists made a statement that human cloning is almost achieved.
I have to say that I'm very grateful for your comments. Thank you!
---The point of my post was, of course, to make people angry.
Did you make anybody angry?
--Being reduced to your biological functions is very unpleasant. If it hurts you to be seen in this way, good.
I am not sure "if it hurts you" was directed at me or is a rhetoric item... Anyway, neither you nor Regnerus have hurt me. I know that my value comes from multiple sources, including from within. As well as the value of other human beings.
---I would not mind as much if my value (market or otherwise) were based on seeing me in terms of my finances or my "maturation." These are the things I can control.
I feel better now, less of an insensitive anti-feminist jerk. :) Because this was a good example of you being not very sensitive to some issues which are more frequently male problem than female one :). Yes, I can control my earning ability or maturation to certain extent. But I do not want to do it to increase my market value in the eyes of those women who give too large importance to money or status. (Didn't you have a post about some book where the guy was desperately trying to increase his market value by being a good provider?) I could claim Regnerus is reducing men to their ability to provide various resources to women, and get offended too...
----Didn't you feel that this nutso article suggested that women who do not procreate according to this "journalist"'s idea of when it's right to do so are not really valid human beings?
Honestly, I did not feel he is taking it that far.
Speaking of liberals procreating - I guess I made myself clear when I said that it would be nice, provided it is not done out of duty, ideological convictions or as a reaction to somebody, but if liberals, on average :), were genuinely more fond of it and were seeing it as less in a conflict with everything else.
V.
"Did you make anybody angry?"
-A girl can always hope. :-)
When I said "you", I did not, of course, mean you personally. It was a general way of speaking. Nothing could bee further from my mind than suspecting you of any kind of chauvinism. People like this journalist, however, do make me angry. And I have no problem with expressing my anger with strong personal statements.
Post a Comment