misandry

After Women Took off Their Aprons, Advertisers Began Taking Off the Rest!

fem 17Once we won our equal liberty to choose our personal “place” in the world, the male ego swiftly began to make sure that women would never forget their universal “purpose” in the world.

By T.L.Dayen

They say “a picture paints a thousand words.” Imagery has the power to elicit emotion and provoke thought. It can also be used to subconsciously persuade or manipulate. Imagery has also historically been used to disseminate propaganda such as the iconic “Rosie the Riveter;” an animated image of a strong-armed woman in a factory uniform intended to convey that it was acceptable to see women; the majority of the domestic work force during the war effort of WWII, as strong and capable. Images can also portray social behavioral norms like iconic Norman Rockwell fem 15paintings depicting ‘normal’ life in middle and working class America from the early to mid 20th century. Culturally, our social norms are reflected through imagery in our media; movies (entertainment mostly) and advertising (expressly to persuade).

Imagery in advertising works to convince, confirm or inform viewers about what they should want, think, identify with or accept as good for them. When advertisers use sexually implicit images to sell a product, it is reaffirming stereotypes that objectify women’s bodies and marginalize their humanity.

Selling Sex

Exploiting sexuality to sell a product is, unfortunately, effective. The ‘sex kitten’ eating Doritos on T.V. prompts the dorritosman to buy the chips because he wants to “get the girl” in the ad, and the woman buys the chips because she wants to “be the girl” in the ad; “We’re a visually explicit culture that’s become comfortable with selling domain names and winter coats on the backs of pretty, naked people” (Thompson, 2011).

Using sex in advertising subliminally links our most primal motive of procreation to the impulse desire for that product/service. In other words, buy the product, get (feel) the sex.

Sell Sex; Buy Sexism

The problem with ‘selling sex’ is that it takes the elemental human drive to procreate (which requires dominant and pliant roles), and attaches it to everything in our lives from food to cars to clothing to cleaning products to insurance. fem 14The dominant/ pliant roles of our sex organs become the roles we identify with as represented subliminally by the products and services we need and use every day. By ascribing the yielding female sex organ to her overall nature and character (as subordinate), advertisers can use sexually explicit imagery to not only potently objectify women’s bodies, but also marginalize female humanity by transforming “actual women into [sexual] objects, devoid of individual will or subjectivity” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

The female body, pliant in sex, becomes the objectified woman, subordinate in life.

Even while women have made stellar strides in education and work force parity since the blatantly sexist advertising of the 1950’s; “an era when women’s roles were confined to the corridor between the bedroom and the kitchen” (Thompson, 2011);

the ‘new sexism’ is simply explicitly sexist imagery without the explicitly sexist messaging. In the 21st century, the message of sexual servitude is “implied.”

“Having lost the argument that women are incompetent, American advertising has had to settle on the argument that fem 18women are [still] attractive” (Thompson, 2011). In other words the iconic domestic dependent ‘June Cleaver’ telling viewers something like, “Your husband will never complain about undercooked eggs again with this new and improved egg timer!” has been replaced with the sexually implicit ‘cleavage and stilettoes’ seductively and silently stepping out of a Lincoln Continental. I call this “objectified female imagery.” This more modern version of sexism has only fed new life into age old social constructs of female subordination, because “American women still develop a sense of self-worth based primarily on how they look, rather than how talented or intelligent they are” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

Domestic dependent submissiveness has simply been replaced by sexual objectification; both are demeaning and subordinate positions of “service.”

What’s even more poignant is that some of worst offenders of this type of sexist advertising are ‘women on women.’ fem 19Women who appeared on a Phil Donahue Show “fashion segment,” un-apologetically defended their unusual preoccupation with ‘perfecting’ their hair, skin, eyes, clothing and bodies. Susan Bordo took note of their naiveté and that “putting on makeup, styling hair, and so forth are conceived of only as free play, fun, a matter of creative expression,” but in reality is, “also experienced by many women as ‘necessary’ before they show themselves to the world, even a quick trip to the corner mailbox.” Bordo expresses her concern that the true messages being sent by ‘fashion statements’ are merely “whimsical and politically neutral vicissitudes [that] supply endless amusement for women’s [apparent] eternally superficial values.” Bordo goes on to say in the context of the fashion and beauty industry, “the specific ideals that women are drawn to embody…are seen as arbitrary, without meaning [by society].”

In other words, obsession with fashion culturally indicates frivolous and superficial priorities.

Bordo’s trepidation with the multi-million dollar fashion and beauty industry is shared by Benshoff and Griffen who assert that this advertising strives to persuade women to “buy their [own] femininity;” be re-made into “some ideal fem 20form” as an “object of the male gaze (objectification).” This, alleges Benshoff and Griffen, actually convinces women “to be complicit in their own objectification.” A massive and still growing fashion and beauty industry in America may be evidence that many women have indeed “internalized the ideology that their self-worth is based upon their public image… that achieving total objectified desirability is the only thing that will give them happiness and fulfillment” and that, “this mythical ideal keeps patriarchal (male) domination in place” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256). If women are buying sexism, then apparently sexist advertising is working.

Hijacked Sexuality

Full disclosure: as a woman myself, I am frustrated that an industry has “hijacked” my God given sexuality for their profits! Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality without the implication that she is consenting to, even encouraging the sexist messages sent by the objectified female imagery in media advertising? And what of those who feed into the ‘cultural messages’ that are fabricated from objectified female imagery in the media; that a woman’s sexuality is by its very nature literally “there for the taking?”fem 5

Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality personally without the implication that she is “asking for it” publically? I fear that the answer to these questions today is “no.”

Sharon Marcus writes of the misleading dialogue used when legislating rape laws or hearing rape cases; “The rape script describes female bodies as vulnerable, violable, penetrable, and wounded.” A website called “Controltonight.com” ran an ad showing a young woman’s legs with her panties around her ankles lying on what looks like a bathroom floor. The ad reads, “2:19 a.m. She didn’t want to do it, but she couldn’t say NO.” The ad intends to warn against drinking and date rape, but the ‘message’ is that women’s bodies are simply up for grabs by anyone who may gain the advantage to take it – and that’s somehow a woman’s fault. Marcus purports, “the adherents of rape culture see female sexuality as a property which only men can truly own, which women often hoard, which can thus justifiably be wrested from us, which women themselves merely hold in trust for a lawful owner. Rape thus becomes the theft or violation of one man’s property rights by another.”

fem 8If women’s sexuality is not even seen in our law as our own rightful possession, it is no wonder it could be unabashedly exploited personally or commercially by whomever and however it serves to benefit.

Audrey Lorde writes of the uses and power of the ‘erotic’ – in this context, ones ‘passions;’ sexual or otherwise; “We have been taught to suspect this resource, vilified, abused and devalued within western society… the erotic has been encouraged as a sign of female inferiority.” So a woman’s capacity to “feel deeply” has been equated with weakness, and that “only by the suppression of the erotic within our lives and consciousness can women truly be strong. But this strength is illusory, for it is fashioned within the context of male models of power” (Lorde 188-192).

If we follow Lordes’ premise, then a woman’s capacity to feel her own sexuality is considered “suspect” and therefore only passably expressed within and through our patriarchal society’s consent and capacity to control it.

Conclusion

What came first, female objectification or female objectified imagery? The truth is not what you might think. While media imagery only began in the early 1900’s, female objectification is just one arm of female subordination that has fem 12stigmatized the male/female dynamic for thousands of years. However, in the 21st century human kind is capable of growing beyond our prejudices; capable of a much broader perspective of the male/female dynamic.

In the 21st century human kind is capable of recognizing our two species as ‘different in measure but equal in value.’

This is where the media continues to culturally perpetuate female objectification even as we are collectively capable of moving beyond it. Advertising media imagery is especially harmful because it is scrupulously knitted within the fabric of our consumer based culture. Every decade that passes, fem 4human kind becomes more familiar with women in leadership positions of authority in politics, more acceding to our dependability as an equal successful womanpartner within the home, and more reliant on our equally competent skills in the work place and industry. While this reality of the male/female dynamic may smack of truth, the false postulation of our disparity and subordination continues to be culturally projected before us as sexually objectified minions of the patriarchal social construct.

Women’s sexuality; our very autonomy is reduced to a collective cultural commodity, and only valid through its collective cultural usefulness to the patriarchal bedroom, boardroom or billboard.

If sex is selling, it’s only selling women out.

fem 16

 

References

Benshoff, Harry, and Sean Griffin. America On Film. 2nd. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

238-256. Print.

Bordo, Susan. “Material Girl: The Effacements of Post Modern Culture.” Trans. Array

Theorizing Feminisms. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 385-404. Print.

Lorde, Audre. “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power.” Trans. Array Theorizing Feminisms.

N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 188-192. Print.

Marcus, Sharon. “Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention.”

Trans. Array Theorizing Feminism. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 369-

  1. Print. (Marcus, 369-381)

Thompson, Derek. “Are T.V. Ads Getting More Sexist?.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly

Group, 31 Oct 2011. Web. 16 Oct 2013. <theatlantic.com>.

Save

Why Does the Evolved Female Seek “Equality” with the Destructive Male??

Some women are tragically sacrificing their own creational consciousness to become “like men!

dads pic

By Shane Stewart

Modern women are struggling for their “freedom;” something they erroneously consider that men already possess. Many modern women therefore, feel it necessary to “have what men have,” “do what men do,” and “act like men act,” in order to be “free.”  This attitude displays that many women have “accepted” the negative image that the male ego has painted of them; that they are indeed “inferiors” of men, and therefore must reach “upward” to match the status of the “superior” male. Sadly then, many women (and “feminist” organizations) consider female emancipation, or “freedom,” to mean women attaining “equality” with men! This is ludicrous! It is obvious that more women of the Earth are already generations ahead of most men in every “quality” of human consciousness that matters for our survival and evolution: compassion, compromise, cooperation, and community.  These “human qualities,” possessed by the female of our species, are necessary elements in order for humanity to move forward in evolution.

In short, if the male ego continues to force us to “think” in terms of “superior and inferior,” then female creational consciousness is already far “superior” to the negativity of the male ego and its consciousness of destruction and oppression. Women have let themselves be “fooled” by the destructive male ego into believing that the “physical” human body is the primary and fundamental “reality” of “being human,” and therefore a woman, not physically being a man, nor generally being physically as strong as a man, can never be “equal” to a man, and therefore can never be as “truly free” as a man. Women are admonished by the male ego to “accept their place” in the human structure and do what they were “created” to do; which is of course, to serve men! Many young males who might otherwise seek “individuality,” and think differently, have been duped by males of previous generations with the fallacy that “this is a man’s world,” and therefore it is a man’s “birthright” to control the female.  Men therefore, have succeeded in “reversing” the polarity of truth in human consciousness, because it is men who should be striving for “equality” with women! Women cooperate: men* conflict. Women give life: men* take life. Women create: men* destroy.

The concept of women trying to attain “freedom and equality” by being “like men” is comparable to a scenario in which humanity has to attain “equality” with the Apes in order to be “free” because apes are free. Because men are generally “stronger” than women, they have convinced women that “physical strength” equals “superior person”. Accordingly then, following this “logic,” does it mean that weaker men are inferior to stronger Apes? The way the male ego forces men to behave, it would appear so! If women succeed in lowering themselves to “become like men,” then the world will suffer a tragic void of female creational consciousness. We will be left with only the male consciousness of destruction and domination and therefore have no way of altering the course of our eventual annihilation upon which the male ego has set us. Our survival and subsequent evolution is entirely up to female creational consciousness.

Women cannot “become” men and expect to make the positive changes within humanity that are necessary. If women “think” like men and “act” like men, they are going to make “men” choices. Men make destructive and personal choices. This is how they are destroying our world. If women keep their female creational consciousness, and that creational consciousness is emancipated, then we will have a chance of continuing as a viable species. You must understand that it is precisely the female creational consciousness that the negative male ego is so desperate to continue oppressing, because only through female oppression can men maintain their false image of male “superiority.” As long as the beast of the male ego controls humanity, we are doomed. Men must strive to develop their creational consciousness and women must strive to help them. Men must lay down their weapon of male ego, and dissolve their negative attitude and false image of male superiority.

Every destructive, violent, and oppressive situation in the human world – past and present – has its origins in the male ego. 99.9% of all violent, destructive activity on this planet is carried out by those men driven by their negative male ego to dominate and control everything around them. The male ego is devoid of compassion, compromise, cooperation and community. This holds true especially in situations involving the female of our species.

We have had countless centuries of male leadership and false images of male superiority and female inferiority, and I am desperate to find the progress we have made in human consciousness under male leadership during those centuries. Where is it? Why are men, with their male ego, still the most violent and destructive creatures to ever have walked the Earth?

“It is MEN who commit the violence; against women, against each other, against the planet. All life on Earth is victim to violent acts from the human male!! Physical violence, sexual violence, domestic violence, gang violence, military violence, terrorist violence, racial violence, ethnic violence, homophobic violence, gun violence, serial and ritual killing, mass killing, honor killing, animal sport killing, species extinction, and violent environmental and planetary destruction; it’s ALL committed by men under the parasitic control of the male ego!”  (Shane Stewart/T.L. Dayen, The Female Imperative, 2014, p. 204)

Men fill our world with “technological wonders,” and convince us that this is indeed human “evolution” when it is merely advancement in technology. And sadly, technology is mostly used by the male ego to configure greater weapons of mass destruction through which men* can destroy more of humanity and continue their wars of domination until all is lost, including the Earth itself. Technology is the world of “it”, the world of things, not the world of humans, human interaction, and human attitudes toward each other. Men are “it” motivated; “thing” motivated. They see reality as being outside the self in the world of “it,” in the situation, not inside the self in the world of “I am.” To the male ego reality is; “It is. I want it. I dominate it.” And that includes how most men think and feel about women. Women are “it,” men want “it,” and men dominate “it.” Being focused outside the self is one reason many men can kill so easily. They have no problem with killing “it.”

Women of the world I say to you;

“You are not an ‘it.’ You are the evolution of ‘human mind’ in society. You are our only hope! As ‘creators‘ of life you understand the ‘self.’ You understand ‘I am.’ You must not sacrifice your ‘creational consciousness’ to the male ego and ‘become like men.’ You must stand as women, not as ‘men.’ You must shed the yoke of the image of female ‘inferiority’ that men have hung around your necks. There-in lies your ‘freedom,’ as well as the opportunity for men to free themselves from the male ego image of ‘superiority’, which has arrested their evolution. You must help men to rise up and become of ‘human mind.’ You must help men to develop the creational qualities of compassion, compromise, cooperation, and community. The male of our species is like a man who is so deep in a feverish illness that he doesn’t even know how sick he is. This fever of course, is the negative male ego, and it results in violent male convulsions that are destroying you, the Earth, and everything on it. The male ego is the antithesis of anything and everything creational on our planet.

Women of the world, your leadership of our species is essential to the continued survival and evolution of humanity. You must not become like our destroyers! Males and females were never meant to stand alone as two equal but separate parts of humanity. This is the false image of feminism created by the male ego that relishes in perpetuating this feminist argument, because as long as you are fighting for an “equal but separate” equality with men that can never be achieved, you will never realize the hidden truth that men and women are in fact two incomplete halves of one integral human whole. The destructive dominant male ego will cease to exist only when this evolutionary male/female union finally occurs, and the positive male nature will at last flourish.”

~  ~  ~

*It must be noted that my co-writer, T.L. Dayen and I, are not advocating that “all men” are violent destroyers. We are simply acknowledging that the violence and destruction carried out on Earth is and has been overwhelmingly carried out by men inflicted with the dominant and destructive male ego. This is not misandry. This is a statistical and historical fact! Most men are of Animal Mind. Fortunately, many men of Human Mind are working as I speak toward a sustainable future of compassion, compromise, cooperation, and community. I am one of them.

Save

Save

Is The Female Imperative Misandry?

T's Toes

By T.L. Dayen

Even with all of the current evidence of the destructive male ego permeating our media and our national consciousness this summer of 2014: the immigration crises, murder and mayhem in Iraq, Syria, I.S.I.L, the Ukraine, Israel and Palestine; the rash of men of color dying at the hands of those “sworn to protect” and no less than five governors under investigation for “abuse of power;” my first blog post must answer the question, “Is The Female Imperative misandry?” After all, that’s the main question many of our visitors will be asking. Am I right? Not that the answer isn’t already known by Stewart and I as a definitive “NO!” but honestly, if a definitive “no” was all it would take to answer that question, then the title of our book could have been “The Female Imperative is NOT misandry!” and it would be settled. But Stewart and I both know, as do you I’m sure, that any mention – at all – of “The Female Imperative” (TFI) equates to misandry in the animal mind of the male ego. SO – my first inaugural blog post on TFI.com unity must clarify this one very important misunderstanding!

Misandry is the “hatred of men.” Feminism, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica [sociology] is; “the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.” It goes on to say that “Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. Throughout most of Western history, women were confined to the domestic sphere, while public life was reserved for men. In medieval Europe, women were denied the right to own property, to study, or to participate in public life. At the end of the 19th century in France, they were still compelled to cover their heads in public, and, in parts of Germany, a husband still had the right to sell his wife. Even as late as the early 20th century, women could neither vote nor hold elective office in Europe and in most of the United States (where several territories and states granted woman suffrage long before the federal government did so). Women were prevented from conducting business without a male representative, be it father, brother, husband, legal agent, or even son. Married women could not exercise control over their own children without the permission of their husbands. Moreover, women had little or no access to education and were barred from most professions. In some parts of the world, such restrictions on women continue today” (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Encyclopedia Britannica does not define feminism as the hatred of men, but apparently the recognition and acceptance of the full measure of value of over half of our human population; and by the way, the one half that gave birth to every human being on this planet; yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And yet, as I write this in 2014, my Microsoft Word “thesaurus” tells me that “Feminism” is synonymous with “Radicalism (n.)” – REALLY?? Who among you would consider social, economic and political equality “radical?” Did we not settle this in the late 1800’s after the North won the civil war? Perhaps we haven’t! Perhaps not “all men” were created equal – or should I say “not all humans” were created “equal.” Because equality among “men” is largely determined by demographics; but equality among men and “women” is not a demographic or geographic thing; it is a physiological thing. Our inequality is solely determined by our body parts; no matter where we live, what color we are, how much money we make or the name of our God – female subordination is global and universal.

The Female Imperative is NOT Misandry, but neither is it “feminism.”
TFI is “evolutionism.”

TFI does not advocate for “equality of the sexes.” Stewart and I maintain that our “sex” has nothing to do with our “equality.” Our two human sexes are simply the two human biological functions required for reproduction in the act of intercourse if reproduction is the goal. And of course the female body is equipped to feed her infant offspring. In mathematics, “equal” means “same,” and by these terms, equality of the sexes is physically impossible. In sociology however, “equal” means “non-discriminatory,” and it is by these terms that the male ego uses our physical [gender] inequality as human inequality. The entire global social construct of humanity is built and maintained upon the social attributes, roles and functions of our physical gender differences as assigned by the male ego. Feminism valiantly struggles to challenge the social construct of sexual inequality in vain. As long as it’s about our bodies and the roles assigned to those bodies, the male ego wins, because physically we will never be equal.

From The Female Imperative: “Remember that the dominant male ego cannot tolerate unity or cooperative relation-ship. Division and segregation must be maintained to maintain control and the image of order. To the animal mind of the male ego, “gender” is the most fundamental of these divisions (“primary identity”), and only one’s gender can determine the degree and level of one’s personal liberty (independent self-determination) and civic participation (politics and commerce). In the male ego animal mind, by replacing ordained gender roles with individual self-determination, then gender itself is expunged. If only real men do what men have always done, and only real women do what women have always done, then in the male ego image of feminism, the female disappears and becomes a man (female equality) or the male disappears and the female dominates (man haters). Neither is true of course and in the human mind, both are equally ridiculous. But in the animal mind of the male ego, this image of feminism has effectively precast and forestalled the “female emancipation conversation” into one about “angry women who either want to be men (penis envy) or they hate men (emasculation).”” Excerpt from Chapter 29, page 194.

Evolutionism is not about equality of sex; it is about unity of consciousness.
It is not about the male and female human standing side by side as two “equals.”
It is about male and female consciousness uniting as the two sexual halves of our one human “whole.”

TFI.com unity will continue to explore and explain “evolutionism.”

Empirical Fact and Honesty is NOT “the hatred of men!”

The “anti-feminist” movement (or Men’s Rights Activism (MRA)) occurring in the U.S. today frequently uses the term “misandry” to defend its cause. Men and women of this movement seem to believe that to be pro-woman, one has to be anti-man. This has proven to be an effective psychological weapon against the modern feminist movement. TFI has powerfully and courageously debunked the “misandry myth” for what it is; both a distortion of and distraction from the TRUTH! TFI finally says out loud what no one dares utter for fear of retribution as a “man hater;” that not all men are destructive, but 99.9 percent of the destruction, murder, violence, oppression, torture, greed and lust is perpetrated and perpetuated by MEN! This is not man hating – it is simply a fact. It is not personal! It is empirical! But TFI breaks it down even further; it is not men who commit these atrocities – it is the male ego! We can finally separate the wheat from the chaff and be honest about the fact that humanity is NOT self-destructive – the male ego IS self-destructive.

In looking at the list of crisis’ I laid out in the opening of this blog post, each one of them stems from the out-of-control male ego. Tens of thousands of men, women and children seeking refuge in the U.S. are not fleeing evil women. Evil women in the Middle East are not bombing, shooting, executing, kidnapping, torturing and beheading each other. The wave of those abusing their power in the U.S. whether in law enforcement or politics are not women. This is just the summer of 2014. What about century upon century – tens upon tens of thousands of years? Why can we not finally give ourselves the permission to admit the truth about our humanity – that only men and women of “human mind” (compassionate, cooperative, compromising and communal) are concerned with not just the survival, but the evolution of our race; and that men and women of “animal mind” will continue to grant the male ego free reign over our race and planet to continue its historical and current campaign of domination, death and destruction? TFI is finally giving humanity permission to expect decisiveness to not equal domination; assertiveness to not equal aggression; ambition to not equal greed; motivation to not equal self-service; courage to not equal destructive action.

TFI is not “hating men;” it is rejecting the animal mind of the male ego to continue its leadership over the human race.

TFI is embracing our “humanity.”