the origins of misogyny: my working hypothesis

At this point in my studies, I have some familiarity with big names in feminist theory, but I would feel like I was aimlessly juggling texts if I didn't have guiding questions to focus my inquiry. One such question to which I have returned periodically is on the origins of misogyny.

The newcomer to feminist theory quickly encounters what I call the man behind the curtain problem. That is, there is a lot of discussion of institutions and even ideas as having agency, and as shaping history, in what appears to be a problematically reified way. When we say "patriarchy does (x)", what are we really saying? Does feminist theory require that there be a literal annual convention of Sexist White Males to plan and guide implementation of misogyny over the following year? Do we need to perhaps stipulate that they use alien technology to transmit these policy decisions into the brains of all males worldwide who were unable to attend? Of course not - but there is value in fleshing out the foil, to see how ridiculous it is. The other way to refer to this is the ontological problem of feminism.

Rather, feminist theory has mostly used the language of institutional agency in a consciously conventional way, recognizing the absurdity of a simplistic Oz "bad guy" to which we can point as responsible for all our sexist troubles. The language is used as shorthand; it is understood that initiates have read the key pieces that discuss oppression and power (such as Iris Young's chapter The Five Faces of Oppression), and will incorporate this kind of provisional model into their reading of further literature. However, I am all about discussion across disciplines, classes, and interests, so I try to avoid confusing language - I don't personally like to ascribe agency to institutions when I speak, so I am more likely to talk about "misogyny", "misogynism", "racism" etc. rather than "patriarchy".

That said, I have maintained interest in where male misogyny comes from. Misogyny seems like too great a coincidence to explain simply as a historically passed-on bad idea that gains traction through violence (though that is undoubtedly true as well). I will present what I see now as a two-pronged theory of the inherent characteristics of the human community that make misogyny possible. My approach to feminist studies of this kind is very much inclusive; my engagement with other theories is usually "yes, and" rather than "no, but". That said, I am drawing to the close of my undergrad philosophy degree, and am aware that my time of immersion in a community of social philosophers is this limited. I am savouring the remaining time, but also find myself withdrawing, slowly, my interest in getting to the very bottom of things - I am instead looking for closure, for good enough answers, for articulation of what I have learned, to guide me through the next phase of my life, so that I neither forget these lessons nor feel burdened with the self-imposed quest for perfect understanding.

So here is my really simple working theory of what misogyny's about.

1. Misogyny in the emotive dread-anger way happens because women remind men that we are all animals. This is troubling for two related reasons: first, there is the sex-death connection. That is, we are all a bit terrified of our impending death and possible annihilation. We go to great lengths to de-animalize our experience of being human. This is the reason we cloak bodily functions in euphemisms and closed doors, why we perform elaborate dining rituals, and why we shudder at crude sexual depictions, or at least feel like sex shouldn't happen in public malls and libraries. Animals eat, fuck and shit, just like we do - and then we all die. But we don't want to believe we are mere animals. This applies to religious as well as to non-religious people. We prefer to wear clothes, hold forks, and excuse ourselves to powder rooms to deal with our animal needs. Second, we long for meaning. This is sometimes called the religious impulse, but non-religious people should not think of themselves as somehow excused from this description (The Seven Laws of Magical Thinking explores this really well). People like to, maybe need to, believe that humans are special, or that love rules the cosmos, or that the universe is looking out for them, or that things happen for a reason, or that fate brought you your partner, or that magic is real. Religious people, admittedly, can add to this list that God will take care of poor people if we pray, and that our children will be happy and safe and not swallowed up by violence and environmental catastrophe. It may be that our brains evolved to be so analytical, future-aware, and pain-adverse in such sophisticated ways that it became extremely adaptive to slip into the soothing waters of religious (or pseudo-religious) belief. Those who cannot bring themselves to believe (for possibly physical cognitive reasons) are less likely to have children, and therefore to pass on those non-belief genes. I personally wonder whether the new waves of religious fervor we are seeing are being caused in part by the globalization of information media an the resulting nearly paralyzing despair we almost inevitably experience at being confronted with our own helplessness and lack of power to save the world. It is comforting to believe something or someone else will save the world, yes? Anyway, fertile men see sexy (read: fertility-signalling) women, get erections, and are confronted with their bestial natures, and transfer all the negative feels onto womankind. I also think this helps explain the weird rules around women's hair: body hair is removed in the West and in Islam, and various religious traditions, including Islam and segments of Christianity, prefer women to cover their head hair as well. Hairy = animals = death = ahhh!!! Note that this also predicts that men who are not religious, who are body-positive, and who enjoy access to wholesome means of power (satisfying work, regular schedules, safe housing, etc.) will be more feminist-apt than their body-squeamish uber-religious counterparts. Has that been your experience?

2. Misogyny in the controlling oppressive way happens because of paternal uncertainty. During gestation, birth and lactation, we always know who a child's mother is (barring new reproductive technologies, of course, but I suspect that such procedures are far too esoteric to be incorporated into our little animal brains in a deep symbolic way any time soon). However, nobody ever really knows who the daddy is (without, again, lab intervention). In societies and classes where men contribute significantly more to the caloric needs of the family unit than women, or perhaps where women may not contribute at all, and a helpless new family member is being added to the fold that will need provisions for 10-20 years (depending on the culture & economy), men face potentially having to work very hard to provide for a child that is not their own - that will not pass on their genes. Remember hearing about how in ancient Athens, aristocratic women virtually did not leave the house? That's one way for physically and politically powerful men to "deal with" the problem. This predicts that cultures that include women in the economy, including after childbirth, will have less anxiety, and therefore will have less oppression of women. Sound a little bit familiar?

The main thing to notice about both of these issues is that your conscious beliefs don't really matter all that much. Another interesting way to highlight this is in comparing the use of the subconscious in feminist theory to its use in biology and in philosophy of race. If you study biology and evolution, you start to realize that a whole lot of our behaviour has to do with being sexy, in order to then pass on our genes. You start to notice that vast swathes of human experience can be explained in reference to the "desire" to pass on one's genes. But it's obviously not a conscious desire. Hence, reliance on the subconscious/instinctual. Again, in discussions about racism, there is the inevitable defensive white male who will say "but I DON'T believe people with light skin are superior to people of dark skin!!". Guess what? Nobody cares what you consiously believe: racist bias is largely unconscious; you've been socialized this way from the time you were a child, and even if you aren't aware of it, your racism shapes the way you see the world, and is testable.

Similarly, with feminism, the above two explanations I provide rely heavily on the assertion that humans are afraid of death, are afraid of being mere animals, are afraid of being overwhelmed by their powerlessness in a big scary world, and are afraid of having to provide for children that are not their genetic offspring, "for nothing". The fact is that it doesn't matter all that much whether individuals recognize these fears and qualities in themselves consciously. Even those who do believe that all of these things are true still indulge in cognitive dissonance to protect our fragile little brains. Feminist theory relies not on being able to test these assertions against one's own mind (though often once some subconscious psychological explanation is encountered, we do recognize ourselves therein), but looks instead at the predictive power of such statements. As such, we rely quite a lot on the hard work of sociologists, psychologists, economists, ethologists, biologists, etc. etc. We should not test abstract models against our own consciously-accessible thoughts and feelings, but against the data from the real world that they have the power to predict.

I have some great profs this year, and I look forward to doing more work on gender, race, religion and so on, but in general I am pretty satisfied with my twofold explanation for the time being. Do you have any alternatives to suggest?

an alternate reading of ornamentation

I propose that one possible reading of gendered ornamentation is such that women advertise their wealth and aesthetic values through self-ornamentation: wealth, through the leisure evident in having the time to braid, curl, or otherwise style the hair, apply makeup, and so on, and more directly through signifying their buying power by displaying artifacts of a fairly wealthy lifestyle (cosmetics, jewelry, a variety of clothing, clean clothing demonstrating regular access to laundry facilities and leisure to make use of them); aesthetic values, by symbolizing-actualizing the priority they place on the pleasure of seeing beautiful things. What is being advertised is a lifestyle characterized by a certain wealthy tranquility, and also by a commitment to visual beauty.

To whom is the ornamented woman advertising? It seems clear that there is truth in the feminist hermeneutic that suggests partnerable men are the primary target audience: it is likely that the ornamented unpartnered woman may be using ornamentation as an economic strategy to display the lifestyle package that she carries with her to entice men who are at present or might in the future be able to economically support her in order to interest him. This theory would predict that women who are partnered, married, or past child-bearing age (and thus have interest in being economically supported by a partner) would display less regular and less intensive ornamentation, which I think is indeed the case. This "ornamentation as advertising" theory also helps explain certain subculture types of ornamentation: a woman who is seeking a partner with specific values may adopt certain symbolic gestures of her commitment of those values to indirectly pre-screen partners, eg. the use of facial piercings to gesture to a certain feminist or marxist criticism of the commodification of female beauty, media shirts (with names of bands, tv shows etc) to advertise specific types of activities pairs could share together, etc.

That said, it is clear that there are other potential targets of this advertising - men and women who the woman may want to attract as friends or associates. The relative levels of wealth and aesthetic values seem to me to be highly relevant in the discernment process between potential friends; it is not at all obvious that the only potential outcome of this advertising process would be securing economic partners.

Why is it, then, that men are not expected to ornament in these same ways? While dressing with care is indeed related to advertisement of socioeconomic status among men, it does seem that the elements of leisure and beauty are less prominent in the way they present. There are a variety of possible of readings of this. One is that the visual aspect of the package's advertising is less important for potential partners. This could be because what has been culturally valued in men historically, say, since the industrial revolution, has been something like efficiency: simplicity of dress itself might be read as connected to the virtues associated with being economically successful; it is a different way of demonstrating wealth, in effect.

This raises interesting questions about gendered conceptions of leisure and the good life in post-industrialist urban culture. Are men not good at leisure? At friendship? If this has arisen, how can we understand it, and resist it?

It is interesting to note that Italian fashion culture among men does contrast itself consciously with American fashion culture, rejecting what it sees as drab, careless, and utilitarian norms. If I am correct in my hunch that the absence of ornamentation among men may stem in part from a poverty of leisure and relational prioritization due to an unhealthy climate of professional work, it would be interesting to examine the attitudes of men and women in cultures in which leisure and home or community life and presented as positive and expected for both sexes.