Male archetypes in fairy tales
sharonblackie.substack.com
sharonblackie.substack.com
She then goes on to mention the first(ish) man to do so, Robert Bly. The New York times, for his obiturary, wrote that Bly "started a controversial men’s movement with a best seller that called for a restoration of primal male audacity." Which underlines why most men don't want to do it and why actually it is better if women lead this study at this current time: even if your intentions are good, your statements may be misjudged by some. In Bly's case, it was misjudged by some anti-feminists to launch some actual misogynistic countercultures and misjudged by some feminists to blame Bly for some of this and prior misogyny.
Anyways, a round about way to say thank you, Dr. Sharon Blackie for writing this. As opposed to it being misplaced, I quite appreciate it and find it necessary.
This is such an indictment of our society.
I still believe that the proper response to women's mistreatment in the past and present is to stop mistreating women, not to start mistreating men.
Constraining men from discussing things of interest and value to them, basically because they're not women and don't have the societal "indulgence" of being female, is sexism and should be opposed.
Maybe that's the wrong read of the situation, I'd appreciate being steered aright, but that seems like the situation to me right now.
The problem here is that I can imagine Dr Blackie here might actually welcome with honest interest such an analysis by men. She certainly had only fair words for Robert Bly. But others would appear out of the woodwork to call such analysis some misogynistic manifesto. In some sense that should be expected, any good work should have breathless fans and seething critics. But the potential charge of misogyny is felt to carry too heavy a risk for most men nowadays.
I do not think the problem is that men are not women. Instead, there are some genuine jerks out there beating a war drum on the male identity. They create another nasty problem for the man who wants to honestly look at what it means to be a man because they create noise. The problem is that with this fear that men have, the only ones courageous enough to stand up and speak seem to be the jerks that don't really offer much insight, or at least the men with insight get buried under that noise and the noise of charges of misogyny when their insight is misappropriated by actual misogynists.
There needs to be fear before there can be courage is how I see it.
Is it, actually, a risk? Or do we instead see misogynist men in many high positions?
It can logically be both and I would personally say it is both but your reply demands polarization. It is either one or the other because people like Harvey Weinstein exist. Don't get me wrong, it took way too long for Harvey to see justice and arguably he never did.
But here now I don't want to talk about Harvey Weinstein, I want to talk about male archetypes in fairy tales, yet here we are. Of course that isn't entirely true, since actually I was mentioning the meta-difficulty faced by people like Robert Bly and the controversy of the father's rights movement. So yeah, your comment is fair but a good example of the drive towards polarization faced by anyone trying to discuss being male and using that as a lens. Life has nuance and most of us want to express nuanced views but don't want to post manifestos.
This has gone so far men will hear "toxic masculinity" and just think they're being condemned for their identity and stop listening because all we have in mainstream media is the negativity of what is bad without the positivity of what to do instead and because it's all left to women (and Buzzfeed) to fill in the gaps, it all ends up being preachy and offputting because it only comes from a place of upset rather than healing. Thus, articles about manspreading.
Men need positive role models. Slowly but surely I'm seeing content creators and public figures actually provide positive representation for men but at the moment they're still drowned out by the likes of Andrew Tate and other dipshits trying to make a buck off insecurities about inadequacy powered by romanticized ideals about bygone modes of masculinity (e.g. yearning for a "tradwife" while at the same time not wanting the unfulfilling responsibility and sacrifice that comes with the model of masculinity that enabled that). Ironically some of the best positive examples I've seen are trans men - possibly because they were forced to think about their ideas of maculinity more than any man afforded their "man card" by assignment at birth.
Speaking of positive examples, here are two YouTube channels worth checking out for that:
When it comes to anything except children, "I'm a man" is no more meaningful than "I'm a Libra". Objectively meaningless, subjectively can screw you up but only if you believe in zodiac.
The irony is that it’s clear from this affirmation that you are a man, because any woman knows how false this is. This is the same for pretty much any situation where some group dominates another: the dominants think everything is fine because they don’t experience any discrimination and don’t understand why the dominated complain and are "so fixated on gender" (or race, etc).
In what way is the statement you quoted false?
"We all mostly want the same things, feel the same things and do the same things" is contradicted by any studies on consumer behavior that takes gender into account. Of course deep inside we’re all mostly the same, but as a society we constructed a gender polarization that has very real effects on what we want, how we feel and what we do. If I tell you that my friend likes to wear high heels and a red skirt you can hardly pretend the probability they are a woman is only 50%.
> If I tell you that my friend likes to wear high heels and a red skirt you can hardly pretend the probability they are a woman is only 50%.
If you tell me that your friend wears a pendant with Libra zodiac sign I'd estimate probability of her being a Libra higher than 50% too. It doesn't mean identifying as a Libra is something natural, innate or objectively meaningful or indicative of the qualities you value.
That’s not what I’m saying but maybe I misunderstood your point.
Not really, in all systems of dominance you have oppressed who embrace the cause of the oppressors, often not consciously. There are a lot of women who defend patriarchy, even if as a whole this is detrimental to them (and pretty much everyone). See also Black people who endorse racist theories about White dominance, etc.
So you once again can clearly proclaim that gingers are always oppressors and non-gingers are always oppressed?
There are women doing better than vast majority of men. Sweeping them under the rug as some loonies that love being oppressed is not really smart.
This kind of thinking leads to Asians to be no longer classified as a minority for some purposes despite being a minority just because they are doing better than whites.
I don't deny correlations, especially historical correlations. But nowadays fixating on gender or skin color is about as helpful as considering spherical cow in a vacuum.
Let's take African Americans for example. Nobody denies that their current woes have historical root causes in their skin color in times of legal racism in USA. But nowadays the bulk of their problems stems from the fact that they are poor in the society that's ruthless against poor. Why not address that instead? Why not take better care of the poor? Why not work on how to provide the poor with safety, healthcare and education and a path to wealth? How does fixating on skin pigmentation helps with any of that?
Sure, the history of African Americans is a great example that you can forcibly make a group of people poor for stupid reasons and they stay poor. But this should just be used as example that being poor is not always the fault of the poor person. This should breed compassion towards all poor. Instead it's used to revitalize racism and conflicts along racial lines when you focus on for what stupid reasons the group was made and kept poor.
Seeing the world as divided into oppressors, oppressed and allies is terribly counterproductive. Humans are just humans, when they are in positions of power, in the absence of proper controls they will exploit and oppress others for their own benefit regardless of their gender or skin color. Trying to forcibly find method to madness based of superficial traits brings you away from this reality.
I think you're overstating things here, by a lot. I understand not wanting to get mired in gender politics, as I find it tedious as well. But "man" and "woman" goes deeper than star signs.
I'm also not saying that we aren't more the same than different, I think that's true as well.
Male/female differences are real and objective but they manifest mostly on the long tails of normal distribution. When you exclude the outliers that male sex has way more of then differences between sexes shrink to almost nothing across nearly all qualities.
I don't think you can uncouple "being male" and "being a man" so easily. For thousands of years these two have been interlinked. I would argue, one informing and influencing the other in a sort of cultural epigenetic dance.
This goes back to my original objection with your comment, I don't think that "I'm a man" is objectively meaningless, but at this point I'm arguing semantics :^).
I think that's your issue. In isolation, maybe you think it's objectively meaningless. But if that were true in life and society, you would not see such drastic statistical significance between men and women. For example, wouldn't you expect murders, suicides, pay, life expectancy, etc etc to be a 50/50 split if gender is objectively the same?
I don't know for sure, but I imagine your star sign or whatever is not a significant predictor of anything. But being a man or woman is a significant predictor in many things.
Things like murders, suicides, excessive pay and such are mostly result of that. It's not because men are different on average. It's because they are more spread around the average. Which pretty much means that men from the end of the spectrum are less similar to other men from the opposite end than they are to all women.
Of course sex and even gender are better predictors than zodiac signs. Nearly everything is a better predictor because zodiac signs are crap. But affluence might be better predictor than gender for many things. Neuroticism might be a better predictor than gender for many things. IQ can be a good predictor for many things. In the myriad of very good predictors why fixate on the simplest and dumbest one that just divides population exactly in halves?
PS: Zodiac signs are a great predictor of what horoscope the person is going to read or what zodiac pendant or t-shirt or whatever they are going to wear or buy. All other predictiors including gender are absolutely terrible at predicting that. ;-)
What a weird take on things: let's apply neat little discrete labels to every person and pretend that the experiences of each particular combination of labels is so radically different from everybody else's that we can't possibly learn anything from anybody else.
> but the knowledge of psychology, myth and folklore that I’ve acquired over the past several decades isn’t restricted to women, and it seems a pity to hold back information and ideas that might be useful
Ah, some common sense prevailed. Thank goodness. It can't possibly be the case that when men do the same it's somehow with the same goal of trying to be useful; no, it must be that they are trying to "'interpret' women's stories".
Look, I'm an immigrant queer disabled man, and if all I did was listening to what other immigrant queer disabled men had to say and looked down on input from other people my information bubble would be very small indeed.
Fortunately, most people are willing to listen to all sorts of other people and judge what they have to say fot what it is, not based on some labels we assigned to the source. And conversely, when the information they have provided falls below our standards, we should place the blame on the individual rather than the collective that we think they belong to.
This is called "intersectionality", a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in the late 1980s but some of the key concepts date back to the work of bell hooks in the 1970s. It's a generally accepted pillar of modern feminism.
Something bubbled up on StalkedIn a couple days back: it had images of King Charles III and Ozzy Osbourne, and it said both were white, male, British, born in 1948, married twice, and on and so forth. And it said "A customer is not their demographics. A customer is their individual goals and needs" or something like that. Which, while still laden with business-speak, was something of a contrarian take in today's DEI-mediated world. You gotta be careful with this intersectionality stuff. The endgame of intersectionality is -- gasp -- considering people as individuals.
I have no problem with that. My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.
Why is it that we all agree that an old "boys' club" is repugnant, a "whites-only" association is disgustingly racist, but a "girls-only" lessons or a "black only" show are things to celebrate? We demand diversity and inclusivity, but somehow the more "able-bodied neurotypical white heterosexual male" checkboxes you tick, the less we care about your opinion and well-being, and thus the less important it is to include you. (And I only tick two of those)
If you go with ye old class analysis, you'll notice the big threat to the status of VHNW is a free and fair free market. They benefit a lot from regulation and handouts to preserve the status quo.
If you look at what plays out in practice, the rational move for the ultra-wealthy is to quietly align with the poor against the middle class. It isn't too blatant, but quietly just make it harder for people to jump up orders of magnitude in wealth.
The intersectionality as pushed in the public debate is probably emanating from people looking to create a divided political climate to make it harder for poor and middle to unite and look for political change. I don't think most people want to institutionalise anti-white racism. Indeed, I suspect a "white's only" association wouldn't disgust many people, on the basis that we can have black or girl-only associations and they are fine. It would still be racist, obviously. But people have
Well, it would disgust me. I have so-called mixed-heritage children and I dread the day when I have to explain to them that they can't join this or that activity with their friends because they have the wrong skin color or the wrong gender.
I may be in the minority, but I find associations that exclude people based on any of the protected classes (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) very distasteful. By all means, feel free to organize an event centered around X community, but allow everybody to attend.
And I don't see why a white-only association would be unusual in the current climate. In the US in particular, whites are well on the way to being just one more minority in a vibrant society.
Are you white? I am, and I don’t think any white person would claim this. At least where I live and work, we get reminded weekly how much a small contingent of ultra-progressives hate us.
I think it would be very unusual. I'm curious to know why you think otherwise. I also think it would be career and social suicide to be associated with said organization.
If I go look up Black students at Harvard, I can find a Black student association association: https://www.theharvardbsa.com/. The photos might not be completely representative of their membership but they are quite suggestive of a certain racial trend among the associates.
Ditto the Harvard Latino alliance - https://harvardlatino.sigs.harvard.edu/ - just eyeballing the photos but I it looks like this association is race biased too.
I don't see why Whites are supposed to be all that different. I would suggest that in the future there will be a Harvard White Student association. Not immediately, but I'd say in a 30-50 year time horizon it'd be much more likely that not.
I guess in theory they're not. In practice, pushback would liken a race-based group of white people to the famous negatively valence'd ones from history(KKK, Nazi, etc) and it would never be allowed to form(Especially at a place like Harvard).
What about German or Austrian heritage groups?
> "White" isn't a coherent thing
But black, Asian or Latino are? They span whole continents, dozens of countries with radically different cultures.
"White" is synonym with "European heritage". It is just as simple and as complex as any of the other broad categories mentioned earlier. But while it is socially acceptable to create associations for the former, the latter are looked at with such suspicion that only the most radicalized are even willing to join. Similar story with heterosexuals and men.
No. No one has problems with these. You can find them in droves across broad swaths of any US town. In the Midwest especially they are central to festivals, police clubs, civic organizations and political organizations.
Men’s organizations are similar. Effectively every church in America has men’s clubs that do prayer meetings, prison outreach, homeless support etc. There are men’s clubs for fathers, learning to debate, and driving funny little cars around to help burn victims. There are fraternal organizations on most college campuses. Heck there are still old fashioned private clubs where men can get together to drink whiskey and smoke cigars.
To keep the ambiguity at bay, do what John McWhorter (himself no woke-scold) suggests, and capitalize Black when referring to the African Diasporic people of America, and lowercase it when referring generically to people of African origin, the same way you lowercase "white".
Agree completely. I think part of the problem is that "White" and "Black" are overloaded terms. If "White" is used to refer to an ethnicity, it carries the incoherence problems you mention(I would argue the term "Black" has these same problems).
I was trying to use the terms "White" and "Black" to refer to skin color only. I believe this is the usage that an organization like the Harvard BSA[0] is invoking on their website.
Let's look at this more from a structural view: "Able-bodied neurotypical white heterosexual male" is the assumed default in "Western" society. What do I mean by that? White neurotypical heterosexual men built society for others in their demographic. Rights for women, POC, LGBTQIA people, neurodivergent, and disabled people, etc. have always been secondary.
On a systemic level, I do not agree with you that WNTHSM (I'm not writing that out again) are less valued than other groups. Let's just look at healthcare. Men make up the majority of participants in medical studies[1], black patients are perceived as more able to cope with pain[2]. Let's look at the law: Women could not open bank accounts without their husbands' permission in the US until 1974 under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Insurance will often cover viagra, but not birth control. Look up anything about redlining and read about how black people couldn't get fair loans to buy homes.
We all have to navigate systems in life: educational, judicial, healthcare, financial systems, etc... I would guess you don't face as much/the same adversity navigating as someone belonging to zero of the five mentioned demographics, likewise it's harder for you than for those belonging to 5/5 demographics. How can you make a system work for more people? By involving them when redesigning the system.
I won't deny your feelings, but would ask you to consider specifically when you've felt your opinions and well-being do not matter.
[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8812498/
[2]: https://www.aamc.org/news/how-we-fail-black-patients-pain
Let me start at the end.
> I won't deny your feelings, but would ask you to consider specifically when you've felt your opinions and well-being do not matter
First of all, every time I hear the word "mansplaining" -- and while the author of the linked article didn't use it verbatim, she was effectively complaining about it with more words. "Mansplaining" reads as the most superficial dismissal of somebody's opinion, as it instantly disregards a person's whole argument based on a birth trait. It's not any more noble or justified than brushing aside somebody's opinion as being done by a "hysterical woman", a term that is thankfully relegated to the past.
But it goes well beyond that, so let me illustrate with a couple of examples. A few weeks ago there was an event where an attorney would share some insights into the local cycling laws and what to do in the event of a crash. I wanted to attend, but was denied because the event was part of a women's cycling month initiative. It was a webinar, for goodness' sake.
Another example: people online have criticized me for attending a Japanese festival with my family. Apparently being a white father of two Japanese children is some sort of a sin and my presence in the festival is some form of "cultural appropriation". I jokingly asked what percentage of Japanese ancestry is required to attend, and whether or not my hypothetical 25% Japanese grandchildren would be allowed to attend or not. It goes without saying, the people criticizing this family event were... drum-roll please... not Japanese.
I need to run to take care of my kids now, but let me make a quick observation: I have felt far more social discrimination for being male than I have ever received for being queer, disabled, or an immigrant. And it's not just that being male means you are explicitly forbidden from some groups/activities, it's also that the same people that act deeply indignant at other forms of racism and sexism quickly turn into gatekeepers that openly and proudly discriminate against men.
> "Mansplaining" reads as the most superficial dismissal of somebody's opinion, as it instantly disregards a person's whole argument based on a birth trait. It's not any more noble or justified than brushing aside somebody's opinion as being done by a "hysterical woman", a term that is thankfully relegated to the past.
Mansplaining is less about "birth traits" and more about socialization. A lot of women experience it. That being said, I'm sure people misuse it as a killerphrase. Side note: the "hysterical woman" idea is prevalent where I live. This may be one of the reasons that women's pain is often neglected or not taken seriously by clinical staff[1].
> people online have criticized me for attending a Japanese festival with my family.
Whoever said that is being overzealous: cultural appreciation is not the same as appropriation, plus cultural festivals are usually about sharing cultures. But on your part, it's online. Why let that into your life?
> I have felt far more social discrimination for being male than I have ever received for being queer, disabled, or an immigrant. And it's not just that being male means you are explicitly forbidden from some groups/activities, it's also that the same people that act deeply indignant at other forms of racism and sexism quickly turn into gatekeepers that openly and proudly discriminate against men.
I'm sorry you've experienced that. I can understand "women's only" activities, e.g. yoga classes or career events. TBH, my local yoga studio also offers a men's only course. In my experience women's only activities/group are about helping women gain their confidence, esp. when they are a minority in a larger group. Perhaps those were the motivations behind the women's cycling webinar?
Analogously, I think groups for men working in jobs typically associated with women, e.g. child-care are also important.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/interactive/2022/wom...
OK, but keep going. The queer descendants of Asian immigrants may often have experiences that are quite different from those of other queer descendants of Asian immigrants, too.
So you can make some generalizations and find some patterns, but those generalizations and patterns can turn into stereotypes if we aren't very careful.
As bitwise said in the GP, people are individuals. They share some subset of the experiences of the various groups of which they are members. Those experiences shape them in ways that have some similarities with the characteristics of the groups as a whole, and also have some differences. For anything that you think is a characteristic or a shared experience of an intersectional group, you can find members who do not share that.
The key is that these are self-organizing groups that look for other people who have similar experiences to them. Stereotypes are forced upon people by outsiders. It's an entirely different group dynamic.
> For anything that you think is a characteristic or a shared experience of an intersectional group, you can find members who do not share that
Obviously, which is why it is particularly important that the context is within-group. Gay black men sharing their experience among themselves are in no danger of forgetting that they are individuals with unique traits, all while they seek the camraderie of people like themselves.
I'm not sure I read your tone correctly but this is indeed what authors like bell hooks try to get at: being Black is one thing, being a woman is another and being a Black woman can be different from either of those things in isolation; ultimately our experiences are defined not by each attribute individually but the way they interact in combination. Any subset of attributes will always give you an incomplete understanding but they can still be useful lenses.
Charles and Ozzy do have a lot of things in common and they do have many shared experiences because of them and do experience many things similarly because of them. Of course those things are not all there is to them and e.g. being born into the royal family may significantly outweigh most of the attributes they have in common for many such experiences.
Modern feminist critique is intersectional because it recognizes these complexities and recognizes the limitations. But feminist critique explicitly challenges the systems underlying our society. Girlboss pop feminism did the opposite, an infamously inane example argument being that then-state secretary Hillary Clinton is underprivileged compared to a homeless man because she's a woman. Corporate DEI is a step up from this but still falls flat because its ability to critique systems is limited by being beholden to the corporate structures that allow for it to exist: it's essentially the "more female drone pilots" joke but without a hint of irony.
Again, that does not mean DEI can't do good things (e.g. being mindful of inclusivity can reduce artificial or cultural barriers to entry and increase representation) but it can't solve systemic issues because it can't meaningfully challenge the systems it exists within. This is what led to the tensions resulting in stunts like those at Basecamp or Coinbase where the owners of the respective companies decided to expel DEI and claim to create a "politics-free" workplace because the people involved in their DEI projects refused to stay in the comfortable confines of feel-good corporate (literal) virtue signalling and got dangerously close to critiquing the structures around them.
You need to consider people as individuals but if you want to make sense of systems you need to pick subsets (plural!) of the attributes that define each individual. Where DEI falls short is that it usually by design is only allowed to pick a limited number of attributes and is even more limited in what systems it is allowed to look at. Wheelchair-accessible workspaces, yes. Racism towards Black employees by their peers, yes. Sexual misconduct by middle managers, yes. But anything that challenges the leadership or ownership structure of the company is too close to unionization for comfort.
She did this - people complain it's hipocrisy.
With that amount of bad will communication is impossible.
> In offering the thoughts that follow, though, I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them.
She relates that initial anecdote to tell the story of how she got to where she’s at, acknowledging that her view on the matter has since progressed. You say you’re steelmanning, but begin by quoting how she was not how she is. You’re not dealing with her current views, you’re dealing with her precious and self-admittedly outdated views on the subject, aren’t you?
Her bias against men is only made more explicit when additional context is provided. I'll quote her again and interleave some observations.
> I wove together a series of stories populated by the funny, feisty older women in European myth and folklore who I love so much
That is, she was giving a talk about European myth and folklore. Myth and folklore is often characterized by having unknown authorship, and at best mixing both fiction and non-fiction elements in them. For all we know, some if not all of the stories she loved so much were actually written by men. This will become relevant in a moment.
> In my nonfiction I’ve always been scrupulous about writing within the realms of my own lived experience as a woman, and I hate it more than I can say when I read books or listen to talks and performances by men who tell and ‘interpret’ women’s stories, and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved
So, in her non-fiction she holds herself to the standard of writing about what she has experienced as a woman, which is her choice to make. She then follows by chastising men who 'interpret' (why the scare quotes?) women's stories; presumably she is referring to the same European myth and folklore she was talking about a moment ago. Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men. She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.
I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. Is it because they are stories about women? Is it because she likes the stories, and thus can't possibly have been written by a 'man'? Scare quotes added for dramatic effect. I can only speculate.
> I’ve never wanted to do the same to them
One has to wonder: has she actually received any criticism for sharing her views on male archetypes? Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.
> It’s easy to say, Well, if the men want their stories, let them go and find them
Why does the gender of the people telling the story and the gender of the people in the story such a critical factor in her opinion? Why not their age or their ethnicity? In her opinion, can an American or a Japanese share their opinion on European myths and folklore?
The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.
> You say you’re steelmanning, but begin by quoting how she was not how she is. You’re not dealing with her current views, you’re dealing with her precious and self-admittedly outdated views on the subject
Nope. She is not retracting in any way from those views; she is simply justifying why it is okay for her to share her opinion on men's stories; in her eyes it's okay when she does it because, and I quote:
> I’d like to stress that I’m writing this to encourage conversation and ideas around this subject, not to attempt to interpret men’s stories for them
So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?
> My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.
That's a YOU problem, what you are saying in the quote is a complete parody of what people are saying when they talk about representation, identification, and lived experiences.
You extrapolate a lot.
> Thus, she is plainly saying that she hates hearing opinions about European myth and folklore stories... when the speakers are men.
I don't think this applies only to European myth and folklore stories. The joke quote "She breasted boobily to the stairs and titted downward" didn't appear out of nowhere. Only 19% readers of female writers are male (but 45% women readers for male writers) (Nielsen Book Research). If someone doesn't want to read stories from other gender groups, its statistically men.
> She could have said "I hate hearing poor interpretations of women's stories", or "I hate the interpretations provided by Person XYZ", but she didn't, and the context paints a clear picture that it wasn't an accident. She is perfectly content blaming the group for the errors of the individuals, a hallmark of prejudice.
The "pre" in prejudice means something.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prejudice
prejudice (countable and uncountable, plural prejudices): (countable) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts. (countable) A preconception, any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative. (countable) An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion. (obsolete) Knowledge formed in advance; foresight, presaging.
I don't think there is anything irrational in the article I'm reading. The whole thing is nuanced, comes from experience in the writing business and is absolutely not attacking men in the way you describe her (misandrist, etc.).
> I find it particularly funny that she doesn't seem to even contemplate the possibility that some the stories she loves so much may have been written by men. [...]
And here we are, the little patronizing tone coming from the guy who is keen on attacking people on what they didn't say. You just go around insulting people?
> Why would it be such a terrible thing for men to discuss women's stories, or vice versa? I can only see good things coming out of more people sharing their viewpoint on a subject and I'm glad that she shared her expertise.
You are the only one here who thinks people are somehow trying to ban men from doing that, and vice versa. I can't imagine hearing someone say "I hate when men do this [badly]" and interpret it as "I hate men and they should be banned from doing this".
> So when men give their opinion about women's stories, they are 'interpreting' them (scare quotes in the original). But when she does, she is merely "encouraging conversation" (verbatim). What, exactly, is the difference?
The difference is in the text you don't quote: and who are kind enough then to suggest to us ways in which our lives as women might be improved. The difference is the that you have a lot of know-it-all male writers or commenters that explain how women should behave (e.g. how to write an article). This is different than coming from the perspective of learning. Maybe you didn't catch that because that's implied in the text, but this is not about all men or all male writers in general.
> The simplest explanation for all the above is that the author is openly and proudly misandrist. That is my interpretation.
Of course that's your interpretation. Your brought extra material to the article using the power of prejudice.
This isn't the clever retort you think it is, it is pure unadulterated sexism and it proves my point: you are brushing off my opinion based exclusively on my gender, just like the author.
So, thank you for proving me right. I rest my case.
This is of a piece with a disturbing trend in the world of fiction where writing about anything that "you aren't" is considered inauthentic, or wrong.
If I read a story about a man written by a woman that resonates with me deeply, it's just as real and true as it would be if a man had written it. Maybe even a little more so.
You get there by hitting the gas pedal as you approach narcissism.
An evil spirit could claim that none of the mentioned archetypes is gender-specific at all and they would not be provable wrong.
You might as well say "everything is subjective, there is no truth".
> You might as well say "everything is subjective, there is no truth".
Strawman. I'm criticising this specific kind of thing as fiction, not everything in general.
And it can't be a strawman as I misrepresented nobody.
"Seeing behind fiction" is a bad excuse, the only thing you will get is your own imagination.
Particularly the Epic of Gilgamesh is a fascinating view into a society that could not be further away from modern times and yet is perfectly recognizable. Perhaps it is when humanity is the most stripped down and naked that fundamental motives become most clear.
To survive the Church's slow sifting of the arts, you have to have a surface that can please a righteous simpleton; and yet you need a depth beneath that surface to please a discerning sage. The sifting is slow, but it gets a turn of the sifter-handle now and then– when some new prelate inspects his episcopal chambers and mutters, "Some of this garbage has got to go." The sifter was usually full of dulcet pap. When the old pap was ground out, fresh pap was added. But what was not ground out was gold, and it lasted. If a church endured five centuries of priestly bad taste, occasional good taste had, by then, usually stripped away most of the transient tripe, had made it a place of majesty that overawed the would-be prettifiers.
I think this only works, if at all, if you stick to surface detail. Maybe not even then. Zeus, say, was quite keen on shagging men (and women). This would definitely have been coded as very non-masculine, say, 50 years ago, and still is today, though to a lesser extent, but the Greeks wouldn't have seen it that way.
Also, there's a bit of a filter here. To some extent, the ancient stories that you're likely to be exposed to are the ones which are most comprehensible to a modern reader; if a story requires a deep understanding of an alien society to make sense to the reader, then it's not a _good_ story for a general audience, and you're unlikely to be exposed to it unless you go looking.
Even taking something as simple as this: https://lettersofnote.com/2016/07/22/what-do-you-take-me-for...
The world's oldest known letter of complaint. On the surface, it's kind of relatable, but if you read it in full, there are some pretty weird details which don't make that much sense without further context.
OP didn’t talk about "our modern times".
From all of the ancient mystic philosophies that I've read, gender is always abstracted from sex and biology is unidentifiable at that abstraction. Regardless, those two gender identities exist as an inseparable harmony; a yin and yang.