This narrative of all men vs all women in an existential battle for power seems very tired in 2019. It does not reflect the reality of the modern world. The vast majority of men love and respect their daughters, sisters, wives, and significant others. The Harvey Weinsteins of the world will always be with us. Why paint all men with that brush?
If smart people with a platform like The NY Times keep promoting this idea, it will be to the detriment of all our sons and daughters.
21
@JG
The Harvey Weinsteins of the world may always be with us, but we are hoping that the hundreds of people that saw his doings and aided, abetted or simply remained quiet will learn that womens lives are of enough value to stand up and say something. We want women's lives to be valued equally as men's, is that to much to ask for?
30
@JG But the point, I think, is not whether men "love and respect" those women to whom they are attached by familial bonds, but rather whether that respect extends to all people who do not happen to be or to identify as male (or, for that matter, who do not share one's race, class, religious background etc.). The article doesn't paint all men with the Harvey Weinstein brush, it simply argues that men must take responsibility for their role (however passive) in perpetuating violence against women, minorities etc.
35
@JG, you need to learn more about patriarchy and how it works. It's not "all men vs all women." Women participate in patriarchal structures, too. Many men are marginalized by them. But toxic masculinity is at an all-time high in this world, exemplified by the presence of a sexual abuser, rapist, and exploiter of women sitting in the White House, who was friends with a criminal sex trafficker, and currently supported by a cult of masculinist legislators who turn a blind eye to his and his administration's transgressions against women, children, the vulnerable, LGBTQ+ people, and by extension, the environment (Mother Earth). If we have leaders in government who hold these particular values, it's not possible then to say that the vast majority of men (and women) love and respect their daughters, wives, sisters and significant others. More than 63 million people voted for a man noted not for his work to help the downtrodden or the poor, for any kind of expertise that would qualify him for the job, but for his obscene macho bluster and abusive swagger, his pathological lying, documented abuse (and rape) of women, hatred toward minorities, racism, xenophobia, abuse of workers in his employ, exploitative business practices, and for his utter lack of even a shred of empathy. His viciousness was what those people liked about it. If that isn't an indictment against "most men" (and many women) what is? Why would anyone vote for someone more famous for abuse than for altruism?
59
She is so brilliant, and brought it all together quite well. Thank you, George, for interviewing Professor Butler. Here is my takeaway:
"Privilege" (or entitlement) is when you think something is not a problem because it's not a problem for you personally.
"Solidarity" (social bonding) is when you recognize that what affects one life affects us all.
56
@Ann Davenport Ignorance of a problem is not privilege. Telling someone they are they are entitled because of a misunderstanding or ignorance is just insulting.
8
@JHMorrow - I don't think that is what Ms. Davenport is trying to convey.
11
@JHMorrow, ignorance confers entitlement on many people. And we say that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" so why can't we say that ignorance of problems that enable entitlement is no excuse? And especially for those in positions of power, i.e., the leadership in this country, why should they be excused for their ignorance, willful or otherwise?
Empathy does not need to be learned. Those who lack it have "unlearned it."
11
If we want violence against women to stop the best way is to elect women to public office at the Federal, State and Local levels. We must elect women, consistently, to where women are at least half of elected officials, judges and prosectors.
When we get women in positions of power we will see far better enforcement of our laws, meaningful sentencing of violators and protection of women. Until then, women will remain largely powerless to protect themselves.
27
@Mike - Yes!
1
The leading cause of death on the job for US women employees: homicide.
The leading cause of death for pregnant women in the US:
homicide.
We have a long, long way to go.
41
@Dr. M
While men die in greater numbers getting tossed from boats into icy water or being crushed by falling trees. Equality, where art thou?
8
@Stephen
The above statistics are about deliberate murders of women, as opposed to the entirely different subject of accidental deaths on the job.
Also, zero men have ever been murdered while pregnant.
22
@Dr. M
Actually, your point seemed to be that homicide was a leading cause of death for working and pregnant women. Or are you saying we need more equality in death between the sexes? Because men aren't immune to death by homicide on the job.
Speaking of statistics, I'm not surprised that women of working and/or child-bearing age are more prone to death by homicide than, say, old age.
6
There's plenty of violence against men; in response to the commenters focusing on that, can we stop keeping score? It's not numbers, but reasons and attitudes. Women, as a group, are disposable. We see this with abortion--that a women should die making sure the fetus lives. With the MeToo movement, this movement shows that women's bodies are expected to be given/shared with heterosexual men. There is no similar situation for heterosexual men's bodies (yes, it happens, but no, it's not expected by societies in the same way). This carries over to murder. Women are killed for being women, as representatives of a gender, and throughout history this has been allowed. It is not the same with men, even when many more men are killed, by other men, or by the state in capital punishment. They are not being killed because they're men.
68
@Rose Anne
Since time immemorial, men have been sent off to war, with the knowledge that a significant proportion of them will die, while women have been exempted from conscription.
5
Thank you NY times for continuing to bring these topics to the public. For me it is good to see that there are people out there who are concerned with the plight of our world populations. The tormented (in many cases women and minorities) and the tormentors (quite often men) are BOTH in need of help. One way to help is through education and maybe these articles will spur some to action. For me, one small way I help starts at "home" (the US) and as a result, I support Planned Parenthood with donations. I also read their publications and make my voting choices with their help. I believe that helping women in their birth choices is a big part of the puzzle to solve the equality problem.
I am a white woman who grew up with a "liberal" mom and dad and I stand with Planned Parenthood.
20
" In so many places, the violence done to women, including murder, are not even conceptualized as crimes. They are “the way of the world” or “acts of passion” and these phrases disclose deep-seated attitudes that have naturalized violence against women, that is, made it seem as if this violence is a natural or normal part of ordinary life."
My father killed my mother in a small town in NJ in 1971. I was 21 years old. 4 younger siblings were still at home with this violent man. When I asked the police chief why he wasn't arrested, he told me, "Felix, we all hit our wives from time to time. This is just one of those things. You have to let it go and go on with your life."
When Freud said, "Civilization is just a thin veneer," he wasn't kidding.
Thank you for this dialogue that reminds us that we must all work toward a non-violent world.
110
@Felix - Thank you for sharing your harrowing experience with us. Sending wishes of peace to you and your family. Your comment powerfully adds to the discussion here, and should be a Times Pick.
38
I believe that naming and imaging “God” as male and almighty as it is in the major faith systems has granted men godlike license to violate women with both aggressive and passive aggressive violence, deadly to the body and the soul. As an Episcopal priest, I no longer lead or attend services unless the language and images of the liturgy are expansive and inclusive. When there is this commitment, theology becomes more relational and shifts from power over others and the creation to power shared with others in mutuality and respect for all creation.
169
@The Rev Joy Mills - Brilliant! I applaud you!
25
@The Rev Joy Mills do you talk about God as Her, She or Mother? Using gender neutral language allows people to mentally insert the male gender into that construct. Using Her, She, and Mother does not allow that. If there is ever a Christian church that does this at least 50% of the time, I will consider checking it out. In the meantime, I have rejected the patriarchal cultural institution that is the Christian religion for all of the reasons stated by Butler.
14
@The Rev Joy Mills
"... believe that naming and imaging “God” as male and almighty ..."
The real issue is entertaining imaginary magical thinking (any god), then following it up by assigning attributes such as gender, ...
Two extraordinary claims which are not evidently true:
1) God:
As there are 1000's of gods all of which were in good standing at one time or another, to which god are you refering? Espiscopalians subscribe to Yahweh (the god of Bronze age biblical warlords), and Yeshua (Jesus the mesiah).
2) God has a gender:
No comment necessary.
Re-spinning god with gender neutral inclusive happy talk is a forlorn exercise in futility.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Sagan
13
The link from misogyny to climate change is an interesting one here. In feminist international relations, there's a sense of power in collective action, the power of coming together to solve problems and stand strong, not the usual balance of power idea, the zero sum game approach that says if I win you lose. It seems we as a species really need to evolve past patriarchy if we're to survive... Thanks to the NYT for giving voice to Prof Butler -- 2 questions I have tho -- where does such deep rooted misogyny come from and what can we do on a day to day basis to stop it?
75
@sue denim
A common denominator is the disrespect for and willingness to exploit the process of reproduction. Whether that reproductive process is human (see constraints on women's reproductive rights), animal (factory farms/rape racks), agricultural (razing forests for farmland), mineral (mining resources to depletion), or industrial (sweat shops). Many of these systems are so ingrained into our daily lives that they are virtually impossible to opt out of, but we can raise our collective consciousness in opposition of those who directly profit off that exploitation.
19
Thank you Mr. Yancy and Judith Butler for this discussion. I agree with Mr. Yancy that the bro-hood culture is a huge factor in keeping the violence entrenched. It makes guys very uncomfortable to be confronted about the need to “smash the patriarchy”. They see it as smashing THEM, or at least the behaviors they like to be entitled to. The courage Mr. Yancy showed in writing his original op-ed piece, and now this follow-up gives me hope. Not only do we need to continue to courageously call out the violence, inequality, and entitled behaviors, we need to actively enlist the enlightened Bros in or lives to speak up courageously in their own circles.
63
@MLR "The courage Mr. Yancy showed in writing his original op-ed piece,"
It required NO courage. My Yancy is only following the fashion and I can find dozens of articles like this in the last six months right here.
Courage has been shown by people like Jordan Peterson who says that the picture is more complex and that men are often the victims.
For his troubles, Peterson has been banned from Cambridge University. But speaking up anyway, THAT is what has taken courage. Mr. Yancy is little more than one more sheep in a flock of hundreds.
21
@Ludwig, I disagree. Mr Peterson seems to be following fashion. His “courage” in “still speaking out anyways” is of the stripe you complain of Mr Yancy. Mr. Peterson’s claim that the situations are “more complex” and “often men are the victims” rings hollow. Every push for equality in women’s history has been met by a chorus of men shouting that their uncomfortableness, their narrative of all situations, their justice must be first and foremost understood and that the situations are suddenly “more complex” and that really THEY are the victims. Same rodeo. Different riders. Women and courageous men are understanding the need to say ENOUGH! And push forward.
16
@MLR - Yes.
2
Judith Butler won the 1998 Philosophy and Literature Bad Writing Contest http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm
See the above link for a sample of her writing. Wow!
1
#metoo makes sure I will NEVER hire a female lawyer for me firm again. Why? Because as an affluent male (married and neither interested in nor desirous of extramarital affairs) I cannot risk being misunderstood by including or excluding a woman.
If I go to lunch (I eat out every day) I ask anyone in the office if they would like to join. I always pay. We chat, laugh and enjoy the company of coworkers and friends away from work.
Unless a lady joins, in which case we cannot make jokes (or refrain from making jokes) else we offend.
Equality? Not even close.
My wife (a lawyer also) is brighter than I, works for the State and is the best mother/wife/lawyer/human I know. She cannot have lunch with a male coworker else he be written up. What? For being friendly?
America was better when all people were people. Race, gender (there are but two, folks; liberals lose science when it comes to human gender) and social standing should not be relevant to ANYTHING.
To think women are somehow ‘powerless’ or in need of protection from the law is silly. They are as powerful, bright and capable as many, if not all, men.
Let’s erase affirmative action, sexism and other things demeaning to the other gender. Let’s just be friends, make jokes and let the free market decide who works where. Guess what, ladies: do that, and you all will rule the world. Force it, and you won’t.
Ask Gloria how well feminism worked for her (no bueno).
1
This is riddled with so many deficiencies that it is impossible to take seriously. Some examples:
1) “a woman is killed every 30 hours”. This out of a population of 44.27 million. Literally more women are likely being killed by lightning strikes.
2) “it is an attempt to define the very existence of women’s lives as something decided by men, as a masculine prerogative.” Where’s the evidence, supporting argumentation?
Feminism has become nothing more than a mass hysteria.
tarkmarg.blogspot.com
1
When inter-sex violence is endemic to a culture, you also see harsh inequality (severe and rigid rights distributions), gun and physical violence, sexual crimes, poor health (inflammatory disorders primarily, including diabetes, obesity, depression, and cancer), and suicide. Because males are physically stronger than females, historically they have used that advantage to control women, children, and smaller men with whatever violence is necessary to obtain the behaviors being required (i.e., sex in 3 minutes, not 5). When we right this wrong, our society will slowly evolve toward something different, hopefully, something more healthy for all concerned.
2
Judith Butler seems to believe that everything in the world is socially constructed. Her ideas would be a lot more interesting, and could possibly even be profound, if she stopped for a moment to take account of the many philosophical and scientific arguments arguing that such things as biology, evolution and human nature actually affect the way we behave. Instead, she simply ignores them.
8
This piece takes for granted that the only kind of domestic violence, and the only kind of domestic coercion, is male on female. In fact, academic studies, many carried out by women, find that some 56% of domestic violence is two-way and another 29% is female on male.
Women in that 85% total know that one 911 call will give them custody, precious in itself, as well as tens or hundreds of thousands in support from the now-non-custodial father; the house; effective ownership of all his possessions under a restraining order; the father’s removal from the lives of the mother and children for a year, in many cases; power over him; and sharp revenge for the sexual dalliances that may have sparked the conflict.
The crusade against male violence has robbed thousands of little girls and boys of their daddies. If cheating was the cause of the breakup, as it so often is, the mother feels perfectly justified in perceiving the conflict as the man's fault and making that call even if, in fact, she falls in that 85%. In many jurisdictions, under mandatory prosecution policies the man will be arrested without even being spoken to. If he later tries to report her assaults on him, he will soon discover that under the influence of articles like this, the police and prosecutors discourage domestic assault charges against women. No wonder the gender balance for domestic violence charges is very different from the gender balance found in academic studies of domestic violence.
24
@Jeff White "56% of domestic violence is two-way"
Women cannot successfully fight a man of equal size or even smaller and stand no chance at all with a man who is larger. A few might land a lucky hit with a handy object but if the man is close enough, he'll be able to take it away from her.
30
@Jeff White
I'd be curious to see how many women unprovoked are violent toward men. I'll bet it's an extremely small slice.
You can't blame anyone for defending themselves and when the law won't help it becomes violent.
I've seen your posts on the NYTs before, Mr. White. It strikes me some counseling might be of help.
38
@Jeff White You are missing the larger point of this article. It is a global problem...
20
I'm unhappy with the generalisations about men made by Prof. Butler.
There are men who are brutal towards women, but they are an extreme and not what is typically male although it seems that kind of male is more predominant in non-Western cultures.
5
@Ambrose I'm unhappy with your generalizations about non-Western cultures!
"Of the 77 countries that reported to the United Nations, Sweden, the U.K., Botswana and Australia had the highest reported rates of sexual violence. The U.S. has especially high rates of rape, specifically."
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-10-20/violence-against-women-in-5-charts
1
Judith Butler had some very interesting ideas in 1989. If this interview is any indication, she has none today. Killing women is bad? You don’t say! Do you really need a philosopher to argue that femicide is a crime? The notion that violence is exclusively, or even primarily, a male trait has been debunked more times than I can count. Men are more physically capable of violence but this does not mean that women do not aid and abet war, genocide, and repression. Female voters brought Hitler to power and women were among the most ardent supporters of Stalin, Mao and the rest. To combat violence in all its forms we need social organizers and politicians. To understand why violence is so ubiquitous we need better philosophers than Judith Butler.
14
@Mor
I am not sure you read carefully Butler's words: "For me, violence is not male or masculine. I don’t think that it comes from the recesses of men or is built into a necessary definition of masculinity." Her point is not dissimilar to your point that "we need social organizers and politicians" working to create ethical communities in which violence against women is not culturally embedded.
2
What is missing here is the role that religion plays in all this! Which is to me, the biggest factor. Religion is one if the main reasons why women are not elected as leaders because many religions consider and preach women as subservient to men. How many female bishops are there? female pope?!! female Imams?! etc.
12
What do you call the Republicans who refused Medicaid expansion, which resulted in increasing that State's infant mortality rate and also toyed with the lives of women who are poor.
The same states that are shutting down Planned Parenthood and throwing women in jail for choosing to abort a group of cells no bigger than a flake of dandruff.
12
The issues of trans women and women are not the same and should not be lumped together. Women suffer life-long oppression, abuse, and murder for behaving within their gender norms. Trans women suffer abuse and murder for behaving outside their gender norms. This is not a point meant to privilege one group over the other, but simply to point out that the social indoctrination and gender enforcement of being a "woman" is very different in the two groups.
18
"In Barcelona, a well-meaning man told me he was not entitled to join in a feminist demonstration against violence. But I disagreed with him. Well, maybe I agree with him: participation is not an entitlement; it is an obligation."
I participated in a demonstration against violence a while ago. I am male and I was with a male friend. We were told by one of the other participants that the march was women-only and we should go the back of the procession. So we did.
I agree with Judith Butler, but apparently not all women do.
6
Brava! Thank you for this, Ms. Butler. Bravo to Professor Yancy as well.
"No Visible Bruises" by Rachel L. Snyder helped me understand that I am still operating under some of the restrictive attitudes of my childhood (I thought I had worked them out.)
We all need to understand what is in the column.
6
Mr. Yancy shows in this quote that his perspective is screamingly biased, "In what ways does your discussion of nonviolence address our pervasive cultural practice of specifically male violence?"
He does not show any evidence of the pervasive nature of male violence against women. In fact, unless there are statistics which he is relying on to validate his point of view, there is nothing pervasive about male violence. It takes place for sure, but, the statistics on the internet are all over the place, especially as concerns sexual violence between intimate partners. I doubt that a cohesive set of statistics exists.
But cf the following report, which states that; [T]he spread of multiple drugs of abuse; the proliferation of more powerful firearms; and rapid changes in family structures, cultural norms, and societal dynamics.6 Since the early 1990s, homicide rates have declined, but they still exceed rates in other high-income countries. The World Health Organization’s Global Status Report on Violence Prevention places the 2012 US homicide rate at 5.4 per 100 000, whereas the rate for Canada was 1.8; for the United Kingdom, 1.5; and for Australia, 1.1 per 100 000.7
These statistics as the above report suggests has many causes which have no connection with Patriarchy in America or in the World.
These matters need to be discussed realistically and not with hatred of either men or women in the equation.
7
If American women had a larger public acknowledgement of our vulnerability, and a conviction that having a majority of elective offices be held by women, Hillary would be president, and women's issues would be priorities, not afterthoughts.
Instead, 59% of white women who voted, chose to vote for a confessed, criminal, sexual predator, for God knows what reason.
I had hopes when I attended the first Women's March in DC. Then we ended up with leaders who defended a man who treated women as sex toys or unpaid servants. That was an insult to the women who had given them their microphone.
They also committed the same acts that have gutted the impact of women's activism, since the 1970's. They decided to branch out to every popular protest issue, none of which were specifically intended to improve the lives of women first and foremost. Activists can support different causes, but the leadership must be laser-focused on the issue(s) that brought together the original, dynamic group,
7
Why wasn't Butler questioned regarding her role in the Avital Ronell sexual harassment case at NYU? In that instance, she marshaled a large number of senior scholars and faculty to sign a letter in support of a woman colleague accused of sexually harassing a male student. Butler's letter condemned the male student as "malicious" for filing a complaint of being harassed, and the letter lauded the accused and powerful woman professor as highly successful. It was EXACTLY the kind of defense of an accused harasser that Butler has called men out for over decades. This time, however, when the tables were turned, and the harasser was a women, the victim a man, Butler was proven the hypocrite. Such blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy MUST be addressed and discussed in interviews like this one if progress is to be made in the pursuit of equality for women, which I ardently support. If we are unwilling to discuss the true nature of the abuse of power, which can involve women, and even feminist activists like Butler, succumbing to at times, we will be tilting at simplified windmills that do not capture the entire, complex nature of the problem.
18
@Tintin - Wow, if this is all true, it is stunning. Thank you for this.
3
@Michelle It is indeed true. I encourage you to Google it. But it gives me no pleasure to report it here. I do so, however, because I think it's critical that we recognize the seductive and corrupting nature of power in all of its manifestations. While gender results in many instances of the imbalance of power, we need to be willing to consider those instances where women had power and abused it too. Such occurrences are important to look at because it suggests that the possession of power is what results in abuse, not men with power per se, though that is the most common combination. This is a painful recognition for some, because it goes against the preferred narrative "If only women held the reigns". I wish that preferred narrative were true. But if, when women do hold the reigns, they too are inclined to misuse their greater authority, then the problem we confront is not a gender problem per se, but a problem of possession: WHOEVER has power, man or woman, Black or white, gay or straight, is prone to abuse it and therefore must be monitored and held accountable. That is a very different message than the one Butler is giving here, possibly because looking at one's own abuse of power is a very, very difficult and painful thing to do. Casting the accountability outward, onto others, is always the easiest option.
8
It's true, although sensationalized, but it leaves out Butler's statement of regret about signing the letter, which can be found here: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/judith-butler-explains-letter-in-support-of-avital-ronell/
2
Butler makes a lot of sense in this interview. Women--or the feminine--however these are construed or constructed, are considered surplus humanity because of ancient tribal ideologies that legitimizes violence against them, tout court. In this warped view, women represent an ontological threat; misogyny and repressive social practices echo this fear.
Overlaying this are contemporary ideologies that make whole groups of human beings superfluous. One of these, neoliberalism, combines tribalism, unregulated capitalism, technology, and the culture of distraction to market itself as both inevitable and desirable. The end of History.
5
I am dismayed by negative pushback from commentators. Back in the day in the Rocky Mountains, boys and men were expected to protect and never harm women, always. Secondly, we were expected to treat them better than we treated ourselves. It was the cowboy way. We knew it was an unflinching role requirement. Those that did not better watch out, stay out of saloons and town diners. I miss those days.
12
P.S. We judged other men by how well their women were treated and how often their women smiled, their appearance and their health.
7
@Jake
Thing is - back in the day - that often applied only to women who knew and kept their place - who obeyed society's laws. The pushback from many of those same genteel and considerate cowboys if you did not obey when they perceived that you should was violent, and remains so.
I do agree that there's a lot of positive from those societal expectations, but often there was an unspoken quid pro quo - that boys and men were protectors and providers, and girls and women were supporters and respectful of what they were given.
13
@Jake
You know this is a made-up story, right? That protection for women has historically come at the expense of freedom and autonomy, and that the only women accorded "protection" were the ones aligned with men by blood or marriage who could either protect - or beat us and kill us - as their property, as they wished?
Please. Enough with the fairytales. A grown man can face facts.
8
Religion was the first organized movement to oppress women and it continues unabated. Capitalism oppresses everyone and the Socialist Feminist movement has always sought to address the problem of inequality borne by both sexes. The movement recognizes the extreme oppression of women, but invites men to recognize how they are oppressed too.
15
"The right to abortion is based on the right of every individual woman to assert freedom over her own body, but follows from the collective demands of women to be able to live their desires freely without state intervention and without the fear of violence, retribution and imprisonment."
It's hard to take the autonomy argument seriously when the acts of one terminate what (in all reasonable likelihood) would become the life of another.
Also, I don't recall anybody objecting to state intervention...so long as that intervention includes a fistful of taxpayer cash.
6
@Stephen
Exactly. You are suggesting that my right to my body should be violated due to what might become another life. Not another life yet, just what might become one.
If you were called tomorrow and told, not asked, that you would be a bone marrow donor for someone else because you matched, whether you wanted to or not, even if there were medical considerations that made it even more risky for you - would that be OK?
After all, to not obey is to terminate what (in all likelihood) IS already the life of another. So, your body can be conscripted, your life and health risked, your job put in danger.
16
@SusanStoHelit
1. I'm willing to admit that I don't know where life begins.
2. My exercising autonomy through forgoing a compelled medical procedure is not analogous (at all) to the majority of instances of abortion, which are undertaken voluntarily and not out of concern for the life of the mother (a reasonable exception in my estimation).
3. If "autonomy" and personhood are the issues, why shouldn't personhood extend to those in utero, who, absent artificial (non-autonomous) intervention, would (in all likelihood) become people?
If nothing else, ~ 50% of those in utero are biologically female, and we wouldn't want to see violence forced upon females (as this article so genuinely points out).
3
@Stephen You're utterly wrong on point 2. Being compelled to sacrifice one's internal organs to sustain another person's life is exactly what denial of abortion rights is. It's just that you're regarding the woman's sacrifice as a default, but your own bodily autonomy as sacred. Further, you seem to have no idea what risks and costs pregnancy impose on a woman, starting with the U.S.'s worst-in-the-developed-world maternal mortality rates.
3
So, to sum up:
(1) Treat others as you would be treated,
(2) Better together.
(3) Empathize and be curious and respectful of difference.
8
George Yancy wrote the article “I am a Sexist.” This article is further proof that he is sexist.
The whole premise of this article is absurd. The disposable sex is male. In war, on the job, in crime, in daily life, men are the ones who are likely to be killed. It is men’s lives that are disregarded, valueless, and cheap.
Butler states that “one woman is said to be murdered every 30 hours.” (“Is said to be.” Why the strange construction?) But 84% of murder victims in Argentina are male. This implies that one man is said to be murdered every 6 hours. Couldn’t this be considered a gender crime? Why does Butler purposely ignore this?
Yes, most murderers are male. But during recent mass shootings, it was countless men who were killed when they covered up their female friends to protect them. It is also exclusively men who have tackled and disarmed the shooters. Why does Butler purposely ignore this?
Butler states “After all, when the lives of women and minorities of all kinds are taken, that is a sign that those lives are not treated as equally valuable.” Obviously, it is men’s lives that have less value.
This interview is absurd and sexist.
25
@Chan
This article is like an 18th century theological debate, poetic, arcane, superstitious, dogmatic and deeply knowledged in the system of faith it springs from but not actually relating to objective reality.
Male violence against women is just another quadrant of male violence, an adaptive but lethal trait cultivated through 300,000 years of human hunter gatherer survival. It will be eclipsed by algorithmic policing, surveillance, crispr editing of the human genome and other developments I can’t foresee, but I don’t think philosophy departments in academia will be or have been responsible for any change in male testosterone levels and its liabilities. .
9
@Chan Yee - Thank you for a comment that makes me start thinking beyond my usual sphere or square (and apologies for mis-handling a language not my own).
4
"Butler states “After all, when the lives of women and minorities of all kinds are taken, that is a sign that those lives are not treated as equally valuable.” Obviously, it is men’s lives that have less value."
I would say it is a system of male supremacy acted out in the endless cycle of domination and submission of both women and other men that is what declares lives invaluable, not a discussion of violence against women. Yes, most murderers are male.
When women discuss violence against women/male violence we don't mean men don't suffer and we don't mean all women all the time experience suffering at the hands of men. We mean female subordination at the hands of men plays out in specific ways. I welcome men having a conversation about gendered violence and how to prevent other men from being victims and perpetrators. But I rarely see this discussion happening in a way that doesn't appear to be a "what about men" reaction to inquiries about VAW.
16
We are truly overdue re-evaluating women in our society, and other societies, as they remain as second-class citizens in far too much of the world. I would hope for a peaceful dialogue, but the powers that be only encourage meekness in others--not themselves.
It's going to take a while. I really wish it could be an overnight thing that lasts, but that kind of positive change is vanishingly rare.
1
There is no demonstrable relationship between capitalism and the oppression of women. That oppression has existed through history in all systems. It is based pn them ale drive to propagate their genes.
The left has always attempted to coopt the women's movement. (Oh here are people organizing, let's use them.)
17
@Audaz I understand your point and I think it is important to recognize misogyny as a constitutive element of many cultures, rather than merely a symptom of a particular economic model. But I would say that in capitalist societies, the form which the oppression of women takes is shaped by capitalism, and so you are going to have trouble meaningfully critiquing misogyny in a capitalist culture without also critiquing capitalism. I'm pretty sure this is what Butler means when she says: "forms of feminism that do not engage a critique of capitalism tend to reproduce individualism as a matter of course." Notice that she's not saying they reproduce *misogyny* as a matter of course, but that the reproduce individualism, with all of its strengths and limitations.
1
When you spaek of " struggles for the right to abortion," do you mean the right to timely and early abortion as is the law in France and Germany? Or do you mean the right to abort a healthy fetus late in the pregnancy as is the law in New York?
There is no rational reason why aborting a healthy fetus as late as 24 weeks should be a legal right. But it IS a right in New York. And this particular inhumanity, the law in New York, is the mirror image of the draconian law in Alabama.
Is anyone going to make a distinction between early abortion and late abortion, or are we going to sweep both under " struggles for the right to abortion,"?
9
@Ludwig
No one is aborting healthy 24-week+ fetuses, except in cases of imminent danger to the mother's life. Late term abortions are personal and family tragedies. Please inform yourself.
139
@Ludwig
It’s remarkable that in response to an article outlining horrific and systematic violence against women in nternationally, you choose to focus on late term abortions, a topic not even broached here. Where does the inhumanity rest?
68
@LudwigShould women have their abdomens torn open by pregnancies that cannot be safely delivered? Should they then be rendered sterile and have no more children? That is why bans of late term abortion -- an extremely rare procedure in this country, far more women die in childbirth -- need to have an exception for the health of the mother.
50
It is of interest to note that nowhere in the exchange, and nowhere in her remarks does Butler is mentioned the reality that the institutional abuse of women and alternate forms of sexuality than in what are termed “Islamic” states.
20
The philosophy in the article had very little to do with the differences and similarities between men and women, which was very odd. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" are roles that vary in different societies but "Might Makes Right" is universal and women are usually physically weaker than men. Also, having children is harder on them and can make them and their children dependent. That means physical aggression and the threat of it a male advantage. Things are better in modern times where there is technology. Technology is a woman's best friend that reduces the importance of physical strength in general and at work, opening many jobs, astronaught, for example. Both men and women are freer today, because the standard roles were never a great fit and much talent was wasted. But where males are valued for physical aggression there's violence, including femicide and FGM and no education for women ...
7
For me, the most important element of this article is the suggestion of moving from the individual to the collective. Without commenting on scholarship, I am reminded that for a few brief moments in 2017, millions were connected through a collective response to Mr. Trump.
The election of billionaires who have the ability to self fund campaigns, the designs of global policy meant to reward the wealthy, the degrading of the enviroment in service to big oil and coal, makes all of us deposable. The importance of working together as a collective body is critical
I am firmly rooted in a values driven concept that until all women are free, no one is free, however I, as an individual, cannot do this alone. It will take everyone, women, trans folks, men, people of color, people who are poor - everyone. If we want meaningful change it's important to elect, support and hold those we chose accountable for creating an inclusive agenda that raises up to a high level of being.
30
Poor young women with children are the most vulnerable in our society and poor young women with children are treated the worst.
22
@Zejee
The most sound solution to the issue of poverty among "poor young women with children" is birth control.
8
Can there be any further doubt about WHY women and their children want to come to our country, which used to be a just, welcoming place, an used to be not as backward as so many other countries. (Republicans and "Christian" evangelicals have certainly changed that.) I have room in my home for a mother and child. Where to I sign up?
11
Interesting interview and essay. In many ways, the conservative movement in America and around the world celebrates the oppression of females. Can we say that the movement in the US also celebrates violence against women? I don't think it does, but at the same time, the conservative movement in the US does not openly condemn violence against women and certainly celebrates the oppression of women as the election of a misogynistic president and multiple senators and governors shows.
24
@Anthony--"In MANY ways?" In EVERY way.
9
How can this be? Some rape victims are illegally charged by some hospitals for sexual assault exams (rape kits) and if these victims do not pay, hospital creditors turn the debts over to collection agencies, resulting in bad credit reports. Outrageous.
“Despite state and federal laws, many people who were raped wind up paying for some medical services out of pocket, even if they have insurance. An analysis of billing records from 1,355 insured female rape survivors found that in 2013 they paid an average $948 out of pocket for prescription drugs and hospital inpatient or outpatient services during the first 30 days after the assault. That amount represented 14% of total costs, the study found.
"We just assumed that this was only a problem for women who fell through the cracks," says Kit Simpson, a professor in the department of health care leadership and management at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, who co-authored the study. "But this was a systematic problem."
Some people who have been sexually assaulted don't want to use their insurance in any case, because they are worried about privacy or safety issues if family members or others find out, advocates say.” - NPR
What?
21
I'm not sure what to make of this article as Butler seems to be back pedaling or soft pedaling some of her (former?) views. She has argued in the past that women aren't really women as it's all a performance, and here she is still suggesting that male to female trans persons and women have the same problems and interests when that isn't really true. Yes, MTFs are often attacked because of their perceived femininity, but they don't have the same histories of lifelong oppression based on female genitalia that women do. They don't undergo forced FGM, they aren't shamed as 12 year olds for menstruation, and in a fight with another man they are physically matched. They also don't get pregnant. Women are indeed oppressed as a class, but it's a class of women, not of feminine persons.
61
@Anne, you might want to read Suzanne Pharr's book "Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism" to better understand how sexism works through denigrating the feminine (however you define it and through whomever it is expressed) ... you can find it in PDF form online ...
14
@Anne
It is definitely is surprising to see from Butler all this language about moving away from individual change towards a "collective." I tend to associate her with postmodern individualism based on her earlier works like Gender Trouble. And yet, as you point out, this "collective" of "feminine persons" doesn't make much sense because femininity as performance, to use Butler's language, is something that can be opted out of, and therefore can't be credibly considered the axis of oppression. What cannot be opted out of is the female body itself, and patriarchal society's attempts to control and exploit it.
37
@Amelia
Who is exactly is violent - women who point out that trans women and cis women have some different experiences, or the MEN who actually perpetrate violence on both?
20
Judith Butler was "awarded" first prize in a Bad Writing Contest, sponsored the the scholarly journal Philosophy and Literature, for the following piece of impenetrable prose:
"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. "
http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm
I think I'll take a pass on that "new book."
30
@Ed. Yes, the sentence is complicated. But it is also intelligible. It offers a highly compressed summary of theoretical debates. Thus it is not compelled to recreate the wheel. Yes: accessible writing is valuable--as many individuals are not allowed to explore the narrative forms of theoretical and analytical nuances; and such nuances are also embedded in historically "selective" sensibilities which render the non-popular in tenor and tone. But not all forms of discourse have to be tailored to the quick assimilation.
18
@EdBut how do you feel about violence against women?
14
This is all pretentious gibberish to me.
12
You would have done well to have picked a better advocate than Ms Butler.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html
12
@Cato
Brilliant. Tells the whole story alongside the absurd and elliptical language employed by con artists posing as intellectuals.
6
The most important part of this article was elucidating the need to talk about capitalism when we talk about female denigration or feminine denigration. The idea of rugged individual embraces machismo and is inextricably linked to capitalism. Interdependence is our natural state of being and recognizing that we are interdependent is vital to ending violence against women and protecting their human rights.
10
Some As are Bs. Therefore all As are Bs.
That’s an invalid argument, but it seems to me to be at the heart of gender essentialist and racial essentialist speaking and, almost as night follows day, thinking.
There are places where women and girls are killed with impunity because of their gender. That’s horrible and wrong and must be opposed. Collective opposition is right and necessary.
But this: “The violence seeks to secure the class of women as killable, dispensable; it is an attempt to define the very existence of women’s lives as something decided by men, as a masculine prerogative.”
Sometimes. But sometimes men kill women and women kill men out of passion, greed, or rage at the unwillingness of the victim to be controlled.
And this: “[M]y view is ... one reason ... men feel free to dispose of women’s life as they see fit is because they are bound to one another through a ... pact of brotherhood. They ... give each other permission and grant each other impunity.”
Men? They? The term “patriarchy” seems to function as a vague undefined snarl word and ad hoc explanation in discourse today. But to me protecting women and children against violence and exploitation is one of the obligations at least some patriarchal societies impose on men.
And I’m expected to take care when I speak about gender or race. Why aren’t you? Try it. It’s worth the effort.
14
@Jack
My prior note is studded with errors.
Indeed, categorization, with ad hoc, unsubstantiated pseudo philosophy is not helpful, and like Butler’s other maunderings, are tendentious babble.
The article and the response in it does not mention the systematic suppression of females and alternate forms of sexuality in so-called “Islamic” states, based upon religion. Nor does it mention or suggest the ubiquitous abuse of both sexes by some aspects of institutional Catholicism.
Both these religions engage billions of adherents.
It is best to face reality, and oppose evil wherever it exists, and by whom supported, and to call by its right name.
6
@Jack I've always found it strange that a woman needs a man in order to be protected from men. Odd. In other words, the understanding is that a woman must submit to a particular man or else she is free to be prey for other men. How about men just stop attacking women?
11
@Foodlover
“In other words, the understanding is that a woman must submit to a particular man or else she is free to be prey for other men.”
No, that is not saying what I said “in other words.” It’s not what I said. It doesn’t follow from what I said. Men in some patriarchal societies have an obligation to help protect women and children against violence and exploitation without regard to whether any given woman or child has a relationship with any man other than their common humanity.
Incorrectly restating what someone says and then responding to the incorrect restatement seems to be an all too common tactic.
2
The Women's Soccer World Cup Tournament had a very important lesson to offer: Wherever women have the right to become educated as men have have been educated, their status in society rises sharply. Title IX in the United States made possible for women to have access to all forms of development, physical and intellectual, as men. The results are clear. Women can be world sports champions and secure seats in legislatures. To celebrate the centenary of women's right to vote in the United States, nothing would be more appropriate than the election of women to the highest offices in the executive branch of the United States government.
28
@Lara
I love how the first 3/4 of your comment talks about women fighting for their rights and eventually earning those rights and similar titles of men. Then the last 1/4 is how a woman should be given the highest office in the land not for her work in earning the seat but simply because she is a woman. In commemorating the 19th amendment you want to forget that those suffragettes didnt fight to be judged solely on their sex but on their merits. Your idea completely undermines them. Identity politics is a dangerous path with no good outcomes.
6
@Rob: I guess you think that electing women to Congress means they have been given the seat, not worked their butts off to attain it, such as Kamala Harris, or Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren? Sad.
7
@Lara Women can be world sports champions but sadly they often aren't paid like world sports champions.
1
"The violence seeks to secure the class of women as killable, dispensable; it is an attempt to define the very existence of women’s lives as something decided by men, as a masculine prerogative."
I'm wondering why on Earth this makes me think of our Supreme Court majority, the Executive, and the Republicans in the legislative....
20
A most important, and vital, article, depicting the widespread of 'machismo' throughout the world but certainly a current and ever present danger in South America, certainly in Bolivia, where feminicidios are so frequent. There is certainly no excuse whatsoever, even when the husband, or boyfriend, comes home drunk. The statements "Never Again" and "Not even one more woman" are a way to unite people to make a difference. But, quite frankly, until and unless we teach boys to love, or at least respect girls in their midst, since infancy, no major changes may occur thereafter to make a dent.
18
Remove the alcohol factor in the equation, resulting in fewer murders of women. Global phenomenon. More alcohol, more violence. More guns, more violence.
16
When will the U.S. have demonstrations against sexual violence and widespread abuse in the country?
11
@Albanywala
When we attain responsible gun laws.
2
@Albanywala
Do you really think men who abuse women do so because they think society approves of it?
Do you also think men commit armed robberies, fraud, mass murder, assault and battery, drug trafficking, etc., because they think society approves of it?
Do you think all it takes to stop all these is a mass demonstration against them?
I doubt it. I think criminals do crimes for a complex set of reasons, including often precisely to thumb their noses in anger at society and its demands.
Men have a sense of solidarity with each other and the vast majority of women don't because these women still rely on men to create their identity. Particularly in their cherished roles as "wives" and "mothers," they identify with their male partners more than they do with other women because having a male partner is necessary for the "happy heterosexual nuclear family" identity and all it's social privileges. They see other women as competition for their male partners, with whom they identify and seek to protect. I am so tired of these women falling over themselves to excuse and forgive men's misdeeds without also requiring accountability and change from those men. I see it in women every day. It's sickening to watch. It's an ironic mix of ego identity and internalized misogyny all rolled into one.
44
@Amy Luna
Ego and identity, yes, but the part you leave out is the financial dependence of women on men.
What would give women more power as a class of people is the economic ability to walk away from relationships with men. Then women would be in a position to really make choices regarding patriarchy.
In a society where women are systematically paid less and not financially compensated for the work of bearing and raising children, many (most?) women will continue seeing themselves as adjunct to an other who will insulate them from the systemic economic inequalities.
I should specify heterosexual white women when speaking of the US. The diminished earnings of both men and women of color changes the dynamics. African American women, for instance, are less likely to have the option of depending on a man for economic stability.
18
Yes, but men are created equal and men are made in the image of god. The omission of this context weakens your argument. In fact, it is the actual bedrock of the argument. For millennia, including the era when these statements were made, women were neither godly or equal and the men ran with this.
5
@Christine Feinholz Yes and who wrote the Bible? Who wrote the constitution? Men.
3
@Christine Feinholz: With all due respect, there is no way to prove your assertion that Man was made in God’s image; it is a belief and belief is not the same as fact. The Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein posited the reverse: that God is made in man’s image and I rather side with him. The Christian God presented in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, regularly mirrors emotions that are the stuff of human mortal existence, encouraging the smiting of “enemies” and demanding that humans worship and glorify him. Why would an infinite, all-knowing being care about being worshipped? Sounds very much like human pride to me. And the belief of many Christians that people - no matter how consistently good and ethical their behaviour in this earthly life - who do not acknowledge and bow down before God, will be “punished” by not acceding to the afterlife; but someone who has repeatedly sinned/behaved unethically and harmed fellow humans will, upon deathbed confession be granted forgiveness and admitted to heaven. That suggests that God is a narcissist, a being that cares more about being flattered than in how people actually live their lives.
5
Eye-opening.
I just wish Butler would talk/write in a way that is accessible to more people. The academic-eese is exhausting.
10
@CH, is this article plagued with academic-ese? Or are you painting this interview with the same brush most people use to tar her scholarly work?
2
When I clicked on this story, I thought it was about those trying to overturn Roe and also those moving against healthcare for all. The obvious conclusion in my book.
2
Excellent and really interesting. Thank you!
2
I knew for an absolute fact, before I read the article, that somehow or other the status of women in Muslim countries would not be mentioned.
13
@Bob Acker. To include all eligible categories -- that's the task of "Noah's Arc" (presumably hosting everything that moves...). We can't expect this to be the task of all social arguments.
9
@Bob Acker
Or to put it still more simply, there's no reason whatever to take this person seriously.
4
@Telly55
No, of course we don't mention honor killings in an article about violence against women. Everybody knows that.
10
When I was very young, having sex with a woman out of wedlock was considered immoral and shameful. Marriage was thus the mechanism giving a man (the husband) unlimited license to a woman's body. If the woman refused, the man might be justified to wreak violence on her, his wife. In today's (urban) society a couple date, which offers no promises regarding sexual activity, no obligation for a woman to allow sexual access to her body; the man has to "earn" such access by dint of his "charm". Alas, is the institution of marriage the problem ?
2
The Bible advises wives to obey their husbands and for husbands to cherish wives. If we did more cherishing, we might find more happiness. Marriage isn’t the problem, it is more about how we go about cherishing our intimate partners.
7
The Bible is a compendium of human projections onto an imaginary being.
7
@eclectico
Marriage is an institution of patriarchy.
1
Femicide is global. Preference for male infants led to millions of unspeakable crimes against girls and femicide over thousands of years in China. Chinese society had and has extremely skewed gender ratios now.
Same thing with dowry and family honor killings in India and Pakistan, over hundreds of years thousands of murder victims. Societies tacitly sanction femicide.
In Guatemala and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico several hundred of women are murdered by intimate and non-intimate makes every year, with no or only a few prosecutions. In lovely Canada, hundreds of native women are killed and inexplicably vanish.
In the U.S. the best way to protect our women is to 1) reduce gun ownership, including red flag laws; 2) make it easier to obtain strict restraining orders against intimate partners, made harsher if alcohol abuse is a factor.
Then there are the female victims of civil wars and conflict zones in Africa, such as Yemen, Darfur and Sudan. U.S. foreign aid should hinge on meaningful reforms protecting women in recipient countries.
42
the sex ratio in china and india are due to sonograms identifying the sex of the baby and a society that aborts female fetuses at a higher rate than male ones
3
We have to look no farther than the White House to see an example of of the male's entitlement of women's bodies. The infamous video aired during the 2016 campaign in which Trump brags about his casual sexual assaults on women and his statement,"when I see a beautiful woman, I have to kiss her" is evidence of Ms. Butler arguments.
Now currently, Trump finds he has to walk back his positive comments about Jeffrey Epstein who is guilty of exploiting female children. Atrocities against women do not only exist in other hemispheres but the seeds are evident under our own noses.
48
"... attempt to define the very existence of women’s lives as something decided by men, as a masculine prerogative. [..] women to be able to live their desires freely without state intervention and without the fear of violence, retribution and imprisonment. ..."
This exactly captures the essence of the GOP and evangelicals.
I'm not being intentionally snarky, I'm serious about this: Can somebody, anybody, somewhere, anywhere please explain to this old white guy (me) why some roughly 30 million women voted for a known, self-admitted, visibly creepy, evidence based, documented, multiply accused sexual predator for president?
15
@oldBassGuy
So you believe that it is the essence of the GOP which defines the very existence of womens lives, and yet you, a man, are questioning the choices made by women about how they wish to be governed. "Why would a women vote republican cant she see that her own decisions are wrong". You are trying to define the very existence of women in the question you pose to everybody. If 30 million women voted Republican hen i think it is safe to assume that those 30 million women do not agree with you. Maybe you are just completely out of touch with what women actually want/believe.
@oldBassGuy
The only demographic group of women where a majority voted for Trump were white women.
No other racial group of women did so.
The intersecting Venn diagrams are racism and conservative Christianity, historically used to justify racism.
LBJ said it best:if you can convince the lowest white man that he is better than the highest black man, he will give you all his money. Add some women to that.
4
I am the only male in our family consisting of my wife and two daughters. The bond to my family far outweighs any bond between males. In fact, I am disgusted with amount of sex and intense violence on television and movies. When will Hollywood show real life's joys and challenges? It's way past time to be done with Comic Action and other macho heroes whose story lines are so far from real life.
25
Violently agree. Stop this macho paradigm.
8
1) What an obsequious (and ultimately patronizing) interview by Yancy, he so overplays the men-are-bad hand, that Butler has to finally bring him back to earth with the assurance that "violence is not male or masculine. I don’t think that it comes from the recesses of men or is built into a necessary definition of masculinity."
2) How about one tough question? As in Butler's role as President of the MLA orchestrating the defense against a male graduate student by her coterie of tenured female professors in the infamous Avital Ronell affaire?
Butler says here that "men feel free to dispose of women’s life as they see fit is because they are bound to one another through a silent (or not-so-silent) pact of brotherhood. They look the other way; they give each other permission and grant each other impunity."
Right. And what of similarly situated women?
As Stanford professor Marjorie Perloff perspicaciously noted:
"Of the 50 prominent academics who signed the notorious Butler letter, only 11 are under 60 and another 11 are over 70! The signatories, in other words, are indeed, like Ronell herself, older Establishment figures... As such, they have a vested interest in preserving what they consider the status quo: deconstructionist theory with a feminist/lesbian cast. ... except for two signatories, all are white."
Yancy was too concerned about his masculinity to ask anything challenging.
9
In one paragraph, the author laments the killing of women and declares the right to abortion. Years in the closed bubble of the academy have distorted her thinking.
4
@Thomas The countries under discussion in this article have some of the most extreme abortion laws in the world -- forcing raped 11 year olds whose lives are endangered by pregnancy and delivery to continue their dangerous pregnancies for instance -- along with high infant mortality and maternal injury and death rates, high levels of rape, abuse and lethal violence against women. There is little that is "pro-life" about governments and cultures -- or religions -- that in practice and under law limit women's basic human rights and give men the power to act with impunity against them.
What we see at the border right now, in this conservative administration's cruelty toward woman and children seeking asylum from violence in their home (conservative Catholic) countries SHOULD make the administration's "pro-life" supporters deeply, deeply ashamed.
But they are not ashamed. They are happy to say, as the administration does, that "the cruelty is the point,"
It is their "distorted thinking" -- and personal evil -- that is being revealed in the choices they are making as they support this administration and its policies of harm and hatred.
If you are hostile
15
@Mary Schumacher
As a conservative and "pro-lifer" what should i be ashamed about? I am not raping, nor encouraging any kind of sexual assault. I dont want kids to be separated from their parents. However i also dont want anybody and everybody coming into the country as they please. does that make me a hypocrite? no, because i still want those people to live. Encouraging parents with young children to make a treacherous journey to the US border is what is getting kids killed not separating them. I am not ashamed for wanting strong borders and strong abortion laws because they both save lives. Also abortion has nothing to do with men controlling women that is just a huge red herring that gets peddled by hateful people without a real argument for murdering children.
2
Men FEAR women's power. Must demean and oppress women constantly. That's a rule.
9
@Darkler
I do not fear them. I am in awe of them. I envy their potential and power. They hold up half the sky that we men breathe. Give them credit.
3
@Darkler
Men don't fear women's power. Women have no power. That's the problem.
4
@Darkler
Men dont fear women simply because they are women. the same way women dont fear men just because they are men. Either way is unhealthy and misguided
"One example: In Argentina, one woman is said to be murdered every 30 hours."
But that is less than one a day and hence less than 365 per year. But there were 2,605 murders in Argentina in 2016 which means that more than 2,200 murders were murders of men. There were seven murders of men for each murder of a woman.
The new sexism has the slogan "what happens to men is to be ignored because men do not matter."
George, why don't you care what happens to men?
4
@Ludwig Because her writings and this article are about women victems of murder, and the fact that in many parts of the world femicide is not considered a crime. Not all writing is about men.
17
@BrendaStarr - Yes, Brenda! Ludwig and some of his fellow commenters here are simply steering away from the topic with their facts and figures. These statistics have nothing to do with femicide.
8
@BrendaStarr My problem is that the New York Times routinely publishes articles like Clancy's and hardly ever does it publish articles showing the other side of the picture.
And even Clancy, when he writes an article about ONE issue, needs to present it in a balanced way. I have every justification for calling him out on an unbalanced view.
1
Most victims of violence are male.
The UNODC report from monday shows 464.000 victims killed, 87.000 being women.
But men apparently do not count when being a victim of a crime. Because all the media talks about are women as victims.
Quite shocking.
3
Again, this is about male violence against women and gender non-conforming people, and the structures that support it. There is no global epidemic of women murdering men, naturalized by centuries of tacit acceptance. If there were, then yes, it would be important to discuss in this context.
21
@AnnaT - Thank you for your comments in this discussion. You are 100 percent accurate when you say that there is no global epidemic of women murdering men simply because they are men. If men would view anti-patriarchy as actually being beneficial to them, they might not be so defensive in offering irrelevant analogies.
10
@_Flin_ ... men are the victims of violence at the hands of men. Women are the victims of violence at the hands of men. But women are usually victimized by men because they are women. Men do not kill other men because they see men as less valuable. But men do kill women because they are seen as disposable.
Men start most wars, comprise the majority of those who kill in the military, and heap a disproportionate share of violence on women and children.
No one is saying that men don't count. On the contrary, you've proved not only the men count, but that they can count. But what you have not demonstrated is that women count, and that violence against women is perpetrated simply because women are female. That's what you don't seem to understand ... and because you don't, you perpetuate the problem by not recognizing it.
16
50 women on average are murdered in intimate partner violence in the United States each month. Mostly the men use guns. They’ll often kill the children, too. Happening right under our noses.
40
A lot of hate in these comments. I thought the point of the article, that killing women is wrong, was kind of obvious and not contentious. Guess I was wrong.
We have a long way to go.
53
Killing women, raping women, sexually harassing women, denying women equal pay, shooting women (in America): apparently there are very few heinous things that are considered a crime when done to women.
27
Yes! to ni una menos articulating the very femicidal air we breathe every day of our lives resulting in humankind's epically stunted development as a species behind which eyes we all share the same soul.
6
ofVery confused. Are more women being murdered than man in Argentina?? Under what circumstances?? domestic, "collateral damage," random criminal acts, gangs? Is this behavior peculiar to Argentina? I think it's impt. to focus on the gender "inequality." Unfortunately, women can be just as if not more misogynistic than men...
In NYC recently one woman stabbed another on a subway the why is not know.. as the killer has not been caught!
men supposedly control more than half of the world's wealth.. so time ladies to take on much responsibility . Why haven't more women divorced their badly behaving man or punched out the executive who was groping them- say? Obviously , fear of various intangibles..nonetheless ...how do we really empower women?
3
@Auntie MameThe most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is when she leaves her abuser.
13
Judith Butler: The Megan Rapinoe of theory!
2
To conclude my prior post:
" '...all are white.'
Yancy was too concerned about his masculinity to ask anything challenging."
Challenging as in the intersection of gender and race.
We know that the #metoo hashtag and movement were founded and propelled by black women, yet we also know that black women have been sidelined by the movement, the most to lose, the last to gain.
Ni una menos is also overwhelmingly white.
So Yancy chooses a white professor with her own tarnished record in the #metoo movement to whitesplain the movement to us, as though he didn't know any no black female philosophers.
3
Awareness is healthiest: stop your acting, pretending, preening, posing and "believing" and start seeing.
Opportunistic tricksters and scamming propagandists buzzing all around, without any kindness or humanity, cruelly and gleefully screwing up the world. Tell them to beat it, get out!
ENOUGH ALREADY!
1
Killing women is a crime? Could have fooled me. It has always seemed to me that women had a status somewhere after pets and herd animals.
People scream and yell and carry on about the LGBTQ initiatives and Racial inequality but it's perfectly fine to treat half the population as if they are somehow subpar chattels--disposable and without value.
Gonna be any ugly day when women get fed up.
17
@mj, you might be interested to know that many women are also LGBTQ+ people, and that many LGBTQ+ people are victimized because they do not conform to the strict gender binaries that sexism demands of women. Why are gay men bashed? Because they aren't seen as "real men" by heterosexist people ... they are more like "women" so are subject to the same denigration that affects women. Why are trans women bashed? Same reason. Trans men? Same reason.
Homophobia and sexism are two sides of the same coin. The same oppressive forces that hurt women hurt LGBTQ+ people. Anyone who is not a straight white male in this society is, as you say "subpar chattel" ...
Gonna be an ugly dawn when lost of people wake up and realize they have a lot in common ...
3
This shows the folly of politicizing everything.
Men are more violent than women. So more men kill women than the other way around. That is basis for enforcement of the law against murder, not for a political movement.
"Philosophy"? No, this is not philosophy, and philosophers have nothing to say about it. It is criminology. It is a pathetic pretense of philosophy.
5
@Jonathan KatzBut men have been under punished for killing women ever since there has been a criminal justice system. Why is that? One must go beyond criminal justice for an explanation.
13
I am the following :
1. biologically a male
2. age 75
3. philosophy a marxist
4. politically a syndicalist
In my 75 years I have found that collective action is the only means for progress. Sometimes this requires direct collective action. Individualism has found its home once again in raw nationalism on a global scale. The results is killing of those not collectively protected. In my youth we called for one big union today we must call for one big collective to fight to protect all those who are subjects of violence .
29
James W Prescott of the NIH figured this out a long time ago studying dozens of indigenous peoples. The least violent and most egalitarian shared one trait: they carried their babies around.
This one feature in a society predicted social well being 85% of the time. (If the society did also not punish sexual exploration by adolescents, the rate of social wellbeing was 100%.)
Turns out that the mass divisioning mothers from babies has a ricochet.
As long as we refuse to nurture our young in a primal way, we will not create less violence in our society.
7
"This is important because it is not just that murder is committed on the basis of gender; violence against women is one way of establishing the femininity of the victim. The violence seeks to secure the class of women as killable, dispensable; it is an attempt to define the very existence of women’s lives as something decided by men, as a masculine prerogative."
Then how do we explain the murder rate of men? The murder rate against men in Argentina over the past decade appears to be ten times greater than the rate against women.
Should Judith Butler's theory be updated to include something like: the violence also seeks to secure the class of men as even more killable, more dispensable than women, that men killing men is something decided by men, as a masculine prerogative?
Clearly, femicide is a serious problem. Kudos to Ms. Butler and Mr. Yancy for raising awareness of this issue. On the other hand, I am at a loss to understand how their theory illuminates the underlying causes much less necessary policy changes.
4
Men are killing other men for reasons other than gender. Women are being killed by men based solely on gender perception and entitlement. Big difference.
20
@Christine Feinholz
The majority of today's philosophy professors undoubtedly agree with you and believe that gender-based entitlement is the primary reason men murder women.
On the other hand, criminologists find that the motive for murder is much more nuanced.
One group derives their theories based on their political world view, the other on actual fieldwork.
4
"I am no longer sure what counts as performative."
Back in the day, Butler's "Gender Trouble," which argued the performative dimensions of gender, was all the rage, cited in countless dissertations.
Butler's backpedaling here suggests why "philosphers" are so impotent. Yancy and Butler's dialogue merely contributes to the capitalistic structure of academia. They are slinging around the latest vocabulary with "currency"--this is what masquerades as analysis in academia. But it sounds quite jaded.
If they were truly gutsy, Brother Yancy and Sister Butler would leave academia behind and throw their hats into the political arena.
A nod to Marianne Williamson.
David Brooks may as well have imagined this interview. He has been harping about "relationality" and "thick" communities for years.
11
If we men are honest it is easy to recognize the very small, however necessary, role we play in procreation. To some degree this is humiliating which may also be the reason or lack thereof behind the grab for power and subsequent control that physical force and only physical force brings.
Our social model is based on observation of other animals in the kingdom we rule where the overwhelming positions of perceived leadership appear to be held by the male of the species. We have however evolved to the point where our more developed minds brought us the ability to reason which is unfortunately denied by those among us who adhere to the position of might making right.
If we are to survive we must rid ourselves of the regressive mentality which still rules our species. Thanks to the immediate benefits of slavery and servitude, most men still allow those with the loudest and most strident voices to rule. This tacit approval of those who invented the violence of war and control its' tools is what holds back women's progress.
There will be little progress, perhaps complete regression and total destruction if women's voices are not heeded by those with a troglodyte mentality which invariably seeks and most unfortunately often gains control through the use of physical force.
16
@Ian MacFarlane What we observe is also influenced by what we seek or are primed to observe. And, so, we observe "other animals in the kingdom we rule where the overwhelming positions of perceived leadership appear to be held by the male of the species." And overlook that, within our own species, ruling is not the default mode or an instinct or "human nature" (as if we've ever observed the last stripped of or never within culture).
See, for example, the work of primatologist and anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.
"My view is that one reason that men feel free to dispose of women’s life as they see fit is because they are bound to one another through a silent (or not-so-silent) pact of brotherhood."
Name a country where more women are murdered than men.
Do men also feel free to dispose of other men's life?
Men and women are not separate, competing cartels, which is, bizarrely, how Butler views the human race.
"For me, violence is not male or masculine. I don’t think that it comes from the recesses of men or is built into a necessary definition of masculinity. We can talk about structures of masculine domination, or patriarchy, and in those cases it is the social structures and their histories that call to be dismantled."
So it's just a coincience that men are bigger, stronger, and faster and also commit the vast majority of violent crimes? It's just due to "the patriarchy"?
Butler and others think we've gotten beyond biology. In some ways we have but mostly we haven't. And I don't think we really ever will. We are fundamentally biological organisms and if you refuse to take that into account, your analysis isn't worth much.
25
@ted When men are killed by other men, it's not because men, as a group, are disposable.
16
@ted I recommend this book for you:
War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning by Christopher Hodges, which is a theological take on why men (i.e. "patriarchy") go to war. It has to do with power over, and is all justified by the Old Testament and the Holy Quran (rules to live by, written by men for men).
6
@ted Isn't worth much? Really? How convenient to justify male violence through biology and then condemn an analysis that actually wants to imagine a world not being destroyed by men.
9
The immediate and visceral attacks to all things not male oriented is a testimony to the deeply embedded belief in the superiority of male centered society. The extent of the belief that any human is more valuable than any other human is the bedrock cause of most human misery. Christianity proclaims that all are made in the image of God, but it does not practice that. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that all are created equal, but we do not practice that either.
A sad commentary on such a superior species.
42
"...forms of feminism that do not engage a critique of capitalism tend to reproduce individualism as a matter of course. "
This profound and respectful conversation got underneath my ideologies and my own attachment to feminism as "all about me." Let's go sisters.. and brothers: not one more.
15
One, why single out Argentina when the number of women killed is much higher in several other countries: China, India, Bangladesh and the United States among them. Two, if femicide is characterized as the result of patriarchy, how should homicide be characterized? Also as a condition of patriarchy? If so, why not focus on it because the rate is much higher, five times in Argentina? Or are men the real disposable class and therefore it is their deaths that are naturalized to a much greater effect. Three, I see someone has a new book coming out, which the author coyly refers to as ‘the’ new book rather than ‘my’ new book. Who does she think she is fooling with these kinds of verbal tricks?
19
@Thomas
You just illustrated some of what she is talking about: "Who does she think she is..." Wow.
20
@Thomas men have always been the disposable gender and men have typically accepted this fact. Here are the statistics for the Titanic:
Total
Adult Female
Passengers
Total: 412
Died: 108
Survived: 304
% Survived: 72%
===================
Total
Adult Male
Passengers
Total: 776
Died: 648
Survived: 128
% Survived: 16%
=====================
You can see that the survival rate for men was less than a quarter of the survival rate for men. AND note that the ship like others of those days, was run by men. No doubt there are evolutionary reasons for why men value female lives more than male lives, but Jordan P. is the only one to talk about this, and as you might know, he has been banned from speaking at Cambridge University.
3
@Thomas Femicide is different than women being murdered generally. It speaks specifically to a murder that takes place because the victim is a woman. The author uses Argentina as an example in the context of the organization she mentions, Ni Una Menos, because it works throughout Latin America, and therefore is a better example than China or India or Bangladesh. Male victims are not mentioned because, and please feel free to send me evidence to the contrary, men are not killed just for being men, and are almost always the perpetrators of that violence. Regardless, that's simply not what this article is about. Your "but what about the men?!" statement is revealing.
I'm not sure why her language in referring to her new book makes you feel so insecure as to need to mock her promotion, but in case English isn't actually your first language, you should note that Yancy refers to it as her new book, thus making it pretty normal for her to then refer to it without the possessive pronoun. Although, something tells me you would have found a way to be offended by her language regardless.
23
In a troubled world of massive problems with the few dominating the many it is hopeful and right to see Ni Una Menos collectively organize to confront injustice and immorality. It is unyielding and relentless forces such as those of "not one less" that offer the best solutions to the entitled and entrenched problems of the world and those who benefit from them. The demands in Ireland for abortions, the yellow vests in France, the demonstrations in Hong Kong, the Resistance in the United States are examples that reveal that if citizens armed with facts and outrage AND sustained collective effort is the way for change. As Ms. Butler stated in the article, "Collectives are formed through a realization of a common social condition and a social bond, one that recognizes that what is happening to one life, whether it is violence, debt or subjection to patriarchal authority, is also happening for others. And though they may happen in different ways, the patterns are there, and so also are the grounds for solidarity." Here in the US, the left and moderates must unite to save America for ourselves now and restore real morality in our nation and return to our historic role of helping others elsewhere achieve dignity and address the problems of climate, population, and rule by the the few over the many. It won't be easy and the foes of ignorance and distraction among Americans will have to end or addressible problems will continue to fester and grow - time is short.
16
“We require each other to live and that is as true of familial or kinship ties as it is of transnational and global bonds. The critique of individualism has been an important component of both feminist and Marxist thought, and it now becomes urgent as we seek to understand ourselves as living creatures bound to human and nonhuman creatures, to entire systems and networks of life. ”
Powerful.
In seeking change - to address and eliminate violence, to arrest global warming and sustain nature and our own lives - through and with our families, communities, and nations, I wonder if there is anything we can learn from systems thinking. Family systems therapy and organizational behavior provide ways individuals can recognize the structures around them and influence change.
53
@July - I recommend “The Different Drum” - a book by Scott Peck about true community building.
1
@July
An economics based on economics organizational behavior would enable finance professionals to understand their organizational tendency to produce bubbles that eventually burst. But this understanding would not help them milk maximum profit from the bubble while it is still growing.