Tuesday, September 22, 2009

A Call for a New "Masculinism"...

Who are these assholes and why do they want us to be more manly? And heterosexual, and anti-porn, and anti-choice, and really really Christian...

Apparently a bunch of ultra-conservative religious politicians got together this past week at a conference in DC. Here is there (literal) agenda. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee were there (no surprise...)

One talk on "The New Masculinity" states that, "feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men. It is time to redress the disorder it has wrought and that must start with getting the principles and ideals for a new "masculinism" right. Such a "masculinism" will have its dovetailing counterpart in a new "feminism" for they mutually define each other and, in nature, are meant to be complementary."

Other talks included:

Here is a highlight from the conference:

SCHWARTZ: ...Pornography is a blight. It is a disaster. It is, it is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven’t been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. But one — It’s been a few years, not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys who are like 10 to 12 years of age. But it is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it. And that’s a good instinct. After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people.

I had a very good friend who was in the homosexual lifestyle for a long time and then he had a religious conversion in the eighties. And he bought a old motel and turned it into a hospice for some of his former associates who were dying of AIDS. He helped, he helped almost 300 men die. This man was a real hero. But he knew that he wasn’t as healed as he thought he was. He was able to resist temptation. He was able to resist sin. But he wasn’t healed enough to take on the responsibilities of marriage. And he was a brilliant man in the sense that he knew himself. And he knew his limits. And he and I had good conversations about, about the malady that he suffered. And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.

I haven't been blogging lately because I recently started a graduate program in clinical/community psychology. Right now i'm taking the predominantly core/basic classes necessary for a clinical psych phd, like assessment and research statistics. We've spent the past few weeks focusing on what makes legitimate science and what's empirically valid. With this fresh perspective, all i can say about the above "talk" is that it's such a load of pseudoscience! I really can't stand people who present themselves as authorities on a subject by citing faulty (or in this case untrue/nonexistent research) to gain support: "After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people." This specifically made me so fucking angry. But on an even larger scale, i'm a bit confused. I don't quite understand this guy's "logic." Even if i try really hard to look at his "argument" from his perspective (which is difficult enough), i still don't understand HOW looking at pornography in general can "turn" someone gay?? Where's the supposed relationship between pornography and homosexuality?

My friend Heather sent me the Think Progress article on this conference, and in her email she also wrote, "first they claim that feminism has destroyed family and marriage, then they promote "masculinism" via homophobia!! i really just don't even understand..."


Mark said...

Observations: A) Apparently, we both came home and got angry. I think grad school has us wound up. :) B) We just spent the first four week of our program talking up the limits of "empirical" knowledge. :) C) I appreciate you putting musculinism in quotes. There are two big camps of masculinism and, being on one side, I appreciate devaluing of the other side's claim to the name. Feminists are much more open (I said "more" open, not totally open) about sharing their term than masculinists are. Maybe its because the other camp of "masculinism" doesn't actually believe in supporting all men, just rich heterosexual Christian conservative men.

phd in yogurtry said...

So... running for vice president is the new feminine? Man standing silently beside his speech making wife is the new masculine?

LamefriendzoWatch said...

I've read a lot of crazy stuff about the evils of porn. That excerpt was one of the most absurd. If all porn drives your sexual thoughts inward, and this leads to homosexuality, isn't this implying homosexuality is built in, inside a person?

Maybe, that a person was born that way?

Sabertooth Screaming Lemur said...

Yeah, I saw this bit on the Rachel Maddow show and was saying "WHATTHEFUCK?!" the whole time, just alternating between furious and utterly confused.

Most of that crap didn't make ANY sense, and the rest was complete and utter bullshit.

Sometimes I really wish the left wasn't so damn nice, or we could be blatant hypocrites and spin doctors too!

DJ Dual Core said...

I used to spend a lot of time with those folks. Their leaders get away with saying otherwise indefensible things because the burden of proof and the benefit of the doubt strongly favor them. For one thing, they aren't talking to us. They are talking to people who already agree with them on the issues and are only listening to have their beliefs reinforced. There isn't any real persuasion going on so the leader who is speaking doesn't need to prove anything, just get people stirred up to act or give money or whatever.

Republicans should be worried about this. There is a limit to how much irrationalism, emotionalism and anti-intellectualism a party that courts global capital can afford. They have joined their party to a religious movement, which is just as dangerous as joining your church to a political movement.

I hope the matchmakers who hooked up neoconservatism and conservative evangelicalism live to see the carnage when it all blow up. Fallwell's dead, but Dobson and a lot of the others are still alive.

Anonymous said...

God, these people are disgusting. MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Seriously? How does gay marriage threaten religous freedom? I can't believe they actually think feminism has wreacked havoc and disorder on everything.

Sabertooth Screaming Lemur said...

I also really love the bit about how "12-year-old boys are against homosexuality because they have good instincts". Yeah, that's the first time I've ever heard that particular argument. Aren't 12-year old boys considered, in general, to be the most irrational, immature beings on the planet? And conservatives are taking their cues from them now? How appropriate. Priceless.

DJ Dual Core said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cristina said...

Congrats on starting your PhD program! I took a graduate course in community psychology and LOVED it.