![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think that the sheer anger that straight men feel (and express) when they realize a woman is a lesbian replicates, in some way, the false consciousness of the capitalist structure.
When he sees a woman, he imagines for some reason that he could, in theory, “have” her. Nevermind that she wants nothing to do with him. Nevermind that he is maybe already involved with someone else. Nevermind that there are literally millions of other women in the world that he might choose to associate and would happily associate with him. Nevermind that he did not even want to be involved with her until he knew he couldn’t not just because she’s not interested at the baseline, but because she is pretty much categorically unavailable.
Don’t we see this dynamic represented when spaces are denied to men? Places they had no interest in until they weren’t allowed to be there?
Patriarchy is older than capitalism, but capitalism replicates patriarchy, in that it is a hierarchy with limited space at the pinnacle, but many men imagine themselves (like the divine chain of being) as being at their own smaller peak. They are less concerned with their material condition than they are with a theoretical potential to possess (nevermind that you can’t or shouldn’t try to “possess” a person!).
So the man sees a lesbian. (Notice I don’t say straight or even bi, because I have seen even gay men replicate this behavior from time to time. This is because it has nothing to do with desire for the woman herself, but anger about not being able to have something - desire is fixed only on power of possession.) It is being enraged at a category existing that limits the privilege of position that isn’t assigned by him, but it selected by the woman, instead.
How does this replicate capitalism’s false consciousness? (Or maybe the other way around, how does capitalism adopt the demeanor of the patriarch?) The man will imagine that, potentially, given a certain lucky break where his worth is recognized, he could eventually have access to everything, regardless of whether he wants it - it is power he desires.
It may be that the old idea of the divine chain of being allows this false consciousness to exist, because it tiers absolute authority in within a rigid heirarchy where so long as you are socially ‘above’ and you are not rebuffed by your social ‘better’ your command is absolute. Capitalism just removes god from the top and replaces it with class, derived from wealth, though old ideas about families and god still linger in our society, making this idea messier than the simple model I’ve got here.
When he sees a woman, he imagines for some reason that he could, in theory, “have” her. Nevermind that she wants nothing to do with him. Nevermind that he is maybe already involved with someone else. Nevermind that there are literally millions of other women in the world that he might choose to associate and would happily associate with him. Nevermind that he did not even want to be involved with her until he knew he couldn’t not just because she’s not interested at the baseline, but because she is pretty much categorically unavailable.
Don’t we see this dynamic represented when spaces are denied to men? Places they had no interest in until they weren’t allowed to be there?
Patriarchy is older than capitalism, but capitalism replicates patriarchy, in that it is a hierarchy with limited space at the pinnacle, but many men imagine themselves (like the divine chain of being) as being at their own smaller peak. They are less concerned with their material condition than they are with a theoretical potential to possess (nevermind that you can’t or shouldn’t try to “possess” a person!).
So the man sees a lesbian. (Notice I don’t say straight or even bi, because I have seen even gay men replicate this behavior from time to time. This is because it has nothing to do with desire for the woman herself, but anger about not being able to have something - desire is fixed only on power of possession.) It is being enraged at a category existing that limits the privilege of position that isn’t assigned by him, but it selected by the woman, instead.
How does this replicate capitalism’s false consciousness? (Or maybe the other way around, how does capitalism adopt the demeanor of the patriarch?) The man will imagine that, potentially, given a certain lucky break where his worth is recognized, he could eventually have access to everything, regardless of whether he wants it - it is power he desires.
It may be that the old idea of the divine chain of being allows this false consciousness to exist, because it tiers absolute authority in within a rigid heirarchy where so long as you are socially ‘above’ and you are not rebuffed by your social ‘better’ your command is absolute. Capitalism just removes god from the top and replaces it with class, derived from wealth, though old ideas about families and god still linger in our society, making this idea messier than the simple model I’ve got here.