You must log in or # to comment.
This is an interesting and well-written take. It might also be a bit of a stretch, but I still enjoyed reading.
If Narcissus had been a woman and Echo a man, then we would correctly analyse the story as a misogynistic exercise in heteropatriarchal norms. Modern readers are only able to empathize with the Hellenic view that Narcissus owed other people love, because the heteropatriarchy erases asexual men and maintains that all men are naturally creatures of sexual desire. This is not only aphobic, it contributes to misogynistic rape culture and it degrades men by reducing them to the social role of sexual monster. A role some men take seriously, and to the extent of normalising sexual violence against women.
In making space for men to exist without the pressure to romantically or sexually perform for (or violently against) others, we see that Narcissus is rightfully entitled to his own feelings. Echo is guilty of romantic assault, seeking to make him hers, according to a fantasy she developed in her head while stalking him without his knowledge. Echo fails to respect his right to consent in her heart. And so does the nameless suitor who prays to Nemesis for the act of divine intervention that lead to his death.
Narcissus does not owe his allosexual suitors a polite rejection. From the content of his life, we see that he was constantly sexually harassed, and indeed sometimes violently so. And he was 16, for Dionysus’ sake! He was just a kid! Some boys haven’t even hit puberty yet at that age. And given the Hellenic idealization of the beauty of male youth, I daresay Narcissus may have been one of those boys. And no 16 year old, regardless of bodily maturity, deserves to be subjected to such sexual harassment. No adult does either, but it’s particularly disgusting in the case of a boy like Narcissus.
Went ahead and added this comment to the original article. Thanks for the praise, sometimes it inspires Me to write even more.
You’re a pro ;)
I really like complaining about the fact that misogynistic rape culture degrades men by reducing them to monsters, because it makes it clear that feminism helps everyone. It’s really hard for an antifeminist to argue against that point without admitting that male privilege is a pyrrhic trophy, and doesn’t really help anyone but the worst of men.
This fact is, by the way, why TERFs and misogynists get along so well. They may claim to have different priorities, but they have no factual dispute on the belief that males are all raping, womanising monsters. TERFs don’t even have an interest in rehabilitating male sexual abusers, because they are trapped in patriarchal realism - the belief that the conditions of patriarchy are immutable reality. As such, they are perfectly capable of getting along and cooperating with misogynist, fascist, violent, abusive men.
The TERF views men as wild and dangerous animals, much like a bull. Bulls are necessary for breeding cows, and there’s no point getting angry at them for their nature. A TERF sees men the same way, and complains only when a so-called “bull” is kept in the pen with the cows. It’s dehumanising and sexist even beyond the pseudoscientific transphobia.
The respect actual intersectional feminists have for male agency and consent demonstrates a simple truth: one of us is liberated when all of us are liberated. Reproducing the cultural myths of patriarchy can only turn us into misogynists, even if we think those myths only harm men. Everything’s corrected. A better world has to be built simultaneously at all levels. Demonstrating that fact is our best weapon against fascists like Andrew Tate, who claim to empower men through patriarchy. It’s a lie.
