Since I don’t have time to write a post today — or, rather, I don’t have time to write a post NOW, because I’ve just spent a bunch of time leaving comments on a thread at “Feminist Critics” — I thought I’d just reproduce a comment I left over there. (By the way, Renegade Evolution is now posting at “Feminist Critics,” which improves the blog substantially, in my opinion.)
The context is a discussion of a scene in the most recent episode of Dr. Who, “Blink,” so consider this a spoiler alert.
In “Blink,” the protagonist, Sally, has some creepy experiences (including being assaulted by aliens), which she decides to report to the cops. The cops, surprisingly, take her seriously — it turns out there’s been a string of disappearances at the same location. The cop in charge of the case, who is quite dishy, takes Sally to a lonely police garage where the evidence in the case (a lot of abandoned cars, mostly) is being held.
Billy: Drink?
Sally: No.
Billy: Never?
Sally: …Maybe.
Billy: Phone number?
Sally: Moving kind of fast, D.I. Shipton?
Billy: Billy, I’m off duty.
Sally: Aren’t you just? (Takes out pad, writes number.)
Billy: Is that your phone number?
Sally: Just my phone number. Not a promise, not a guarantee. Not an IOU. Just a phone number.
It is a depiction of conventionally-gendered sexuality that many feminists decry; women as coquettish pursued, men as aggressive pursuer.
It’s also fictional. That’s important, because in fiction (and as this scene was written and played) we can be certain that Billy’s advances were welcome, that Sally didn’t feel intimidated by her surroundings or the lack of other people around, and so on.
In real life, Billy would in my view be taking an awful chance of being an asshole by acting that way. Maybe Sally is really into him, even in those circumstances, in which case it’s no harm, no foul. But maybe she’s not, in which case by hitting on her in a situation like this (where she can reasonably expect not to be hit on, where she can’t just blow him off because she has to deal with him in a professional capacity, and where she’s in a situation a reasonable woman could find intimidating) he is sexually harassing her.
Anyhow, because this discussion was on Feminist Critics, the discussion was mostly about how feminists have failed to improve life for painfully shy men by sufficiently encouraging women to make the first move (romantically and sexually). This led to the following post, in which I’m responding to (and quoting) Tom Nolan. (The comment of Tom’s I’m responding to can be read in full here.)
Maybe the feminist women you know are ready to make the first move (by a verbal expression of sexual interest) ((The first time through, I missed Tom’s phrase “by a verbal expression of sexual interest.” In real life, I think think the legitimate ways of expressing romantic interest are more varied than what Tom’s phrase suggests to me.)) when they meet a man they find attractive, but the vast majority of women, whether or not they identify as feminists, do not do so.
This simply isn’t true of feminist women of my generation and younger, Tom. Admittedly, this is an anecdotal judgment — but it’s one based on actually knowing and being friends with countless feminist women and men. I’m sure your judgment is anecdotal as well,
andbut I frankly doubt your social life involves as many feminists as mine does. (Apart from online, my friends are exclusively feminists and/or queer and/or transgendered.)It’s a big world out there. In the US alone, there are 110 million women over the age of 20. If only one percent of women are willing to make the first move — and I suspect the reality is much higher than that — that’s still hundreds of thousands. But of course, that 1 percent (5%? 20%?) isn’t distributed randomly throughout the population; they, and the men and women they care to be romantically involved with, self-select into more egalitarian social circles. If the social and sexual norms of your friend group aren’t working for you, find a new friend group.
Which leaves the man with all the risk. Not just the risk of being rejected, which anybody, male or female, has to accept when they make the first move. But also the risk of being branded an asshole by right-thinking feminists.
Yes, Tom, women take no risks in the conventional dating script. Women are never called names or branded stuck-up or cock-teases or bitch because they say “no” when men ask them. Women in the conventional dating script don’t take the risk of never being asked at all (an outcome that many men here apparently find pretty onerous when it happens to them). Women in the conventional dating script are never put in horrible situations by their dates, and are never date-raped. And if they do have sex voluntarily, there’s never a risk of pregnancy.
Seriously, how blinkered and male-centric could your view possibly be? I agree with you that the conventional dating script carries risks for men, but to say risk belongs exclusively to men is lunacy.
…the men who care about the way feminists perceive their sexual behaviour will shy away from taking the initiative (”Hey, I don’t want to look like an asshole!”)…
We’re talking about a cop using his job to manipulate a crime victim into a lonely garage so he can hit on her. I think that’s inappropriate, but that doesn’t mean that I think it’s always inappropriate for men to take the initiative in every situation. That you conflate these two entirely separate things (”cop hitting on crime victim in lonely garage” and “all instances of men taking the initiative”), as if because I think the former is assholish I must also mean the latter is assholish, is frankly ridiculous. Real life has nuances your argument fails to acknowledge.
In other words: male feminists have, all else being equal, poorer sexual and romantic chances than male non-feminists.
This opinion seems based on the experiences of men who are at least as anti-feminist as they are feminist.
The feminist men I know have had romantic and sexual lives as full as those of other men — although of course, what that means varies a lot. Some of the feminist men I knew in college frankly slept around — and “fell in love around” — a ton, as did their partners. (That sort of behavior faded in the post-college years; nowadays almost everyone is married, it seems.) Others did not, either because they didn’t want to or because they lacked the opportunity.
The big distinctions I see is not between feminist/non-feminist, but between shy/outgoing and (less importantly) between conventionally unattractive/attractive. Trust me, outgoing, attractive feminist men (and women) don’t spend their lives bereft of romantic partners. On the other hand, shy and unattractive men (and women) are going to have a hard time finding both romance and fuckbuddies, regardless of if they’re feminists. Other than the “feminism is to blame for everything” attitude that permeates discussion on this blog, I don’t see any reason to say that the problems shy men experience is due to them being too feminist.
Frankly, given my own extreme shyness and fear of rejection, I doubt I would have had as many romances as I’ve had if I wasn’t a feminist. That doesn’t mean that I’m a feminist because it gets me laid, as some people have implied over the years. But it does mean that extremely shy men are probably better off if their social groups have more egalitarian romantic norms than conventional society’s.
But which feminists, in your experience, put as much emphasis on encouraging women to be sexually proactive as they do on discouraging men from being sexually proactive?
Yes, because getting shy men laid should be just as high a priority for feminists as stopping sexual harassment and rape. How silly of feminists to think that the latter requires more emphasis.
Thoughts? Comments?
Awe, shucks, thanks.
Here’s my reply, for what it’s worth.
I guess I must have skipped my Feminism 1o1 class the day the professor talked about the duty of feminists or feminism to help shy men get laid.
The thing about Feminist Critics is that a) they don’t understand the concept of alpha v. beta and b) it is essentially a herd of guys identical to Michael from The Office
That is to say that…
a) As far as I can tell from their posts and comments they believe that anybody who has had any sort of relationship with a woman is an “alpha male” and anybody who hasn’t is a “beta male.” In reality, there are far, far fewer alphas than betas. I would in no way classify myself as “alpha,” nor do I think that the people who know me would classify me as such. Yet, I have had relationships with women.
and
b) Just like the Michael character, these folks don’t seem to have any understanding of other people (women in particular). I’m not even sure that they see women as people. Their comments tend to refer to women as one homogeneous bloc.
I suspect that most of them have been hit on & flirted with but either they didn’t notice it or they weren’t attracted to the person flirting with them. It wasn’t until I was well into my 20s that I realized how many women had been hitting on me in my teens and early 20s. I simply couldn’t see it at the time.
I also suspect, based on their posts and comments, that they have narrowed their focus down to a very small subset of women. There is constant talk about “hot” women. The fact is that not all that many men qualify as “hot.” The fact is that people tend to wind up with people of roughly the same physical attractiveness. Thus, if you aren’t a stunningly beautiful man you probably won’t wind up with a stunningly beautiful woman. That’s just the way it is.
Reading that blog makes me want to shout, “Hey! Wake up! The problem doesn’t lie with women, the problem lies with you. Perhaps counseling to address your low self-esteem and behavioral therapy to work past your fears would be more helpful than quick seduction techniques and pick up strategies.”
It sucks to be lonely and craving a meaningful relationship but, based on a cursory glance at humanity, the problem most likely lies within yourself and not in others. Also, women are people, too. They have the same motivations that you do. You can be friends with women. Honest.
At least Ren Ev is there to add some common sense to the place.
Yes, women are sometimes called names and branded stuck-up or cock-teasers or bitch as a part of the conventional script, but there exists a very potent cultural counter-script called “feminism”. This counter-script is always available, so a woman can switch to it at will and self-convincedly reintepret the name-calling man as a patriarchal asshole, thus neutralizing 99% of the emotional harm caused by being called a name. For men, there is no potent counter-script to help relieve the pain of rejection. If a woman calls you an asshole or laughs you off, whether you deserve it or not, you are left with that.
Yes, some women in the conventional dating script do also take the risk of never being asked, but this doesn’t seem to be what women in general tend to complain about. The main complaint by women is that they feel drowned by male sexual attention to the point of suffocation, not starved of it. The discourse is predominantly shaped by women’s essential rejectiveness of “No Means No” and “All Men Want Is Sex”, rather than by “we don’t get any/enough”. This is the general reality, the observation of which is not invalidated by attending to fine details like there being indeed a few women who suffer as a result of never being asked out.
In the world of Christianity a man is supposed to have only one wife and, somehow, it is he who must ask her for her hand in marriage. But this is not so according to the Bible! Contrary to all you have heard or read, it is women are supposed to take the initiative in relationships with men. Read Isaiah 4:1 where seven women approach one man for marriage. That’s right – seven at one time! And best of all, each comes with her own dowry!!
For those of you who call yourselves Christian, you know that the Bible’s law are supposed to be Eternal. That is, what applied in Mosaic times applies today unless they were superceded by Messianic Law. And the New Testament upholds Sarah as the ideal wife in I Peter 3:6. And what did Sarah do that was so special? She selected mistresses and concubines for her husband! Therefore, if you are a true Christian woman, you are commanded by Bible Law to do the same!!
Well, so have I, and I’m not “alpha” either. Both Hugh and I find the term problematic, but I broadly understand it to mean “men who have little difficulty in attracting women, engaging with them socially, and moving the relationship towards intimacy and sex”. It doesn’t mean “someone who has never had a relationship in their lives” though that is an extreme version.
This is ironic, because you seem to be treating ‘these folk’ as one homogeneous bloc.
The bloggers are Hugh, TS, Myself, and now RE. Among the guests, Tom, Infra, and ballgame have invites to coblog but haven’t taken it up or did but subsequently withdrew. These people express views broadly concordant with the blog ethos. The views of, say, Jackd22 or Byrdeye, are no more representative of us than they would be representative of “the folk at Alas” if they posted here.
That’s a very good point, and one which I’ve had it in mind to blog about for a while now. I have no recollection of anything which happened in my teens that I can view now as them maybe hitting on me or flirting, but there were such incidents in my twenties which I look back on and wonder about.
Again, who is this mysterious they? Have I ever talked about “hot” women? Has Hugh? Except in response to others, and, like yourself in scare quotes.
I’ve had more counseling and behavioural therapy than anyone else I know. Some of was tremendously useful, most of it a waste of time, some of it downright harmful. But none of it was any help or even attempted to address this issue.
Now the SC agrees with you that “The problem doesn’t lie with women, the problem lies with you”. The difference is, it focusses on that problem and offers practical help.
I already am friends with women.
Well, there’s always self-respect. Emphasis on “self”.
Daran,
My opinions of the blog are based on reading the last 2 weeks worth of posts & comments. There is a strong and common theme that runs through the vast majority of posts and comments. That theme is that women only want an “alpha” and that therefore they are not fair to the denizens of Feminist Critics. Read back through and see whether or not that is a fair assessment.
I already am friends with women.
Yet that was a major topic of discussion there recently and the overall opinion seemed to be that a man couldn’t be “just” friends with a woman. Too much sexual tension or awkwardness or disappointment that she doesn’t want to fuck.
This is ironic, because you seem to be treating ‘these folk’ as one homogeneous bloc.
That’s true, yet they are a much smaller subset than “women” and they share a common POV – something that you don’t find in women as a whole. There are many ways in which you could validly treat bloggers and commenters at Alas as a bloc. It is a VERY small group of people. Women are a very BIG group of people.
Throughout the posts and comments that I read there was a consistent thread of low self-esteem and putting blame on others.
I’ve had more counseling and behavioural therapy than anyone else I know. Some of was tremendously useful, most of it a waste of time, some of it downright harmful. But none of it was any help or even attempted to address this issue.
That is both a shame and baffling if the focus was on this issue.
Now the SC agrees with you that “The problem doesn’t lie with women, the problem lies with you”. The difference is, it focusses on that problem and offers practical help.
Yet the impression given by the posts and comments there is that the problem is with women and often with feminism. So it appears that the aficianados of SC mostly don’t agree with me.
Also, SC (and the repeated statements praising PUA (Pick Up Artists for those of you playing at home)) don’t actually offer practical advice to shy, socially inept men. Neither the SC nor PUA tactics are really helpful for establishing a meaningful, long term relationship with another person. In fact, in many cases, the advice given is harmful if the goal is a meaningful relationship.
The views of, say, Jackd22 or Byrdeye, are no more representative of us than they would be representative of “the folk at Alas” if they posted here.
But the views of the commenters on any blog are representative of the opinions, mood and athmosphere of that blog. The fact that this sort of person is attracted to comment on the posts in non-adversarial fashion says a lot. “The folks at Alas” include not just the bloggers, but the commenters as well. I would consider myself one of the folks at Alas, just as I would Q Grrl and Myca and Robert and many others. I may personally disagree with Robert on everything under the sun, but I cannot deny that he has an influence on the personality, the environment of Alas. A blog, due to its interactive nature, is a community that includes more than just the blogger(s).
Feminist Critics is an environment in which the denizens seem to be saying that women are both inscrutable and unfair. The name alone, given the core subject matter at the blog, is a dead giveaway that the posters and commenters are directing much of the blame for their unhappiness and inabilities on others. The fact that so much of the blame is directed at feminism (and straw-feminist positions) shows how little the commenters and posters understand about feminism.
“S’ils n’ont pas de pain, qu’ils mangent de la brioche”. Emphasis on “la brioche”.
Pingback: Toy Soldiers Silience is Still Golden «
Jake Squid
Would you have understood that you were being hit on if those women had said: “Jake, I find you sexually attractive. Why don’t we make out?”
Can you (or Amp) understand why I put so much emphasis on verbal disambiguation?
Would you have understood that you were being hit on if those women had said: “Jake, I find you sexually attractive. Why don’t we make out?”
Can you (or Amp) understand why I put so much emphasis on verbal disambiguation?
And feminism, which encourages women to do just that, is what you blame for more women not saying that to you. This is why I don’t see any basis for productive conversation with you.
Jake:
I would argue that the dichotomy is much less pronounced than you’re implying here. As I see it, what the SC is saying to sexually unsuccessful men is: “You’re not inherently unattractive. Your problem is behavioral. The behavior you thought women would find attractive is in fact unattractive to most women, and we can teach you to behave in ways that women find more attractive.”
The biggest problem many men have is that they have no idea how to act around women or what to say to them. So they avoid initiating contact with them. Understanding the basics of how female attraction works makes it easier for men to initiate contact with women they find attractive. For particularly awkward men, it may help to have specific tactics to try until they can get a better feel for it.
As far as behavioral therapy goes, do you remember the flack I got in the “Nice Guys” thread for saying that practicing talking to strange women was instrumental in helping me to overcome my social anxiety? I think that’s a good example of what Hugh was talking about when he blamed feminism for the problems of socially awkward men.
Some of the advice may be harmful. But I think on balance it’s helpful, if you filter it through common sense. Here’s why the SC tactics are helpful for establishing a long-term relationship:
1. As I argue above, they help shy men to get over their shyness and to understand that they can succeed with women.
2. Success breeds confidence, and a man who’s confident in his ability to find another woman easily is unlikely to exhibit the insecurity and clinginess that most women find so unattractive.
3. Many men don’t need help with the maintenance aspects of a relationship. I was like that. I hadn’t had many girlfriends, but the few I’d had worshipped the water they thought I could walk on. All I needed was help with the early stages—getting a woman to spend enough time with me to see all I had to offer.
OK, I feel stupid asking this, but what’s “the SC”?
As far as behavioral therapy goes, do you remember the flack I got in the “Nice Guys” thread for saying that practicing talking to strange women was instrumental in helping me to overcome my social anxiety? I think that’s a good example of what Hugh was talking about when he blamed feminism for the problems of socially awkward men.
Although that is conflating some feminists with feminism. But, yeah, I remember.
The biggest problem many men have is that they have no idea how to act around women or what to say to them.
Which is to say that they see women as fundamentally different than men – something that I think feminism disputes.
Understanding the basics of how female attraction works makes it easier for men to initiate contact with women they find attractive.
This perpetuates the notion that women are fundamentally different than men and I therefore find the concept to be anti-feminist. Do we all really believe that female attraction works differently than male attraction? This is why I find SC to be harmful and anti-feminist – it perpetuates the idea that women aren’t people the way that we are people.
Why aren’t these shy men reading How to Make Friends and Influence People? Perhaps it is because they don’t believe that women are people and/or they are really wanting sex, not a relationship.
How is anything at http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html not helpful in learning how to speak with women?
OK, I feel stupid asking this, but what’s “the SC”?
“Seduction Community”
Jake
I’m not quite sure what that first sentence means, Jake. You seem to insinuating something quite nasty, but are obviously chary of giving it forthright expression. But you are quite right to point out that there is no basis for a discussion between us. Fare ye well.
Anybody else like to have a crack at the question Jake didn’t answer?
Feminism encourages women to say, ” I find you sexually attractive. Why don’t we make out?” if they are sexually attracted to somebody. You seem to blame feminism for the fact that more women don’t do that. Is that clear?
I apologize for initially phrasing it in a way that could be easily interpreted as insulting you personally, Tom.
Oh, this is all just self-centered crap! Women arent’ a monolith. Treat women as you would another man, for fuck’s sake: respect her boundaries, be pleasant, talk about the weather.
Branden Berg: weren’t you the one that posted about how you “practiced” your skills on women, who you did not know, who were sitting by themselves in public spaces? Of course you got shit for that. That’s creepy and annoying as hell. Don’t you read the news for crying out loud. Don’t you believe what women write on blogs about how annoying and innapropriate this type of behavior is? Better yet, why the fuck would your insecurities mean that you could violate/ignore a woman’s boundaries around space and privacy. Good grief man! Don’t go turning that around and blaming the feminists for your failure.
Besides, if “shy” guys are so poor with their interpersonal skills, how the hell do they know they’re even talking to straight women. Shit, I know men who serially “fall” in love with lesbians, or who hit on us, not as some kind of kink, but because they are so socially inept they can’t read the signals.
I say that if you’re having problems and still blaming it on someone or something else, then you should stay single. Your interpersonal skills are not going to improve once you’re in a relationship. Which is probably what women can pick up from you on your approach.
heh. thanks, Jake. I won’t tell you what i was guessing it meant, lol.
Not being able to immediately identify who is and is not homosexual constitutes social ineptitude?
What about “serially” implies immediately? I’m not falling for this bullshit. If a man, of any stripe, cannot identify that a woman is lesbian, he is socially inept. Period. No mystery there. Christ on a cracker!
Jake Squid
I don’t agree that feminism does more than pay very occasional lip-service to the promotion of a decisive role for women in matters romantic and sexual. In three years of reading all the usual feminist blogs I can’t remember a single post suggesting that women learn to move beyond smiles, looks and suggestions to the point of actually saying what they want in potentially romantic situations. I have read countless posts, by contrast, bemoaning how forward, persistent and “entitled” is men’s behaviour in courtship. Which is to say: there is tons more emphasis on inhibiting male sexual enterprise than on encouraging that of women – an incoherence which is bound to lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.
Take your own experiences as an example. All those women who used to hit on you when you were younger – presumably they thought that there was some emotional, physical or spiritual advantage to be had from a relationship or an encounter with you. But they expressed themselves in an ambiguous way which you didn’t know how to interpret. As a result those women missed out on whatever it was they were seeking from you. If they had expressed themselves verbally, however, you could have been in no doubt as to their intentions and you would, sometimes at least, have fulfilled their desires. But they didn’t, did they? There are, of course, some women who do dare to put themselves on the line by speaking out, but most women, feminists included, do not.
Now their anxiety is natural: making a unilateral declaration of desire exposes us to rejection and humiliation. I don’t blame women who are otherwise feminist for wanting to hang on to their traditional role in courtship –
so much less embarrassing, so much more gratifying to vanity than a truly liberated (and liberating) one could be. But they would still do well to give it up, and I think it’s a crying shame that feminists don’t encourage women to take a lead which would give them a better chance of romantic and sexual happiness. Not a guarantee of happiness, of course. But a better chance.
Okay.
I edited while you were posting.
If a man, of any stripe, cannot identify that a woman is lesbian, he is socially inept. Period.
Because all women have neon exclamation points over their heads, color-coded by sexual orientation, and interpreting a particular woman’s interests is simply a matter of consulting the handy pocket reference card.
Or paying attention to what she does. I dunno Robert, I take it you can usually tell who the gay guys are, no?
Assuming persons manifest sexual predilection on a reliable basis in public setting. Otherwise, ascertaining predilection will require investigation or stalking. Or assuming that other behaviors, though not sexual, are markers of a predilection because they allegedly correlate with it.
Riiiiiight.
Seems like ya’ll are ready enough to call women “dykes” when we’re mad at you.
Really guys, women aren’t some mystery that requires an instruction manual and a decoder ring.
I stand by what I say, especially in the interest of feminism and women’s autonomy: if a guy cannot tell if a woman is a lesbian, he is socially inept. Or, rather, I just refer you to post #29 as proof.
I don’t agree that feminism does more than pay very occasional lip-service to the promotion of a decisive role for women in matters romantic and sexual.
This is precisely why there is no basis for a productive discussion between us.
Why does the interest of feminism and autonomy necessarily require the allegedly easy discernability of a person’s sexual predilection?
I stand by what I say, especially in the interest of feminism and women’s autonomy: if a guy cannot tell if a woman is a lesbian, he is socially inept.
I disagree with you, Q Grrl. When I attend a party or event with people I’ve never met before I have no way of knowing whether they’re gay or not. Unless they are there with an obvious partner or they tell me. I don’t believe other people have that ability either.
I have no idea whether or not any of my co-workers (I’ve only been at the job for a month) are LGBT or not. I haven’t asked and they haven’t volunteered the info.
Hell, lots of my friends and family thought for years that I might be gay and they weren’t all socially inept.
Sure, there are some generalities and stereotypes you can use to inform your initial impression, but they are by no means universal. Have you never been interested in a straight woman who you thought might be gay?
Am I mistaken to think that your position on this has a lot to do with het being the default identification of people?
On the issue of shy people learning to talk to strangers, one person I know posted a request on his blog for volunteers he could call to practice conversation. I volunteered, and we had a couple of completely unobjectionable, 10-minute long phone conversations.
On the issue of women asking men (e.g., for a date), I’ve certainly done it more than half the times that resulted in action (a date). My personal opinion, not based on any scientific study, is that the observed behavioral difference is more likely attributable to differences in selectivity. That is, het women in general are more selective than het men in general: het men will find a larger proportion of their local het woman population desirable than the proportion of the het man population that het women find desirable. I think there’s also a contribution from men being more willing to risk a poor result (i.e., say yes to the date but then have a bad time) than women are (after all, for far more women than men, a poor result includes a high risk of rape and other violence).
Because I believe that when men, as a class, stop objectifying women, then it will be glaringly obvious to men which women are lesbians and which women aren’t.
No, I’m not attracted to straight women.
“Seduction Community”
Oh please. It’s not about seduction but treating women as people.
Why aren’t these shy men reading How to Make Friends and Influence People? Perhaps it is because they don’t believe that women are people and/or they are really wanting sex, not a relationship.
Excellent. Men who treat women as people are very seductive to me. I find feminist men the sexiest. Ideally, the guy would be nice, feminist and “hot.” That perfect combination hasn’t come up for me yet.
So, more accurately phrased, you are saying that when this central tenet of feminism is realized, then this allegedly easy and obvious discernment of sexual predilection will consequently result? Is that the proper sequence?
Or paying attention to what she does.
In public, what do lesbians do that straight women don’t?
I dunno Robert, I take it you can usually tell who the gay guys are, no?
If they tell me, or ask me out, or stand on the float at the Gay Pride parade whipping their shirt in the air and screaming “queer for life!”, sure.
Otherwise, not so much.
Jake Squid (quoting me):
It’s not a fair assessment of the posts, no. Since the beginning of this month, there have been twelve posts: Six by RE, who’s really hit the ground running. (I presume you’re not claiming that RE is speaking to this theme.), two by TS on unrelated matters. Two by me on administrative matters, one by me as part of a broadranging discussion with an individual guest that did not address this issue. None at all by Hugh.
That leaves just one by me on this topic, which is the one examining the scene from Doctor Who. In it, I did not say that women only want “alphas”, nor did I suggest that they were not being fair to FCB posters.
Nor do I get the impression that “the vast majority” of recent comments speak to this theme. The topic has got a lot of attention recently, largely because of RE’s posts. Yes there are some comments that express this ‘theme’, mainly from guests we’ve never before seen on FCB. They do not represent us.
It was a major topic of discussion because RE asked the question. I did not participate in that discussion, but Hugh did, and his replies were far more nuanced than your characterisation. Nobody else in that thread represents us.
That’s a circular argument. You’re treating the discussion as though each speaks for all – an attitude which will inevitably lead to you attributing to them a shared POV – then justifying it on the ground that they have a shared POV.
I agree that women aren’t homogeneous.
There’s a consistent thread within feminism of blaming men for everything, so I don’t think you’re in a position to throw stones.
Many of the posters do have/have had low self-esteem. Some of them blame women generally, but, once again, they do not represent the blog.
It certainly was a shame. It’s not really baffling though. Other than the SC, which, as far as I can tell, is a recent, internet-based phenomenon, there really is no societal aknowledgement of or support for men who have these problems
The techniques advocated by the SC either work or they don’t. They appear to work, perhaps not as well, or for not as many men as some SC advocates might claim, but they do work to a degree.
The question is, how?
Do SC practitioners change women? Do they change feminism? Do they change societal attitudes?
Or do they change themselves?
See Brandon’s reply. In my case of the three romantic/sexual relationships I’ve had in my life, one lasted several months before we just drifted apart, the other two both lasted seven years. So I don’t think maintaining a relationship is the problem for me. It’s getting there. The one that lasted months was romantic but did not become sexual, from my side, because I couldn’t then even conceive of the possibility. That might be the reason it failed.
All I am going to say is this…
The FC blog is a lot deeper than people are giving it credit for. Speaking for one of the bloggers there, um, that would be me, yeah, well, I do have a problem with some aspects of feminism. I’ll admit that flat out. I was the one who asked “can (hetero) men and women just be friends?” And guess what? Yep, I do think they can be. Sure, has there been lots of talk of the SC there? Indeedy. Partially because I wanted to know more about it…me, female, curious as to what it was about…
That’s all.
Daran,
Many of the posters do have/have had low self-esteem. Some of them blame women generally, but, once again, they do not represent the blog.
Yes, they do. Unquestionably.
I think that your response indicates that you missed this:
But the views of the commenters on any blog are representative of the opinions, mood and athmosphere of that blog. The fact that this sort of person is attracted to comment on the posts in non-adversarial fashion says a lot. “The folks at Alas” include not just the bloggers, but the commenters as well. I would consider myself one of the folks at Alas, just as I would Q Grrl and Myca and Robert and many others. I may personally disagree with Robert on everything under the sun, but I cannot deny that he has an influence on the personality, the environment of Alas. A blog, due to its interactive nature, is a community that includes more than just the blogger(s).
I think that this addresses your concerns about treating FC denizens as a bloc and your separating the comments from the posts and identifying individuals. Just as many people have had complaints about the environment at Alas that were not restricted to individuals (whether blogger or commenter), I am making a complaint about FC. If you disagree, that’s fine but it doesn’t change my impression of the place. I sincerely doubt that I’m the only one who feels this way.
Other than the SC, which, as far as I can tell, is a recent, internet-based phenomenon, there really is no societal aknowledgement of or support for men who have these problems
What problems are you talking about? Shyness? Low self-esteem? There is certainly societal acknowledgement and support of men and women who have these problems. I did give the link to Dale Carnegie. Dale Carnegie wrote a book – an extremely popular and well-known book – 80 years ago for men with just such problems. Mr. Carnegie was not the only one, nor was he a member of a very small number of authors, to write such books, so I can’t agree with your opinion on this.
I suspect that what you mean by “these problems” is really “men not viewing women as people and, therefore, not understanding how to interact with them.” If that is the case, I have very little sympathy. Start treating women like people.
There’s a consistent thread within feminism of blaming men for everything, so I don’t think you’re in a position to throw stones.
Even if I agreed with your statement, one does not invalidate the other. Hell, I could be an arsonist, but that wouldn’t invalidate my ability to point out a thief.
Of course, your inability to distinguish “responsibility” from “blame” and “men as a class” from “every single man” is the reason you believe that feminists blame men for everything.
I didn’t miss it. I’m going to address it separately.
The specific problem of being able to engage with women in a way which offers the prospect of leading to intimate relationships.
Please give the link.
It’s not the case.
[…]
I recently addressed the collectisation fallacy here.
I agree that “Oh yes they do, oh no they don’t” is not productive.
On the other hand, one of you could prove the other wrong. Tom’s negative is inherently inameanable to proof, but you could prove that feminism does more than pay very occasional lip-service to this by pointing out a few of the many thousands of feminist posts which do address this issue.
Unless, of course, such posts don’t exist.
Please give the link.
A summary of Dale Carnegie’s book can be found in the link that I provided in comment # 16.
… pointing out a few of the many thousands of feminist posts which do address this issue.
Since a major part of feminism is the idea that gender roles must be deconstructed, must I really bother?
If you read Alas you will have seen it mentioned many times. This is also commonplace at Pandagon. Also, even an anti-feminist site ( http://www.probe.org/content/view/651/169/ ) cedes the point:
The legacy of feminism is the refusal of the God-given role of men to be initiator, protector and provider.
You can try:
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2005/11/dating_etiquett.html
or:
http://www.feminist.com/askamy/feminism/fem167.html
where it is written:
… the point is that nothing about feminism should be anti-male, it can certainly be anti-certain men, just as it can be anti-certain women, but the point is to liberate each individual from their assumed roles in society and allow them to be individuals. Feminism is as much about freeing men from their roles as it is about freeing women.
Sheesh, the more I search (which is not my forte), the more I find anti-feminist sites stating that feminism has encouraged women to take on a more active role in dating, be the initiator, etc. and how bad that is. How women should let the man be in charge. Given that it is anti-feminists encouraging women to let men do the asking, I’m not going to give any more links. For thingssake, when your own anti-feminist allies are complaining that feminism encourages women to take an active role in romantic and sexual matters, I don’t see the point of having me provide the links for you. You’ve probably already seen it a million times on anti-feminist sites that you agree with.
If anybody with better research skills than me wants to provide a comprehensive list for Daran, be my guest.
Wow.
Jake: What problems are you talking about? Shyness? Low self-esteem?
Daran: The specific problem of being able to engage with women in a way which offers the prospect of leading to intimate relationships.
The solution is obviously to believe that women are people. What approach would make men inclined to entertain the idea of an intimate relationship? Women like the same thing. It isn’t that difficult a concept. Every time you specify “women” you just confirm that you think that there is a fundamental difference in the thinking, motivations and desires between men and women. You are dead wrong.
Look, you’re missing something obvious here. Why are you socially inept with women but not with men? Do you treat men differently than you treat women?
If so:
Why? What makes you think that you need to approach and interact with women differently than you do with men.
This is precisely why it is so difficult to converse with you on this subject.
Hey Amp…
Amp said:
I agree that for a policeman to treat a woman this way in real life might border on sexual harassment. I don’t think there would be the same problem if it happened in a coffee shop, however.
I don’t think that Tom is suggesting that men have more risks in dating in general. I think he is suggesting that men suffer certain types of risks more often, on average. The examples he gives are the risk of being actively rejected, and the risk of having their behavior condemned by feminism.
I don’t think this conflation exists in Tom’s post, because you are focusing on the issue as a policeman-woman interaction, while in the thread we have mostly been looking at it as an example of man-woman interaction. What Daran and Tom seem to be arguing is that some feminists would construe such male behavior as sexual harassment, or tantamount to it, even if the man hadn’t been a policeman.
What we are trying to point out is that a lot of gendered dynamics that feminists condemn actually work very well with women from a practical standpoint. (You condemn it as “a depiction of conventionally-gendered sexuality that many feminists decry; women as coquettish pursued, men as aggressive pursuer.”) What are the implications of this? We don’t know, but we are trying to figure them out.
Tom said:
Amp said:
If you are suggesting that men who are hold views like Tom’s and mine do so because they are anti-feminist, I would suggest that you may have the direction of causation backwards. In my case, one of the reasons I went from growing up with very feminist intuitions and views, to being a critic of feminism, was because I realized how harmful feminism had been to my ability to have authentic and spontaneous interactions with women sexually and romantically.
This sounds like a sort of tautology: feminist men who are attractive to women are… attractive to women. The question should be whether the proportion of feminist men who are of a certain attractiveness to women is the same as the proportion of men in the general population of that level of attractiveness. I think the answer is “no” for several reasons.
First, men interested in feminism are probably less likely to be attractive to women. Would you agree that on average, feminism selects men who are less gender-conforming from the beginning? Men who are less masculine that average are the men who are attracted to feminism. However, certain aspects of masculinity are important to women in terms of sexual attraction (though some women aren’t attracted exclusively to masculine qualities, and are attracted to feminine qualities in combination with masculine qualities). Hence, more feminist men than men in the general population will be below the cutoff of masculinity necessary to be attractive to women, and to negotiate the male gender role in courtship.
Second, once men become feminists, for some of them, feminism is likely to impair their attractiveness or ability to interact with women. This may not be true for feminist men who are already attractive, confident, and extraverted, but it may be the case for many feminist men who are shy, anxious, introverted, unassertive, and sexually repressed. I don’t argue that all feminist men with those personality traits and behaviors will have that experience, but as I’ve argued before, certain aspects of feminism (e.g. notions of sexual harassment, objectification, and “pressuring” of women) will impair the ability of such males to engage in sexual and romantic interaction with women if taken seriously.
I agree that “extremely shy men are probably better off if their social groups have more egalitarian romantic norms than conventional society’s.” I’m just not convinced that feminism advances consistently egalitarian romantic norms. There is nothing egalitarian about socializing men to respect women, but not to respect themselves. There is nothing egalitarian about drumming messages about not sexually harassing/objectifying/pressuring women, without defining the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable, and without concern for what damage that approach does to shy and socially inept men psychosexually, and without even considering ways to get the same message across to men in ways that aren’t damaging.
I’m glad feminism has helped you in your experiences with women. I don’t deny that feminism can do so. What Tom, Daran, and I are trying to communicate is that for some men who are shy, socially inept, anxious, and unassertive, feminism has a damaging effect on their ability to have sex and relationships with women. Feminists need to recognize that type of experience, instead of trying to invalidate it.
I’m well into my 50s and never married. And it definitely was not because of shyness – it’s just that women never gave a sh*t for me. I’m not a macho type which is what most women prefer. Ironically, ‘macho’ is the Spanish word for a male mule which is a strong, stupid, stubborn, and sterile animal. If that’s what most women want, that’s their right I suppose.
Oh well – it’s the single life for me. And, I guess, it was destined to be.
But one final thought on what I wrote above — I said that according to the Bible, it is women who are to take the initiative in marriage. In my many years I have known of about a dozen couples in which it was the woman who took that initiative. Each couple had one thing in common: there was no divorce! Unlike many other couples I have known, each of these couples remained together forever.
Perhaps it proves that the Bible’s teaching on marriage was correct all along!
Tom said:
Ampersand replied:
It’s fallacious for to you to argue that just because we think that it will take work and effort to give women the tools to be sexually assertive and initiate sexually, and that feminists are shirking on that work even though it is mandated by their stated goals of liberating women from restrictive femininities, then we must think that getting shy men laid is as high a priority as stopping sexual harassment and rape. Come on. (If you think I am misinterpreting you, please correct me.)
As Tom has pointed out, there are many good feminist reasons for feminists to encourage women to be more sexually assertive. Strangely, feminists don’t really give women any encouragement or practical advice to actually do so, which is probably part of why so many women don’t. Merely telling women that they should have the choice to initiate isn’t enough to liberate them from the strictures of femininity.
Daran (eliciting an answer from Jake)
Oh goody, I can communicate with Jake through Daran. “Ask your mother to pass the butter, please, Jemima.” “Tell your father that it’s margarine.” etc. etc.
Jake
My point was that feminists are by and large more willing that men abandon some of their traditional attitudes (e.g. persistence in courtship) than they are that women abandon some of theirs (e.g. passivity in courtship). Blanket declarations of feminist principles are no defence against the claim that many feminists apply those principles with partiality. A better defence would be evidence of feminists actually encouraging women to be proactive.
Of the three links you provide, one – to the Happy Feminist – actually does this (and I absolutely applaud her initiative, by the way). That’s good evidence and weakens my case.
The other links are duds. One is by an antifeminist who doesn’t “concede the point” that feminism has impinged on the rights of men to be proactive, but rather declares – without a shred of evidence – that it has done so. It is the work of a fundamentalist wowser. Really, are the unsupported opinions of such people to be regarded as evidence one way or the other? And the other link limits itself to a declaration that being feminist doesn’t entail hating men – but whoever said it did?
It’s a poor show.
I stand by what I said: feminists rarely make a point of emphasizing the importance to women and to their happiness of verbally articulating their desires in a sexual context. So it is quite unsurprising that women – feminist or not – rarely do. Quite unsurpising, Jake, that none of those women who were hitting on you ever actually told you that they wanted sex or romance with you.
Quite unsurpising, Jake, that none of those women who were hitting on you ever actually told you that they wanted sex or romance with you.
That’s actually not true. When I was 19 or 20 my best friend in the world said straight out, “I want to be your lover.” I said no. Things were awkward for a couple of months and then we continued our best friendship for about another 10 years until my abusive, controlling first wife ran her off.
Unsurprisingly, my first wife was also straight-forward in expressing her wishes in that she grabbed me and kissed me (which would, of course, have been unwelcome had I not been attracted to her).
My current wife, although I was the one who initiated contact, was straight forward expressing her wishes for a romantic relationship.
Both times that I have been married, I was the one who was proposed to.
In other words, I am not someone who would commonly be considered an “alpha,” I am not incredibly attractive, yet when friends have been interested in me, they have made the first move. (Of course, if any of you folks who know me in the meat world would like to dispute my self-assessment, feel free to flatter me)
In all fairness, the women who were hitting on me/flirting with me when I didn’t get it were doing so in a way that I believe the vast majority of people would have understood clearly. The fault was mine for lack of recognition, not theirs for not stating their wishes in a clearly spoken manner.
For example, how could I not have realized that the woman stroking my hair at a party wasn’t coming on to me?
Now that I know how to recognize it, its hard to see how I didn’t understand at the time. I chalk it up to being depressed, having low self-esteem and being socially inept. Exactly what I am accusing you lot of.
And the other link limits itself to a declaration that being feminist doesn’t entail hating men – but whoever said it did?
Unless I’m mistaken about which link you are talking about, you’re being obtuse. The quote from that link is:
Feminism is as much about freeing men from their roles as it is about freeing women.
Not to be rude, but you are fucking complaining about the role as initiator that you are stuck with and are no good at. The quote says that feminism is about freeing men from their roles – for example the expectation that they be the active one in starting a relationship.
But, golly, I hope I’m wrong about which quote you were referring to.
Feminists absolutely encourage women to be active in pursuing their own sexual and romantic desires.
Not only do feminists criticize the gender socialization that teaches us all that men should be the intiators and pursuers, and women should be passive – we do so much more!
We:
– agitate for comprehensive, judgement-free sex education (and when the state won’t provide it, some feminists do it themselves: Scarleteen;
– fight for women to have access to birth control and abortion (women are more likely to want to have sex with you if they don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancy);
– have started sex toy stores (Good Vibrations, Toys in Babeland, Good for Her, Come as You Are, and many more) so women can explore their sexuality. Both Good for Her and Come As You Are offer workshops on flirting.
But I think the key thing for the purposes of this discussion, is that we fight for greater acceptance of different gender identities, expressions, and presentations (as in, we are critical of those elements of society that pass judgement on men for not living up to the masculine ideal).
As for whether men should be able to tell if a woman’s a lesbian – not always. My best friend is very femme, no one ever reads her as a lesbian. I, on the other hand, lean towards heterosexuality, and I get read as a queer woman about 85% of the time (despite being relatively feminine in presentation). But straight guys should know: if she says she’s a lesbian, she almost certainly isn’t going to sleep with you. If you keep pursuing a woman who has told you she’s a lesbian, you’re a jerk.
Look, look! Comment number 53 in this thread is another cite showing that feminists encourage women to be more active romantically & sexually.
That was easy.
But straight guys should know: if she says she’s a lesbian, she almost certainly isn’t going to sleep with you. If you keep pursuing a woman who has told you she’s a lesbian, you’re a jerk.
That is so weird. You seem to be drawing a parallel to if I tell a gay man that I’m straight, that I’m not going to sleep with him. And if he keeps pursuing me that he’s a jerk. So you’re saying that women react and have the same motivations as I do? Are you certain?
(That, TS, is sarcasm)
The specific problem of being able to engage with women in a way which offers the prospect of leading to intimate relationships.
Daran, if I recall correctly, you have mentioned that you have a neurological disorder that gets in the way of your forming relationships. Am I wrong?
Jake
First off, congratulations on being proposed to etc. I’m sure you’re just being modest when you say you’re not an alpha, though…
That happened to me once too. Had to wait a long time though…
Come on, you know that a blanket declaration of principle won’t do. Tut nichts zur Sache.
Calm down, calm down. That feminists promote sex education and reciprocity in sex-acts is not at issue. The issue is: do feminists generally encourage women to be verbally proactive in potentially romantic or sexual situations? Such would be in line with stated feminist principles, no doubt. But I contend that the demands that men should refrain from being sexually persistent vastly outnumber the demands that women (for their own sake) should be sexually proactive. I don’t think one link to the Happy Feminist demolishes my case.
Well, it’s very evident that your social skills have improved out of recognition since then, Jake. You’re an inspiration to us, I’m sure.
In addition to the links Jake provided, there are also links like this post from Tofu Slut, or this one from Smallhands, or this comment left by Diane at Feministing. It’s also common for feminists to list women asking men out as a example of good feminism has done, as in here and here. And whether or not the women having the conversations self-identify as feminists, it’s hard to imagine exchanges like this or this happening if feminism hadn’t happened first.
That said, I disagree with your implication that if feminists really believe romance and sex should be egalitarian (including, but not limited to, both sexes initiating relationships), we’d therefore see thousands of posts by feminists entreating women to ask shy guys out.
That’s not a fair or reasonable test, because feminists aren’t narrowly focused on the question of what feminists can do to make men’s lives easier, and we shouldn’t be expected to have such a focus. Not everything in the world has to be about men.
Virtually all feminists believe that in a more feminist world, all of dating and romance would be more egalitarian; it doesn’t follow from all of the above that feminist bloggers are going to find “hey, ladies, have you asked a shy man out today?” to be a pressing topic to blog about.
I’m well into my 50s and never married. And it definitely was not because of shyness – it’s just that women never gave a sh*t for me. I’m not a macho type which is what most women prefer.
Can men be manly and feminist? All men should respect women. Women like the sensitive artist type as much as manly men. Coming at this from a different angle, 51% of adult American women are not married which is a record high. (And 47% of adult American men are not married.) This is partly because women look at their mothers’ lives and don’t want it. Women in Taiwan, S. Korea and Japan are delaying marriage or not marrying because of traditional expectations in marriage. Men are importing women from other Asian countries who may not even speak their language. Wouldn’t it be easier if men became feminists in all these countries?
I’m sure you’re just being modest when you say you’re not an alpha, though…
Either you need to define “alpha” in its usage on FC or you’re going to need to admit that the term “alpha,” as used by you, means “any man who doesn’t profess to not being able to have a sexual relationship with a woman.”
That happened to me once too. Had to wait a long time though…
Yeah. I was 21 at the time, long past the age at which everybody else I knew had had a romantic relationship. And you know what? It wasn’t the fault of women that I had to wait that long.
Is there anything at all that could convince you that maybe, possibly, there’s the slightest chance that your criticisms of feminism are wildly off the mark? That maybe, just maybe that things would have been much harder for you during that period of time between arranged marriages and the rise of feminism? I don’t think so. You’d rather view yourself as a helpless victim and throw the blame at women.
Oy! I have been reading through this thread and the more I read the more confused I find myself becoming. Tom Nolan wrote
Can someone please explain to me why it must follow logically from feminist principles that woman should be verbally proactive in potentially romantic or sexual situations, as opposed to taking full adult responsibility for their role in those situations, whether they are verbally proactive or not? (And please note the italics.) I should add that it is my assumption that people of all genders and political persuations will differ in the degree of their outgoingness.
Can someone please explain to me why the comparison is between women being “verbally proactive” and men being “sexually persistent,” two very different kinds of behavior, it seems to me–the latter certainly encompassing much more than verbal proactiveness?
I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. I really do not understand. As someone who identifies as a feminist and who has over the years been with women, feminist and not, strictly heterosexual and not, who have had no problem in being sexually proactive (sometimes in places in the world where it can be downright dangerous for a woman to be sexually proactive), it’s really hard for me to see the arguments put forward by the people from Feminist Critics as anything other than the self-serving crap QGrrl called it somewhere upthread. Neither women nor men can or should be categorized in the way that the Feminist Critics people have been doing here; it does neither group of people justice.
Hugh wrote:
And — as my original post pointed out — this is male-centric nonsense. The current gender dynamics of romance and relationships carry risks for both men and women, and has worked quite badly for many women (as well as many men) from a practical standpoint.
In the phrase “outgoing, attractive feminist men,” I intended “attractive” to be shorthand for “conventionally good-looking, dresses okay, brushes teeth regularly, and so forth.” Sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
I more or less agree with the premise, if not the conclusions you come to. However, “men who are not conventionally attractive are more likely to become feminists” does not in any way support the claim that feminism makes feminist men unable to find romance. You could with equal logic claim that because magnets attract metal objects, magnets make objects into metal.
Well, nothing in this world — particularly not anything involving millions of varied and fallible people — is ever “consistent.” There are always contradictions, and real life is always messy. Plus, feminists are products of this messed-up and sexist society, just like everyone else. But yes, in general, feminist thought and feminist circles are in favor of egalitarian romantic norms, especially compared to all the available alternatives in our society.
Feminists don’t socialize men not to respect themselves. There are men who don’t respect themselves who blame feminism, but if it wasn’t feminism it would be something else; women in general, the Church, middle-class morality, whatever.
Feminism is not an all-powerful god, with limitless resources, perfect foreknowledge, and responsibility for all outcomes. Relationships are confusing and so are boundaries; it is not within feminism’s ability to define those boundaries in a way that avoids all subjectivity and confusion in all circumstances. Nor is there any imaginable system that would never leave anyone feeling hurt. It’s ludicrous that you expect feminists to address, in effect, all the problems in the world before you’ll accept that we advocate egalitarian romantic norms. (You yourself don’t address all problems, yet you apparently think you favor egalitarian romantic norms.)
Feminism isn’t to blame for the problems of “shy, anxious, introverted, unassertive, and sexually repressed” men. I think those men, due to being shy, anxious, introverted, unassertive, and sexually repressed, naturally find and cling to excuses to not put themselves forward and to not take risks. If the shy, anxious, introverted, unassertive, and sexually repressed man in question is a feminist (or pretends to be), maybe he’ll think “I can’t say ‘may I kiss you?‘ because that would be harassment”; but if that same man was a Christian, he’d be thinking “I can’t say ‘may I kiss you?’ because Jesus wouldn’t want me to.”
The scapegoat is not the causal agent.
You did misinterpret me.
For feminists, the biggest problems created by the conventional gender romance script is that these norms lead to way too much rape, harassment, stalking and abuse. Feminists have therefore prioritized addressing these bad results of the conventional gender romance script, rather than prioritizing getting “women to make passes at lads who wear glasses.”
I do agree that making the entire ball of wax — including the narrow aspect you’re most focused on — more egalitarian is an important feminist goal. I doubt many, if any, of the feminists here would disagree with that; your claim that feminists disagree with that is entirely imputed.
I just don’t agree that feminists in general should be focusing on the (very real and painful) problems of boys and men suffering from crippling shyness, because there are other problems related to the conventional gender romance script which are even more pressing.
(That doesn’t mean that I’d have any objection to a feminist focusing on the way the conventional gendered romance script harms boys and men, by the way.)
Amp
You win on this one. I confess that I hadn’t even heard of Tofu and Smallhands before now (though they look fun). The feminist blogs I generally read are the ones you have on the right-hand side-bar – and I hadn’t come across similar posts on those. But I was, frankly, riding for a fall with my generalization.
Honestly, though. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “the demands (on feminist blogs) that men should refrain from being sexually persistent vastly outnumber the demands that women (for their own sake) should be sexually proactive”?
Richard
I can. Here’s what I said with regard to Jake’s case (Jake, you should know, was frequently the object of female desire in his younger days but was too insecure to be able to recognize the signs).
It’s simply of benefit to women if they can articulate their own sexual and romantic desires. If, that is, they can practise active freedom (that of initiation) rather than merely reactive freedom (the right of veto and consent).
“the demands (on feminist blogs) that men should refrain from being sexually persistent vastly outnumber the demands that women (for their own sake) should be sexually proactive”?
Because rape, sexual harrassment and stalking are more pressing feminist issues.
Donna
It is of course quite right that defending women from rape, sexual harrassment and stalking should be a high feminist priority. But feminist blogs usually find space and time for a lot of other issues too. But they rarely find time and space for the issue of sexual proactivity (especially verbal proactivity) and the lack thereof amongst women. How often, in your experience, does the matter come up?
Tom:
This still does not answer my question: Why must it follow logically from feminist principles that women, as a class of people, should be sexually proactive? (And I should add that, to me, when a woman articulates a very clear and unambiguous “no” in response to a sexual advance, she is indeed being proactive in terms of asserting her own sexual boundaries and desires in relation to the man who has approached her; in other words, there seems to be an underlying assumption on your part that the only way to be proactive is to make the proverbial first move, an assumption that is problematic in itself.)
I’m not arguing that it is not desirable for all people to be able to be honest and open about their sexual desires, that it is not desirable for all people to feel comfortable stating clearly what they want from someone sexually–or just that they want someone sexually–and to do so in a way that is non-threatening, respectful of the other person’s boundaries, etc. and so on; nor am I arguing that the women’s role within conventional, male dominant heterosexuality as, to use a broadly generalizing term, the (in your words “reactive”) “keeper of sexual boundaries” is not a proper object of feminist study and critique.
I am asking why you think a feminist analysis should impel this particular behavioral change. You put your reasoning in terms of the benefits of the change to women, but this thread has not been about men’s altruistic desire to see women change; this thread has, to put it crudely, been in both its text and its subtext largely about which men get laid more often and by whom and why, which is why its hard to see your arguments as anything other than self-serving. If you want to talk about how to change the conventional dating script, why not talk about how it defines male heterosexual boundaries–not, again, because it is not important to talk about women’s role in that script–but because, as men, the definition of the male role is something we know from experience, something we can each take personal responsibility for and something we can therefore act to change on our own.
It is, for example, worth speculating about what would happen to women’s roles in this script if men were to decide to stop playing ours, which I would argue is defined by the notion that men do not have heterosexual boundaries, that men’s heterosexual boundaries are defined by the point not at which we do or do not want sex, but by the point where a woman says no. (And please note that I am talking here about the social script; obviously, indivdual men will differ in their fidelity to that script in their actual lives.)
What if, instead of being “sexually persistent,” as you put it, men insisted on taking a “no” to mean “no” and took the absence of a “yes” to mean that a “yes” had not been given (and let’s allow that there are also nonverbal ways to communicate both yes and no perfectly clearly) and that, therefore, any further advances were at best going to be treated with skepticism and, at worst, unwelcome–and for men to think this not in an angry way, but in a way that was respectful of the women invovled. I wonder how the dating script might change if women could, in general, take for granted that men would behave this way, just as men can now, in general, take for granted that it will be women who manage the boundaries of heterosexual interaction.
Richard
Richard, may I first of all thank you for addressing what I’ve been saying in a thoughtful way?
As to your central question, I thought it was uncontroversial that feminism, beyond its remit of sexual egalitarianism and of helping free men and women from the constraints of traditional sexual roles, takes a particular interest in the happiness and fulfilment of women. I don’t know if such counts as a “principle” but it seems pretty central to most varieties of feminism. But some of the impediments to women’s happiness and fulfilment arise from traditional ways of thinking within women themselves. If an intelligent and capable girl were to refuse to consider, on the grounds that it’s not “ladylike” or that her church forbids it, to develop her educational or professional potential do not feminists consider the forfeit of her happiness and fulfilment a deplorable consequence of sexist conditioning – and attempt to counter that conditioning? Or do they just shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, she’s made a free choice – on her head be it!”
Yes, in order to be proactive one has to make the first move. That’s what the word means. Cf Chambers for example: “opposed to merely reacting to events as they occur”.
That’s very unreasonable, Richard. I have been repeatedly accused of being a shy misfit (Jake, for example, seems to think I am his younger self’s alter ego) whose whole interest in this matter is to get my leg over on a more frequent basis. But I challenge you to find anything that I have written – here or at FCs – which would justify that imputation. What your above quote effectively amounts to is: “I can’t accept that your arguments are other than self-serving because they have been denounced as such.”
Jake, as we know, didn’t play the proactive role during his younger years. It seems very few women were prepared to step into the breach. I have throughout the discussions here and on FCs pointed out the likely unsatisfactory results to be expected if men change their sexual script (as a result of justified feminist pressure) and women refuse to do change theirs (because, presumably, it doesn’t “logically follow from feminist principles” that they be encouraged to). Really, I’m your man.
I look forwarad to the day when this comes about.
Hi everyone, first time poster here.
I just wanted to add that in my own experience, very few women are willing to take the initiative sexually, thus I agree cautiously with the 1% statistic reported by someone in this thread.
For example, in the past month I overheard three girls bemoaning the fact that “It’s so hard to get guys to say hello these days” while sitting at a coffee shop. While sitting at a tram stop, I overheard another three having a conversation that went something like this…
Girl A – “Forget it, he’s not interested”
Girl B – “I know… fu(king hell!”
Girl C – “[indistinct]… you were basically sticking your ass in his face”
Now, I think it quite possible that they were talking about me, as they were standing directly in front of me (and please don’t take this as bragging, it’s more attention than I usually get in a month). If not, I think what I am illustrating remains clear – the non-verbal and highly ambiguous of standing in front of someone is as far as Girl B was willing to go, and apparently at the cost of some social sanction from her friends.
(Incidentally, I snuck a quick look up and thought them all beautiful, but was too shy to start chatting with them – partially in case I was wrong, or they were embarassed)
Anyway, I know anecdotal evidence is weak evidence, but I repeat that I’m pretty sure that most women at least expect guys to take the initiative. So I guess I’m taking issue with QGirl’s post (#20) in that it’s necessarily “creepy and fu(king annoying” for guys to approach women in public places and strike up conversation. It may be that there are indeed crowds of women blogging as I type about how annoying this behaviour is, but the initiatory role is one that I think at least mandated and quite possibly demanded from men in current society – and that same behaviour could quite possibly be welcomed by other women (nor can Brandon Berg necessarily tell who the bloggers or welcomers are fron the outset). Someone fumbling their way through what Jake Squid calls “the role of the initiator that [we] are fu(king stuck with and [not necessarily] good at” may be clumsy and unwelcome at times but is hardly a rapist or a murderer. I am actually a little surprised that it would even be considered worth complaning about at all.
Tom:
Very quickly, till I can get back to this:
1. Re the meaning of proactive: See Dictionary.com. A large part of how you define what is and is not proactive depends on your perspective. Proactive moves to prevent terrorism require, in order to make sense at all, a context in which terrorism already exists. When a woman says no to a man who has made sexual advances, she does so in a heterosexual, social and cultural context that has already been established, and her action is absolutely proactive in the sense that it is intended to have “an effect on events or stimuli or processes that occur subsequently.” So, again, your definition of proactive starts from, assumes, the male position within the dating script as the only logical starting point.
2. My characterization of the thread as being about which men get laid, etc. was a comment on the subtext of the thread as a whole, not on your comments only. (More on this to come, I hope)
3. While you are certainly correct that women too are subject to traditional thinking that limits them, your example of the churchgoing girl who forgoes her education because of the male dominant religious values she was taught is not really an answer to my question. I do not dispute that it is a good thing for feminism to address the dating script. I am asking why you think it feminism should, logically and by definition, impel the behavioral change you are talking about.
More later when I have time.
Donna Darko says,
“All men should respect women. Women like the sensitive artist type as much as manly men. ”
On another web site a woman indicated that she does not appreciate it when men reject women who are perceived as being too fat. Her basis being that one’s size is not a true measure of one’s character. On this I wholeheartedly agree. But when I replied that women should not reject men because they are too short or make too little money, she did not give me a reply.
I certainly agree that all men should respect women. But that respect should be mutual.
It is true that some women like the sensitive artist type. But as a former sensitive artist type, I can definitely tell you that women FAR prefer macho types. As I said above, I am not entirely shy. Shyness was not the principle reason why women rejected me. My lack of height (I’m only 5’6″) and my lack of high income were the real reasons why women rejected me.
What few women I attracted were the highly intellectual types. Since I’m a scholar, this should not be too much of a surprise. In our society scholarly women invariably make a lot of money. But strangely, not all scholarly men do. Years ago, I gave up on my quest to be a professional artist and had to take a real job in order to pay my bills. My job: sweeping floors for a living — a humble job but an honest one that pays the bills.
Many years ago feminist Margaret Mead said that feminism would liberate men more than it would liberate women. While I greatly respected her great scholarship, she could not have been more wrong! Feminism never stopped women from their prejudice against shorter men or those who earn less money than they do. If anything, feminism actually promoted the type of materialism that it was said to be against.
One last point: macho men are NOT ‘manly men’!! Macho is defined in Spanish as a male mule which is nothing more than a stupid animal. This tells you quite a bit about the character of such a man and it tells even more about the women who admire that type.
Okay, Tom, one more thing. Here’s why I think the subtext, even of what you have been saying, is about which men get laid, etc. You wrote:
Here’s the thing: If the change in men’s behavior that we are talking about, and which you suggest at the end of your last comment that you also support, is a good in and of itself, meaning that it is good because it is the right thing to do, because it will mean men are behaving more ethically, respectfully, etc. and so on, then what women do in response to our change shouldn’t matter in terms of whether the change in men was justified/necessary or not. Men should change anyway. If women can’t handle the change, then heterosexual women won’t get sex from men and that would be their problem, not ours. If, instead, you worry that this change will mean that men will not get sex from women, even if you also worry that women will not get sex from men, you are in essence putting men’s access to heterosexual sex above the rightness of the behavioral change in men that we are talking about.
In other words, the change in question should be about men taking responsibility for ourselves. Period. And whether women can “keep up with us”—and it is amazingly paternalistic to suggest even theoretically that because of feminism’s wilfull negligence they cannot or will not—should not even enter into the question.
Okay, off to work.
Um… I just wanted to make some more things clear (I can see this place getting addictive).
Firstly, the relevance of my little anecdote is that assuming that I was in fact the target of Girl B’s interest, I would have been more than pleased to take her on a date. Feminism is not to blame for my own shyness, nor do I think it necessarily has a duty to facilitate romance, even if this is of benefit to women. However, put-downs like QGirl’s discourage men from taking the initiatory role and while sparing her of further attentions, may come at the cost of potential romance for some other woman. Maybe the feminist answer is to encourage women to express their own desires and have men take something of a backwards step. This is in my view a laudable goal… but if most women are not willing to do this an initiatory or relational vacuum may exist.
Elaborating on that point and w.r.t Ampersand’s view about “the conventional gender romance script… lead[ing] to way too much rape, harassment, stalking and abuse”, I fear that confusion and attendant bitterness in the absence of the script may lead to these same things. Like most, I have heard members of both sexes projecting upon and objectifying others in the context of sexual relations (‘oh, he’s cute… and he knows it to… he’s probably gay) or (‘she wants who knows what pants will match a lime green shirt’… ‘they want guys who know how to manipulate them’) – and have been guilty of the same bullshit. Of course, it is overwhelmingly men that are guilty of expressing their rage in despicable acts like murder and rape. But I wonder if the point still stands that it is often bitterness born of frustration that leads to these things rather than a sense of privilege.
Anyway, apologies to QGirl – I don’t mean to single you out especially. Reading the comments on this site, and particularly those highlighting that many women live in fear of rape and aggressive men, has been illuminating. Even so, I do think that it’s common decency for members of both sexes to treat those who are indicating a (respectful) interest in them to let them down gently if the feeling’s not returned. Nor do I think that someone trying to brush up on their social skills should be lambasted for doing so.
Brooklyn – I agree with you that in my own experience it seems far more socially acceptable for women to ‘objectify’ men – I hope I’m using the term correctly – in the sense of rating them on material things like muscularity, height etc. All of my female friends do this quite unashamedly in male company, whereas most of my male friends only do so amongst other males. I suspect that it may be because there are negative connotations such as the spectre of rape etc. inherent in male objectifying that are not present in the female version.
RJN
– I am interested to know what change in mens’ sexual script you are advocating (in post #71). If it is the ‘sexual persistence’ you refer to elsewhere, then I am in total agreement – no is no, and even if you think it’s not, it’s more ethical to err on the side of caution. We should ‘change’ anyway.
However, I think it’s artificial to characterise it solely as the woman’s problem if she is (hypothetically) interested but wants multiple offers from the man in question (in the context of both parties wanting to have sex). Self serving as Tom Nolan’s claims might be, to me he is raising the question of womens’ ‘gatekeeper’ or ‘reactive’ role in society that you have claimed is quite possibly a proper subject for feminist critique. I for one would be interested in your thoughts on the matter (especially on why making the first move does not equate to being proactive) rather than hearing about why he is self-serving. I think the latter is obvious already; most people’s actions are self-serving (and personally I would have thought feminism generally is too)
euphemism:
I am talking about more than a change in the script, though that is certainly part of what I am talking about. I am talking about a change in the way men understand what it means to be sexual, not merely to be sexual with someone—though that is obviously part of the conversation here—but to be sexual beings in and of ourselves. We (and by we I mean heterosexual men) are taught, or at least I am of the generation when we were still pretty explicitly taught, to think of ourselves not as the initiators of sexual activity, but as the aggressors. Not that anyone opnely condoned actual aggression, but sex was something one, as a man, was supposed to get from women. It was not something that you shared with women, not something you could enjoy in yourself without women or without acting on your sexual feelings towards women (and I want to be clear that I am not talking here only about a particular attitude towards mastubration; I am also talking about the fact that we are taught that our sexual feelings are something we have to act on; we can’t just experience and enjoy them for what they are.) Sex was something you did not have, that you had to go in pursuit of, and if you were going to be successful in your pursuit you had to develop strategies, and those strategies were very clearly intended to get a woman to “give it up” (it is almost always very revealing to look closely at the language we use to talk about sex), to surrender herself and her sex, as it were.
But what if sex were not about “getting?” What would happen if we thought of sex as something shared, a sharing that emerges from two people getting to know each other, trusting each other enough not only to ask for what they want, but also to respect their boundaries if they say no? (And I would point out that there is absolutely no inherent reason why a one-night-stand could not fit into this model.)
I have neither the time nor, frankly, the ability right now to say much more than this, but if you’re really interested in looking at the issues I am talking about in a critical way, I would recommend you read Andrea Dworkin’s book Intercourse. (Though if you get the newest edition, you should skip the introduction by Ariel Levy.) The book is important, in terms of this discussion, not because Dworkin is accurate in terms of everything she has to say about men–though I think she is descriptively pretty damned accurate–but because it is a remarkable exposition of the subtext(s) of the dating/sexual script we are talking about here.
Also, you wrote this:
I think you are disagreeing with me here, but I am not sure precisely what you are disagreeing with.
But what if sex were not about “getting?” What would happen if we thought of sex as something shared, a sharing that emerges from two people getting to know each other, trusting each other enough not only to ask for what they want, but also to respect their boundaries if they say no?
I think that would be great.
I also think that you are (personally) operating at a very high plane of ethical responsibility, consideration, and thoughtfulness (and more power to you).
Do you think it realistic to expect the rest of your species to attain that same level, such that it could become normative and expected as routine?
Tom, quoting Donna, wrote:
In my experience, it comes up pretty infrequently in blogs (although, as Jake and I demonstrated, it does come up). It comes up more frequently in casual conversation, but even then it’s hardly a top-ten-biggest topic. At least, not in my social circles.
However, with all due respect, you’re shifting your goalposts. (Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that; shifting the goalposts is often better than clinging to the original goal with a grip of steel). Earlier this thread, you wrote:
And from one of your comments on Feminist Critics:
These statements of yours imply that feminists ought to be giving “as much emphasis” on encouraging women to be sexually proactive as on reforming the part of the script which evisions sexuality as something that men take from women.
However, rape, sexual harassment, and stalking are outcomes of the “men must be sexually aggressive / women are the sex class” part of the script. Since you’ve agreed that “defending women from rape, sexual harrassment and stalking should be a high feminist priority,” you should understand why feminists see reforming the parts of the script that most directly lead to rape, harassment and stalking as requiring more emphasis.
* * *
Of course, I agree with the statement. But I think that this “vast outnumbering” is justified, and expecting parity on this matter is unreasonable.
Brooklyn wrote:
My lack of height (I’m only 5′6″) and my lack of high income were the real reasons why women rejected me.
Then why do so many other men who are 5’6″ or less and lack a high income find meaningful, romantic relationships? If what you say were true, I never would have been accepted by or pursued by a woman, nor would millions of other men.
Are there women who won’t date short men? Of course. Just as there are some men who won’t date tall women (or fat women or brown-haired women, etc). Yet, the vast majority of short men and of tall women manage to find a partner.
This is what I mean when I say that you’re (the royal “you”, the generic “you”, the class “you”) are looking to place the blame outside of yourselves. Women are to blame, not you. All while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of men with the characteristics that you say women disqualify you by do have relationships (romantic and otherwise) with women.
The problem is not in women’s tastes, motivations or prejudices (which, I might add, are the same as those of men), no matter how much you wish it were so. Nor is feminism, which advocates the elimination of traditional gender roles, to blame for the fact that most women are still reluctant to make the first move.
Robert, you wrote:
By tomorrow, no. In what remains of my lifetime, probably not—though my sense from having taught college students for almost 20 years is that progress, small and uneven as it might be, has been made. In my son’s lifetime? Well, who knows how far we will get if men, and I cannot stress enough that it is men whose responsibility I am talking about here, decide we want to change. The point is that if you believe the change is good and necessary, then you need to work towards it. I mean, have I always lived up to the standard(s) I am talking about? God, no–though I would hope I have gotten a hell of a lot better at it as I have gotten older. It’s not about purity and perfection and you’re a failure if you are not; it’s about the work, doing it as honestly and with as much integrity as you can, and about owning up when you fuck up and taking your licks for it when you deserve them. The people who matter, men and women, will respect you for that, but, more to the point, you begin to find, as I have, that it’s the people who respect you for that who become the one that matter. (I think that might be a tautology, but I am in too much of a rush to fix it.)
(Edited to add: I also think it’s interesting that you left out in your quoting of me what I said about one night stands.)
euphemism,
Yes, you are correct when you say that women objectify men unashamedly.
While women object to objectification of women such as the presentation of the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, they have absolutely no trouble with naked Dallas Cowboy players being interviewed on national TV with their pectorals and posteriors in open display. Despite all this talk that feminism would liberate both women and men, women still measure the worthiness of a man by his size, strength, muscularity, and the amount of money that he possesses.
As you can see from the above posts, even a feminist like Donna subconsciously does the same by categorizing men as either an arty type or a manly type. Thus, even a feminist openly measures men in such a sexist manner though it is likely an unintentional mistake on her part.
Again, this does not necessarily mean that all women are that way. But it continues to happen and, somehow, men continue to get blamed exclusively for this problem. I respectfully suggest that women are equally to blame. It may not be fashionable or politically correct to say so, but it sure deserves a great deal of thought.
Despite all this talk that feminism would liberate both women and men, women still measure the worthiness of a man by his size, strength, muscularity, and the amount of money that he possesses.
And what’s wrong with that? As far as I recall, feminism never promised it was going to make women’s choices less shallow. It just promised that it would be women getting to make the choices.
I’ll concede that many individual feminists have absurd and/or unexamined double standards. (“Don’t judge me by your patriarchal beauty standards, love me for my unique and beautiful personhood…ew get away, you’re short and socially inept.”)
But those are individuals, not the philosophy. The philosophy is just about choice.
“what’s wrong with that?“
I realize that you are not speaking for feminists or the feminist movement in general. But if we are to have a society free of prejudice (which is an avowed goal of feminism), ALL persons must refrain from unfair or unjustifiable double standards. Since this was such an avowal, feminists are obligated to practice what they preach and to apply a co-equal standard to everyone.
But if we are to have a society free of prejudice (which is an avowed goal of feminism), ALL persons must refrain from unfair or unjustifiable double standards.
Nah. We simply have to refrain from standards rooted in prejudice. Standards rooted in utility are fine. It isn’t OK for me to dislike Amp because he’s a man. It’s fine for me to dislike Amp because he’s a jerk. (For the record, Amp is in fact a fine person whom I like a great deal.)
The characteristics you listed – strength, size, wealth – are all reasonable characteristics to make many decisions on, and certainly are reasonable to make reproductive or sexual decisions on. I’m married, but if I were single, I would be looking for a partner with positive attributes, including health, an attractive-to-me size, and wealth.
hmm..
Ok..so Im going to seriously down to the basics
Shy men want to learn how to approach and talk to women, right?
Well, which woman? What does she like? What are her interests?
Feminism IS telling you how to approach women and not be viewed as an asshole. Its very simple. You treat that 1 woman you’d like to speak to as an individual just like you are and not like she’s part of a monlolith called WOMEN.
Be polite
Ask about her interests
Offer some of your interests
Look her in the eyes
Offer right up fron that you find it difficult to speak to a woman you don’t know and that you’re trying to overcome that because you are interested in HER. Not her body or potencial dating.
And once again, this varies depending on which specific individual woman you are speaking with. One woman may appreciate it. Another may be annoyed that you interrupted her solitude. Yet another may be flattered but simply not be interested in you no matter how nice you may be. Or another may be intersted in someone else. One may think you’re an asshole no matter how polite you are. Another may be just as shy and have no idea how to respond.
Get it yet?
There ISNT one way to speak to women or approach women, because women are individuals. Just like there isnt one way to approach men.
“if I were single, I would be looking for a partner with positive attributes…“
I am not one to engage in arm twisting so there is no way to change your preference.
But why do you suppose it is so acceptable for women to openly express the prejudices mentioned above whereas men cannot?
I am not one to engage in arm twisting so there is no way to change your preference….But why do you suppose it is so acceptable for women to openly express the prejudices mentioned above whereas men cannot?
As far as I can see, there is no particular discrepancy between the sexes in the social acceptability of their expressing their preferences. I hear women saying they want a tall rich guy; I hear men saying they want a hot blonde gal; I hear women saying they like sensitive guys with huge johnsons; I hear men saying they like self-reliant women with huge brains. It’s all good, bro.
As far as changing my preferences goes, it isn’t your self-restraint that prevents it; it’s the fact that my preferences are decided by me, not by you.
“not by you“
Bingo.
As for the idea that men openly express such preferences for certain women, I cannot honestly say that I see that today. Perhaps it is a regional thing but here in the midwest men never say such things in the open. But women still make their preferences well known. And this proves the point that society does have a double standard as we both stated previously.
The upshot of all this being that we will never solve the problem shown on the topic heading unless and until such double standards are eliminated. If we are to have that egalitarian society that feminists promised all those years ago, we will have to end those double standards. And unfortunately, few feminists take women to task for their standards though they are quick to impose their demands upon men.
Thanks very much for your input.
You know, I have once or twice before linked on Alas to this essay about a sexual experience I had when I was teaching English in South Korea. Given the questions that have been raised here about the sexual/dating scripts, women’s sexual proactiveness (or lack thereof), assumptions about men’s proactiveness, etc. it seems to me worth linking to again. The editors at Salon.com called it Sexual Charades in Seoul, which I didn’t like at the time. I like it more now because of the way it foregrounds sexuality as performance, though I also have to say I would write this essay very differently were I to write it today. (Duh! It’s almost 20 years old.) I wish I had acknowledged much more clearly the implications and possibilities of inaccuracy and bias in relying on my friends to undersand the behavior of Eun Jung, the pseudonym I have given to the woman in the essay. Nonetheless, as far as I have been able to tell–and I have given this essay to more than a few people from Korea to read over the years, some of them women who identify as feminist–the understanding put forth in the piece is accurate in general.
Perhaps not the men you know.
Be the female that meets the majority of male preference, and I guarantee you’ll know it, no matter what region you’re in.
I’d suggest perusing through personal ads. You’ll find that men even from the midwest have no problem getting pretty specific about their preferences.
That being said, there’s nothing wrong with having personal preferences. Its when those preferences stray into wanting a non human that causes problems, or when those preferances mean everyone who doesnt meet them are non human. Or when those preferences are there soley to boost your own self esteem or make you look good in the eyes of your peers. Shallow preferences tend to bite you in the ass, male or female.
Also, there’s a difference in saying I prefer someone with a healthy body and NO FAT CHICKS. Or I prefer a thick head of hair and NO BALDIES. You may not be attracted to heavier women or balding men, but that doesnt mean you get to drop basic courtesy and decency at the door.
Damn, that’s excellent, Richard.
I remember reading it when it was first published, but I had no idea it was you!
But they rarely find time and space for the issue of sexual proactivity (especially verbal proactivity) and the lack thereof amongst women.
Untrue. Consider that ‘sexual proactivity’, in an antifeminist culture, is considered inappropriate behavior for women; at best a sign of desperation, at worst a signal that the woman is “asking for it” and wants and deserves whatever sexual attention she gets. Why do you think that feminists wouldn’t talk about this?
Showing my age here, but online discussions of “Oh yeah? Well if you broads are so goddamn feminist why don’t YOU ask MEN out, huh?!?!” in my recollection go all the way back to Usenet. So it’s not as though it’s never been a subject of the discussion; it’s just that, perhaps, feminists are tired of that and “why don’t you shave your legs?” as being the first and only subjects that nonfeminists think worthy of discussion on the topic.
“that doesnt mean you get to drop basic courtesy and decency at the door“
Amen to that. All people need to drop preconceived certain notions and to accept prospective mates or friends on the content of their hearts and character, not their outward appearances.
Brooklyn, there are two fallacies in your comments that I would say fall under the category of “feminism 101” — basic aspects of feminist thought that you aren’t indicating any awareness of. Even if you disagree with “feminism 101,” you’d seem smarter and better-informed if your criticisms of feminism indicated that you’re aware of the basics of feminism; without that, you’re not really criticizing feminism, you’re just criticizing some fictional stereotypes of feminism.
First of all, your arguments don’t account for context. As far as pressure to be beautiful goes, women and men grow up in very different contexts; women are far, far more pressured to evaluate their worth based on their looks, and are much more likely to be judged based on their looks in everyday life. Therefore, while “lookist” comments can be bad for anybody, they’re especially likely to do harm — and therefore more objectionable — when they’re aimed at women.
(To use a clearer example, holocaust jokes are always tacky and tasteless, but they’re even more offensive if you go to the Jewish community center to tell them. Context matters.)
Second, many of your comments boil down to asking “why don’t feminists campaign for improving men’s lives too?” This blog has one answer to that.
Of course, my answer is: They Do.
By addressing the underlying inequality of our society, feminists help to create a world that is more equal and better for both women and men. The fact that they do this from a female-centered perspective doesn’t change the basic fact.
—Myca
euphemism:
Right. As a man, I accept my role as initiator, and I don’t blame feminists for not being more vocal in encouraging women to take up that role. I don’t expect the sexual marketplace ever to change so radically that men who are proactive won’t have a huge advantage over men who aren’t. In any case, it’s easier to change myself than to change the world, and I don’t have time to wait for the revolution.
What I do object to is feminists like Q Grrl attacking men for trying to fulfill that role (not to mention her suggestion that men with subpar social skills should just know their place rather than trying to improve their lot in life). I understand that, as Jake pointed out, hers is not The Official Feminist Position on the topic, but feminists who disagree with her aren’t as vocal about it, so hers is the opinion that gets heard the most outside of feminist circles.
Myca:
I’ve seen feminists argue both that sexism is on the balance harmful to men (as you seem to be doing here), and also that virtually all men benefit from sexism (see Ampersand here). Is this a point on which you disagree, or can these claims be reconciled somehow?
Brandon Berg,
I gotta tell you that I agree with Q Grrl in that if a man I did not know approached me, out of the blue, in a place where I am by myself (park bench, was it?) and attempted to strike up a conversation with me, I guaran-damn-tee you I would find the situation and the man creepy, and not only that, personally threatening.
Generally I am very pleasant and polite with people I encounter at, say, the grocery store or in other situations in which many people are around.
But by myself, no one around for yards? You’re lucky the women you approached grew up conditioned by the patriarchy not to hurt men’s feelings and did not instead shoot first and ask questions later.
Sorry, what you profess to have done is, honestly, beyond the pale. It bugged me when I read it on the original thread.
Brandon:
I don’t believe that there is a conflict.
Think of sexism like ice cream.
Let’s think of a world in which men are the only ones allowed to have ice cream, and they are encouraged to gorge themselves on as much ice cream as they can possibly stomach, all the time, while there is a very very strong social taboo against women ever eating any ice cream at all.
In this world, virtually all men have the benefit of ‘access to ice cream.’
In this same world, both women and men would be better off if access to ice cream was more egalitarian, less socially enforced, and more based on personal choice.
—Myca
Brandon,
Myca answered for me in part. Perhaps it is you who is not aware that , indeed, feminists do claim that their ideology works to improve the lot for men as well as women. If you have read the writings of Margaret Mead, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and other feminists from the 1960s, each said that feminism is designed to improve life for both genders.
The problem is, however, that I honestly do not see how it has improved life for men, especially those from the inner cities.
You are correct that women are under greater social pressure to have greater looks than are men. But men are under greater pressure to meet certain social norms for height, strength, and remuneration. We have now seen a couple of posts here in which it has been said that men do openly assert prejudices against women who are too weighty or unattractive. While it is likely that there are some who dare to say so openly, I am honestly not aware of any who has done so. But I guarantee that, as others have mentioned, that women openly and boldly assert their preference for macho men and for those who are possessed of large amounts of money.
To this day I personally have never seen or read of feminists advising women that short men or those from poor backgrounds are equally desirable as are tall, wealthy types. But perhaps you are aware of writings that will prove my assumption wrong. If you know of any such sources, please provide a few links and I will read them.
Brooklyn, I think you’ve got a slightly skewed notion of what feminism claims. Feminists don’t advise women that they should date short poor men because hyper-egalitarianism like that isn’t part of feminism’s core message. There are a lot of hyper-egalitarians who are also feminist (and that might be the source of your confusion) – but feminism is about respecting women as fully human. Well, part of being fully human is rejecting other people for various things because they don’t measure up, and having that control over the personal sphere honored by the rest of society.
Feminism doesn’t mean that you have to pretend Roseanne Barr is pretty if you don’t think she is; it means that you’re not allowed to pretend that Roseanne Barr isn’t a human being. You can be as feminist as the day is long, and still reject short guys or ugly gals or poor women or rich guys or whatever else your heart moves you to.
If you wanna bash hyper-egalitarians for their hypocrisy (which is often rampant), go nuts, but that isn’t really a strike against feminism, any more than it’s a strike against capitalism to note that Bill Gates gives money away.
You havent seen it because feminism isnt about getting a man.