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?
Richard
I think I’ve about done for now. Just a word or two before clearing off back to FCs for a bit.
Re: the meaning of “proactive”. Let’s just agree to differ, eh?
I don’t think that feminism either can or should impel women to become sexually proactive. Only that it would be consonant with feminism’s aim of fostering the happiness of women if it encouraged them to be sexually proactive. Not because it helps shy guys get laid (there’s no guarantee that shy guys would be the beneficiaries of increased female proactivity). But because women miss out on what they want (for example a sexual encounter with some young man whom they desire, but who is too obtuse to read non-verbal signs) if they are unwilling to say what they want.
(boldface mine)
Compare the case of the girl whose reactionary upbringing has imbued her with values which prevent her developing her intellect or talent. Would you have me say, “As long as we reserve places for girls of her potential at university we’ve done enough. If women don’t come forward because the cultural indoctrination they have suffered forbids it, then that’s their problem. What’s it to me, as long as I’ve no cause to reproach myself ? ”
Most of the important people in my life are women, Richard. Their happiness is of importance to me, their problems are my problems.
I think that feminist behaviour in men is well worth the price of less sex for both men and women – though I think we should be honest and acknowledge that it is a price. But the more proactive women are sexually, the lower that price will have to be. Young Jake’s reticence, his unwillingness to make assumptions about the intentions of the women he has since come to realize were hitting on him, was eminently compatible with feminism: no feminist (qua feminist) will ever complain that a man shows too little sexual interest in a woman (or vice versa, naturally). But if those women had been verbally explicit about their desires, both Jake and they might have been much the happier for it.
Robert says “feminism is about respecting women as fully human”.
That much is true, in theory. But as a couple of feminist writers above have said, it is also about liberating both men and women.
Ok, if you don’t want to see that way, fine. But if you did read the writings I alluded to above, you would have seen that this has been their basic premise all along.
.
Feminism does encourage women to assert themselves sexually. Really. Feminsts are not the ones engaging in slut shaming, promoting the cult of virginity, telling teenagers that their sexuality is like chewing gum (once it’s been chewed, it’s gross and no one else will want it), telling people that masturbating is a sin, or that sex outside of a committed heterosexual relationship is immoral and wrong.
I think Heather Corinna at Scarleteens sums up feminist attitudes about sex really well when she says that feminism sex education:
.
Here’s the link.
Which is exactly the point I addressed way back in comment 53. Y’know all that stuff about feminists promoting non-judgemental sex ed, access to abortion and birth control in order separate sexual intercourse from reproduction, empowering women by putting their health (particularly their sexual health) into their own hands. And of course there are the feminists like Betty Dodson who wrote books telling women to learn what they liked sexually through masturbation (and encouraging them to share that information with their partners), Nancy Friday who published books of women’s sexual fantasies and encouraged women to explore their own. All of these things are about getting women to explore their own sexuality, and become confident in their own desires. And that’s what all the feminists on this thread have been saying over and over again, and somehow that’s not enough.
So what would be enough? What would feminists, wielding our enormous social power *snort* have to do to prove that we actually want women to have the kinds of romantic and/or sexual relationships that they desire (or none at all if so inclined)? What more could we be doing to tell girls and women (and boys and men) that we think that women are sexual beings who have an inherent right to enjoy their own bodies and sexualities? The only “proof” that has been offered to show that feminists aren’t doing these things are a lack of posts in the feminist blogosphere about women iniating sexual and romantic relationships with men (am I missing something? was other evidence offered?).
What does that mean? Is feminism actively harming inner city men (which I’m reading as code for men of colour and poor men)? Is feminism responsible for thear war on drugs, police brutality, the prison industrial complex, gangs, and grossly underfunded inner city schools?
Richard:
No need to say much more; I appreciate the response as is. I will say that (on first reading) I certainly share your view w.r.t. the “aggressor” mentality, and echo Robert’s remark that you seem to be operating on a very high plane of ethical responsibility etc.
In clarifying the disagreement you (correctly) perceived, I mean merely that where there is mutual attraction between two people but both are afraid to initiate, it is in a practical sense a detriment (“problem”) for both of them. I see where you’re coming from in that if the man initiates sensitively instead of acting out the aggresive conventional dating/sexual script, he has fulfilled his ethical responsibility. But if the woman in question does not respond to “pick up the slack” because she is afraid of social sanction or too geared towards the conventional script to take a more active role, then I repeat it is (potentially) a “problem” in the sense of net detriment to both parties.
In any case it is a minor point – in saying the above I am not saying that it is at all the hypothetical woman’s fault, or that of feminism. I guess I am saying that the (IMO laudable) goal of changing the dating script may result in confusion and a initiatory vacuum that is of detriment to both sexes, and is therefore prima facie a proper topic for feminist debate (even if raised by obviously self-interested parties, such as myself). I think you conceded as much earlier. However it certainly does pale in comparison to other problems possibly generated by that same script. It may not even a problem – I only have vague anecdotal evidence (observations of older people) to suggest that (younger) people tend to be more socially inhibited in the dating context these days than in previous generations.
Brooklyn:
I am glad that someone else has also perceived this “unashamed objectification” by many women. I am a novice to reading about feminist/gender issues, and it can be helpful to clarify which issues seem to be exclusively caused by the actions of men (e.g. rape) and which members of both sexes seem to be guilty of (e.g. objectification) and are therefore more general social ills.
Perhaps it is way too optimistic to expect what Robert calls a “hyper-egalitarian” society. I fear I am too ignorant of feminist or patriarchy theory or history to state that women “are equally to blame” for shallow preferences, but I do suspect we would all be happier if we could abandon our own. I know I would be.
Bonnie:
Though somewhat surprised by your response to Brandon Berg I will certainly note it in case I ever consider approaching a girl in public in the future. From what I can gather it is that “no one [is] around for yards” which would make the hypothetical situation threatening…
However I suspect you may be a little off when you suggest that the approachee’s politeness is due to patriarchial conditioning. I can’t say its common, but I can recall at least one (seemingly drug-addled) young lady doing the same to me – though I do think she was just bored after having bummed a cigarette rather than practicing her conversation skills. It wouldn’t even have occured to me to have “shot first”.
I wonder if the different attitudes I am gleaning here are to do with different cultural contexts and factors (e.g. congestion, violence etc). I am lucky enough to live in Australia, where it seems relatively common to chat to people in public – I don’t think rates of violent crime have reached the level of the US here yet. On the other hand, I lived also in HK, where I suspect the same behaviour would have been frowned upon – quite possibly because everyone is in everyone else’s face there all the time anyway.
I think some confusion in this discussion stems from failing to distinguish between these claims:
1. That women should initiate more with men sexually, according to feminist principles.
2. That women would benefit from initiating more, according to feminist principles.
The answer to Richard Jeffrey Newman’s question, “Why must it follow logically from feminist principles that women, as a class of people, should be sexually proactive?” is that it doesn’t follow. Feminist principles don’t require women to initiate sexually, nor should they (that is #1 above). Yet Tom and I are arguing a separate claim, which is #2 (and men would benefit also).
Another confusion occurs over what Tom and I think feminists are doing or not doing with regards to women and initiating sexual activity with men:
1. Advocating that women should have the choice to initiate.
2. Actively encouraging women to initiate and teaching them the skills to do so.
As many posters in this thread have shown, feminists do a decent job of #1: advocating that women should have the choice to initiate, and not be restricted from doing so. Tom and I aren’t disagreeing that feminists make this case, and that it is a good thing that they do so. What we are saying is that feminists are not doing #2 (actively encouraging women to initiate and teaching them the skills to do so) in any significant way.
Feminism discourages discouraging women from being sexually assertive. That’s not the same thing as actually encouraging sexual assertiveness, though. Giving women choices to break out of femininity isn’t really a “choice” if they don’t have the skills to do so. Without giving women those skills, they might just default back to the feminine script, and “choose” to be passive.
And initiating sexually is a skill that must be learned, because the practices of heterosexuality are socially constructed, as many feminists have argued. Some people just pick up this skill more easily; others need teaching. Where is feminism actually teaching women how to initiate with men, in addition to saying how women shouldn’t be restricted from initiating? In this thread and in Amp’s links, I’m not seeing any example of feminists doing so.
I’m interested in a couple claims about women’s preferences in men, which are starkly at odds with current research:
Donna Darko said:
How would you know this? If this describes your preferences, how can you be so sure that they generalize?
The notion that women are attracted to “sensitive artist types” as much as “manly men” is not supported by empirical research on female preferences in men. I recently summarized some of this research on my blog.
Jake Squid said:
The question is not “can short men attract women?” Of course they can. The question is “can short men attract women as easily?” The answer is a well-documented “no.”
Hensley, W. (1994). Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence, 29, 469-474.
Nettle, D. (2002). Height and reproductive success in a cohort of British men. Human Nature, 13, 473-491. (login probably required)
Furthermore, female preferences for height in men is influenced by the phase of their menstrual cycles (just like female preferences for masculine faces, voice, and dominant behavior):
Pawlowski, B. & Jasienska, G. (2005). Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected duration of relationship. Biological Psychology, 70, 38-43.
These results suggest that a biological mechanism is a factor underlying female choice for taller men.
Amp, before I respond in detail to your points, I would like to ask you a few questions to better understand your position:
– Is it plausible to you that feminist socialization of men (e.g. anti-rape, anti-harassment, anti-pressure, anti-objectification anti-male chauvinist pig) can have the side effect of giving a minority of men (particularly shy, socially unskilled, and sexually inexperienced men) psychological difficulty initiating heterosexual activity, and/or shame and guilt around their sexuality? If so, to what degree?
– If this was happening, do you think feminists could be reasonably be expected to anticipate it?
– If this was happening, and feminists could be expected to anticipate it, do you have a problem with feminist socialization having that effect on men in order to decrease sexual violence towards women? Is it totally justified, a necessary evil, or unjustified? Or, perhaps to state this more precisely, how much of a negative effect on men would have to occur before you would start to have a problem with it? If 99% of men were unable to initiate sexually with women at all and ashamed of their sexuality, male-on-female sexual violence would be virtually eliminated, but what the toll on men be OK with you? How about 50%? 10%?
– If this was happening, do you think there might be ways that feminists could socialize men towards feminist goals in ways that don’t have these hypothetical negative affects on their psychosexual functioning? (or have them to a lesser degree)
– If such solutions are feasible, what kind of responsibility do feminists have to look for such solutions, and implement them? In other words, if there are two feasible approaches to socialize men with feminist ethics, one which harms some of them psychosexually, and one that does not (or harms them less), would feminists have a moral responsibility to try to implement the second solution?
– If this was happening, and feminists refused to look for or implement non-zero-sum solutions, would it still be accurate to describe those feminists as promoting egalitarian romantic interactions between men and women? Or would they be promoting an inequality that they see as justified by women’s interests?
debbie said:
How does discouraging restrictions on women actually encourage them to assert themselves sexually? You might need the first to accomplish the second, but the first does not create the second by itself.
debbie asks, “Is feminism actively harming inner city men”
There can be no question that feminism has improved the lot for suburbanites as it has given white women access to high pay jobs — access that had unfairly been denied in previous years. Therefore, it has doubled the income for upper classes and enabled the rich to get richer.
But this has not been the experience in the inner city.
The point I made above was that while feminism was said by its early advocates to be an ideology that was to benefit ALL people, I have seen no demonstrative improvement in the lives of most men, especially those from the inner city. This is not to say that feminism has actively sought to bring harm to anyone, only that it has not resulted in palpable benefits to certain social segments. As someone who is from an inner city, I can personally attest to that.
This could change if upper class feminists married poorer men but that has not happened in the years since feminism has been advocated or practiced in the past 40 years.
“taller males do enjoy a noticeable dating advantage”
Precisely.
The problem here is that feminists who have been claiming all along that they believe in and actively promote a totally egalitarian society have done nothing to change that.
Again, contrary to what anti-feminists have said on this forum, feminism is said by its advocates to liberate PEOPLE — it is not nor was it ever said to be restricted towards liberating women to the exclusion of men. This is why I have always supported the THEORY of feminism.
The problem is that feminists never practiced what they preached — dating and marriage to shorter and/or poorer men would have set a good example that would have proven their purported quest for social egalitarianism. But it never happened and I suspect that it never will.
I am an Aspie. Asperger’s is a Autism Spectrum condition characterised by, inter alia marked deficits in ‘natural’ socialisation. A useful analogy might be that we learn social skills like a second language, while neurotypicals are native speakers.
Aspies and other autistics have enhansed abilities in other areas. For example, I have exceptional pattern memory. One of my hobbies is drumming. I have no great natural rhythmic talent, but I can rember complex rhythms that I was shown on a single occasion several years ago. Neurotypicals generally take a while to memorise a rhythm, and if it is not continuously refreshed though practice, will forget it fairly quickly. I don’t.
Is Asperger’s a disorder? Who gets to decide what is disordered and what isn’t? When a group of people come together to engage in a common activity (such as making music) Aspies usually want to get on with it. The ability of neurotypicals to waste the entire group’s time with idle chit-chat for minutes on end seems pretty disordered to me.
I think you should check your neurotypical privilege.
Hugh:
Just to be clear, I am not saying that feminism has had a damaging effect on my ability to have sex and relationships. My ability was damaged long before I had any significant contact with feminism.
I think there is one group of men who probably do get less access to sex as a result of feminism: men who want to have sex with unwilling partners. Feminism makes it harder to get away with rape, and makes it less likely that women will be in situations where their job or financial security or children’s safety depends on having sex with men they otherwise wouldn’t want to have sex with. Feminism at least contributes to making women more confident and aware so they are less likely to fall for men who try to con them into sex. Some of those men probably don’t consider themselves rapists, but rather Nice Guys who are less able to find victi… er, partners as a result of feminism. I can’t say I’m crying over their sad fate, though.
I know that not all men are confident in the dating arena. I’m all in favour of such men getting together and providing eachother with advice and support. It’s just when the advice consists of tricks for selecting women with poor self-esteem and manipulating them emotionally, and the support consists of complaining about how much women suck, that it becomes rather creepy.
I agree with Amp that it isn’t really the job of feminism to help men become more successful at dating. Sorry, it’s just more important that women are safe from rape and coerced sex, than it is that unattractive men get access to sex. Actually, I do think feminism is likely to make things better for unattractive men, but even if it has the opposite effect, that’s a price that has to be paid.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
The answer to Richard Jeffrey Newman’s question, “Why must it follow logically from feminist principles that women, as a class of people, should be sexually proactive?” is that it doesn’t follow.
It does follow. Your framing is incorrect. It follows logically from feminist principles that being sexually proactive should not be alloted to one group of people because of their gender; in other words, that it’s not the man’s role to approach and the woman’s role to wait.
I think you should check your neurotypical privilege.
I think you should stop making dumbfuck assumptions about whether or not I myself am “neurotypical”. Even if it comes at the expensive of your victim complex.
Taller PEOPLE are percieved to be more intelligent. Of either gender.
My short, non rich geeky husband would disagree.
And Im sorry, but to make your assertation, you’re going to have to show that feminists are married to or exclusively dating tall men.
And are you just ignoring the fact that feminists tell women to date who they like, figure out what they want and go for it? Because we know all women have different tastes in men, the “date who you like” covers short men too.
Oh and at 4’11, pretty much everyone is tall to me.
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.
Not following. A traditional culture where men are expected to do all the initiating, and women never to initiate, is better for socially inept, shy men than a culture where there are no gendered expectations about who initiates?
As far as “acknowledging” your experience. imagine that I complained that a feminist society makes my life harder because I have to earn my own living instead of depending on a man to pay my way. I assume you would acknowledge and honor my experience, and totally understand why I prefer the old ways?
“at 4′11, pretty much everyone is tall to me“
At that height, just be glad you weren’t born male.
——————————————————————
One last point about feminism and its purported quest to improve life for both genders:
Way back around 1970, there was a very important case dealing with discrimination where it was male victims of gender based bias. This was in the airline industry where men complained that they were not being hired as airline stewards. When they initially sought legal counseling they had trouble getting their cases heard. That is, until several feminist lawyers stood up for them and broke the discriminatory pattern of hiring female flight attendants exclusively.
Those of you advocates who know your feminist “herstory” can fill the board members in on the details to that important case. And it should prove conclusively that feminism was intended to benefit BOTH genders.
Bottom line: feminists are obligated in a sense to help single, shy guys to get “laid”. With all kidding set aside, yes, feminists must help improve life for everyone regardless of gender. It is the foundation of your principles. And it is your failure to do so for men that has caused society to disregard your views.
Pheeno
Well I actually look taller when I’m thinking hard. It’s because my head comes to a point.
This discussion is incredibly interesting to me. I’m an extremely shy, socially inept female who has had problems dating because I absolutely do not know how to flirt or show interest in a man. I tend to look very “closed off” or uninterested because I’m very insecure. Men simply do not approach me, especially not the shy, socially inept men that I tend to be interested in.
Ironically, I carried around a lot of bitterness towards men before I found feminism. In some ways, I was like a female “Nice Guy”. I watched my amazing, nerdy male friends pine for sororiety girls and secretly resented them for not realizing how well I could treat them. I had this insane fear of appearing desperate. In my mind, asking for what you wanted, as a woman, was an act of desperation. After all, as you point out, women in the media are always pursued, they never have to ask.
I think feminism taught me that being frank about what I want doesn’t make me desperate. It also taught me to look critically at what I saw happening in the media and shed some of the shame I felt for not being a “normal”, socialable woman. It’s also really, really hard to be a woman who can’t make small talk, since the dominant belief is that all women are “chatty”.
Sorry if this is pointless and overly personal, but I just wanted to share my experience. By the way, I love reading this blog!
P.S. I managed to make the first move with my husband, who is an inch shorter than me and teaches high school history for a living (I guess he’s not really poor, but definitely not rich).
The sensitive artist type is just as “hot” as manly men. Young women seem to like actors and musicians like Jake Gyllenhall, Rain, etc. Older women like sensitive artist types too like Colbert, Salon.com’s 2006 Sexiest Man Living. He’s not manly. “Hot” isn’t just looks but personality, interests, feminism, charm. In Colbert’s case, the hot personality trait was bravery.
euphemism –
Am I correct to assume you’re a man?
Women NOT approaching men is not universal, certainly. Many many humans inhabit this planet.
Brandon Berg’s tactic is creepy, rude, intrusive, frightening, threatening. To echo someone else’s question upthread, does he approach men in the same way? To me it sounds an awful lot like targeting, or cutting someone out of the heard.
Women aren’t out in public for strangers to talk to, to “practice” their social skills – especially when the women are by themselves, enjoying the park, the solitude, thinking about their finals or their families – just leave us alone when we’re alone. Respect us and our space. That’s all.
As for differences between the U.S. and Australia, I would posit that comparisons would be better between, say, big cities, or suburban areas, or rural areas.
And it is your failure to do so for men that has caused society to disregard your views.
So, until shy men start having to lock their doors to keep all the hot chicks away, feminism is a failure?
Bonnie:
I don’t know where you got “no one around for yards,” but you didn’t get it from me. Unless you meant it in a very technical sense, like two or three yards. I’m not stupid. Really. I wouldn’t approach a strange woman in any circumstances that would give her cause to fear for her safety.
And to preemptively address some other objections, I’d like to point out that this didn’t happen at 2:00 AM, I wasn’t carrying a bloody machete, and our conversation did not include a twenty minute rant about how much women suck.
I have to admit, I’ve had strangers talk to me in public spaces, and (when the strangers haven’t had mental disabilities making them hard to talk to) I’ve often really enjoyed the experience.
Am I alone in not wanting a society in which no one ever interacts in public spaces unless they already know each other? Is this something that only men are able to enjoy, in our current society?
I wouldn’t approach a strange woman in any circumstances that would give her cause to fear for her safety.
Brandon, you’re still not getting it. Your perception of whether a woman should, objectively, be threatened, is not the same as hers. Especially since if she incorrectly assesses the situation, she’ll be blamed for having been stupid and insufficiently careful. Your position seems to be that you aren’t a threat, therefore it’s incumbent on women to be practice fodder for your social skills. You don’t seem to understand that from your subject’s POV, you’re a stranger who has decided to approach her for his own reasons.
Amp, why turn to the reducto ad absurdam? Nobody has advocated a world in which NO ONE, EVER interacts with strangers in public spaces. (That would make it rather hard to, say, ask a bank teller to cash your paycheck, don’t you think?)
I’m glad I dropped by Alas a Blog again. Threads like this teach me things.
Oh please. Like I didnt catch shit for always being THE shortest person around my entire life. Men actually PICK ME UP without asking. Physically pick me the fuck up off the ground. It’s not as if its any easier. Like Im not saturated with media portrayals of women with legs longer than my entire body and havent noticed that men in general like women with long legs. If my tits werent so huge, they’d still look at me like I was 12. When they do find it sexy, they think its cute to stand as close to me as possible and I wont even get into they ways they try to intimidate me. Men pat me on the head and tell me how cute I am *retch* or use my head as an armrest. Not just men I know. Total fucking strangers will do it. Then there’s the BJ jokes. Ya know, if my head was flat they could set their beer on top while they got head from me. So play that sad little song somewhere else and stop looking at everything from a man centric point of view. Its not worse when you’re a man, its just not as fucking sexual. I’d prefer to throw down and fight rather than deal with all the other shit.
Male victims of male gender bias. Ya know, because serving people is womens work.
Feminists arent your mommy. There are messes that you’ve made that you’re going to have to get yourself out of. Thats called being a Grown Up. Gender bias is one of those messes men made, and so far, men arent doing much about it. So if there’s a failure here, it belongs to those who arent doing jack.
Bonnie:
Okay, I’m getting really confused now. Aren’t women people, too? That is, aren’t they basically just like men, except that they’re 99 and 44/100 percent less oppressive? If I were to assume that women were radically different from me and other men, wouldn’t that be “othering?”
Personally, I would be delighted if I were sitting around in a public place and an attractive woman started talking to me. Even if the first thing out of her mouth was “Hi! I’m practicing talking to strangers!” (Actually, I suspect I’d find that quite endearing.) And I guarantee you that the vast majority of men would tell you the same thing. Are you saying that women do differ from men in such a radical way?
Mythago:
It seems fairly obvious (to me, at least), that Ampersand is talking about social interaction, not business transactions. And I don’t see that this is a reductio ad absurdum. It really does seem to me that you all are saying that men should never interact socially with women without having previously been introduced.
What women have been taught to fear differs in such a radical way. We’re taught to fear strange men who approach us, especially when no one else is around. You could be a rapist, and then it would be our own fault for being stupid enough to talk to you when no one else was around. This is why most rape advice is harmful. The woman you spoke to was in more danger from a boyfriend/husband/friend than you, but you’re the one she’s been taught to fear. The result? She’ll have a higher chance of being raped by an aquaintance and you’ll likely get viewed as a rapist and avoided.
Mythago, I understood that no one is saying that a bank teller talking to a customer — or other such transactions where strangers talking to each other is unavoidable — is unacceptable.
But a few folks seem to be saying that it’s never acceptable for anyone in a public place to try and strike up a just-for-enjoyment conversation with a stranger. That isn’t the kind of society I’d prefer to live in.
(But, as I said in my earlier comment, I’m open to the possibility that my view here might be just a male privilege thing.)
I would be cautious about talking to a strange woman in public, largely for the reason that (as Pheeno notes) I may not be accurately gauging their perceived level of threat. I’d be cautious about talking to a man, too, but less so, since I know that he’s not likely to be worried about me raping him.
That said, there’s talking to strangers in public, and there’s talking to strangers in public. Following a woman who’s walking down the street at 1 AM saying “hey…hey…hey, why won’t you talk to me?!?!!” = inappropriate. Walking past a smiling woman sitting on a park bench at noon and saying “lovely day, isn’t it?” = OK.
Broadly, if someone is out in public being idle, then it isn’t reasonable for them to have the same expectation of privacy or non-interactive solitude that they would have sitting in their house. There is an expectation of control – if I don’t want to talk to you, and signal that, then you should honor my social cues. But I wouldn’t sit on a park bench with a feeling that “nobody better talk to me unless I invite it”; since people who are feeling that antisocial generally don’t go sit on park benches, it’s reasonable for others to assume that I’m at least potentially open to social interaction, and to essay a “hello”.
1. What pheeno said.
2. Amp – I do not advocate never speaking to anyone one does not know. That’s just silly. And yes, the possibility that it’s male privilege speaking is strong.
3. Brandon – my mistake. I realize now you were in a busy place. However, I stand by my assertion that “practicing” one’s social skills on random women has the potential to be problematic (see 1).
Oh, for Christ’s sake Brandon. You’re looking for a Mother not a Girlfriend. What I have said, and what I think should be most obvious, is that it is neither a specific woman’s responsibility, nor feminism’s responsibility, to help men with their social skills. I said nothing about place, etc., but nice spin!
Feminism has no responsibility for men’s success in finding women to be intimate with. Even the most socially crippled man can still purchase a woman for the sole purpose of fucking, so cry me a river why don’t you.
Besides, if feminism didn’t cause your shyness, why in the hell do you think it should cure it? Oh, yeah – because you want a woman to fix you.
Grow up. All of you. Each man on here that has whined about what feminism hasn’t done for you, I ask: what in the hell have you ever done for feminism? And then I say: if feminism has to waste its time of nurturing men’s intimate relationships, then it isn’t feminism and is just the same old, same old, dressed up in modern hipster fashion.
Women don’t need that. Hell, women don’t need men. You are a choice; you should respect that.
As a female “aspie” in a long-term relationship with a male aspie I felt compelled to comment. (and I completely loved this statement.) Mythago’s original comment to Daran annoyed me a bit, too, frankly. Aspies are perfectly capable of enjoying intimate relationships. We just have a harder time finding people with whom we can comfortably and succesfully communicate in our natural “mode” of social interaction. My boyfriend was never able to get past the first date before he met me both because of anxiety and because his communication style just wasn’t compatible with the neurotypical women whom he dated. He didn’t blame any outside factors, though, simply accepting that it’s harder for people on the spectrum to find people with whom we mesh well with, both as friends and romantically. I’m sorry that you (Daran) haven’t had the same luck in finding a woman with a compatible social interaction style. However, as a heterosexual aspie woman I must say that neurotypical men generally don’t treat neurologically divergent women that well, either. I empathize with your situation, but I don’t think feminism encourages women to treat shy, awkward men badly. Society as a whole does that just fine, and I would not characterize our society as very feminist at all.
Q Grrl:
If you’re going to respond to my comments, could you at least read them first? I don’t want or expect anything from feminists, except for you to stop discouraging the formation of heterosexual relationships by trashing men for trying to initate contact with unfamiliar women.
I just wanted to pipe up and say that I enjoy talking to strangers in public places, even strange men. Even, sometimes, strange men who are obviously hitting on me, and whom I have no intention of dating or sleeping with.
What I DO NOT enjoy are strangers who engage me in conversation and and who don’t pick up on the first few clues that I’m not interested an insist on getting my attention as if it was their right. I recently had a guy on a plane get so annoyed that I didnt want to chat for the whole flight that he said “stop with the reading already!” I felt like I had to explain that it was urgent, when in fact, he should have just accepted that I would rather read than talk to him, since I was trapped there as much as he was.
The difficulty, for someone who needs “practice” is in telling the difference between someone who wants to chat and someone who is politely putting you off. And yes, women should be able to say “I’d rather not chat right now” and I have, but we are strongly discouraged from doing so. Men should realize that not all women are going to be delighted all the time by being approached by a strange man, and be alert to situational elements and social cues.
That said, I dont think even an annoying or nerve-inducing interaction with a clueles harmless stranger is such a great harm that men should think that they aren’t allowed to talk to strange women. Just know, that if I don’t want to talk to you, it might be about you, it might not, it doesn’t matter, just figure it out and leave me alone.
It really does seem to me that you all are saying that men should never interact socially with women without having previously been introduced.
Retreating to the extreme position, and inviting your opponents to fall all over themselves explaining why they were more moderate than you perceive them to be, is a pretty old rhetorical tactic.
Mythago’s original comment to Daran annoyed me a bit, too, frankly. Aspies are perfectly capable of enjoying intimate relationships.
Kindly point out where I said that people with Aspergers are incapable of enjoying intimate relationships. What I was asking Daran was to confirm that my recollection of his previous comments was correct–namely, that I recalled him saying that he had Asperger’s or something like it, and that interfered with his ability to interact with women.
It really does seem to me that you all are saying that men should never interact socially with women without having previously been introduced.
It really does seem to me that you are refusing to hear any of the reasons why women are reluctant to engage in conversations with strangers.
OK, I withdraw the assumption. Are you?
De rigueur for these parts, I would have thought.
.
Ok, I see how this works. Women are once again expected to put everyone else’s needs before their own. Clearly we should be focusing on the interests of shy heterosexual men who can’t get laid, instead of say, violence against women, the feminization of poverty, or reproductive rights. Yeah, I’ll get right on that.
The argument that’s being presented by Brooklyn, Hugh Ristik and others from FC is that feminism and feminists are at the problem because feminists encourage women to explore their own desires – we just don’t require that women desire you.
Because of course it’s feminisms fault that some shy straight men have trouble finding partners. Shy straight men didn’t exist before the 2nd wave of feminism. Because it’s not like women were exactly encouraged to initiate romantic or sexual relationships with men. So assuming that these shy straight men existed, they either had very few partners or none at all.
And really, it’s not like I’m unsympathetic to shy people, or people with social anxiety, or people who don’t fit into the very narrow box that society considers to be attractive. I’ve struggled with shyness and severe social anxiety for as long as I can remember, and I’m not stereotypically attractive (read: tall, thin, and feminine). I’m an introvert. The things I think are fun are not fun to most people, and I am at a loss as to why most people my age (early – mid 20s) think that bars and clubs and parties are fun. My values are not in line with the rest of society. All of these things mean that my pool of potential partners is smaller than average. And to a certain extent that’s unfair. I wish we lived in a society that didn’t value extroverts far more than introverts. I wish we lived in a society that didn’t define physical attractiveness so narrowly. I wish people were more patient, understanding, and accepting of shy people. I’m all for making the world a nicer, kinder place for introverts, shy people, and people with social anxiety. I just don’t think the problem is feminism.
I think the idea is not that there were assertive women pre-feminism, but that men didn’t have to worry about whether or not they were assholes pre-feminism. So if they happened to date rape someone, so what? S’all cool.
Only now feminism is around saying “DON’T date rape people, DON’T harrass people, DON’T be an asshole.” And so some shy guys have to think about whether tey are date rapists, harrassers, or assholes. And since they’re shy, they can’t think of *other* ways to interact with women.
So, it’s feminism’s fault they can’t get laid, because sans feminism, it would be okay for them to harrass, date rape, and asshole it up.
In fact, I think calling these guys “shy” is really an assault on shy guys. This isn’t about shy guys, it’s about Shy Guys TM.
debbie said:
Nobody is arguing that it is entirely feminism’s fault. What I am arguing is that feminism can exacerbate the romantic difficulties of men who are already shy, socially unskilled, and sexually inexperienced.
Why is it so implausible to you that feminism would impair the ability of some shy men to interact with women? How the heck would you know that it doesn’t?
A component of shyness is self-consciousness. Worry over treating women according to feminist dictates contributes to self-consciousness. You have to scrutinize your every behavior to make sure you aren’t being a “male chauvinist pig.”
Is your view that feminist socialization of shy men cannot have the effect of contributing to their romantic impairments? Or that this effect is justified in the name of protecting women (i.e. do the ends justify the means)?
Brooklyn is not to my knowledge “from” FCB. No person has ever commented there using that name, but even if he had, he would no more represent us than he does Alas.
Hugh Ristik is co-owner along with myself. I don’t remember him making the argument you attribute to him. Can you point out where he does?
“I managed to make the first move with my husband“
And I bet your marriage will last forever.
Blessings upon you and Hubby.
——————————————————————
“feminism is a failure?“
Not in theory. Only in its failure to live up to its purported ideals.
—————————————————————-
“Men actually PICK ME UP without asking. “
And that’s the point being made on this thread all along – the fact that men do not have that same facillity.
—————————————————————-
“Women are once again expected to put everyone else’s needs before their own. “
No that is not what I wrote.
I clearly stated that feminism’s purported goal is gender equality for both genders. Had you bothered reading what I said rather than reading into it, you would understood it.
Just as feminist lawyers stood up for male flight attendants in 1970, they should also have stood up for father’s rights and domestic rights, equalization of sentencing for convictions, equitable coverage and liability costs for insurance, and other claims where there is unequal advantage for women. This is after all what feminists said they would do back in the 60s.
Unfortunately people here obviously are not familiar with the works of Mead, Friedan, and Steinem.
BTW, how the hell is FCB? Sounds like a European soccer club to me.
Brooklyn said:
“FCB” = “Feminist Critics Blog,” where Daran, Tom and I are from (though we used to post here a lot before we decided to start it). It’s where we try to take a view of gender politics that takes the best from feminism, and critiques the worst. However, Daran and I are considering arranging soccer matches for regular posters (right, Daran?).
Not hit on me, pick me the fuck up. As in off the ground. Physically. They put their hands on me and lift me off the ground without permission. Do short men have other men lift them off the ground while “accidentally” coping a feel?
My apologies to FCB – I assumed (wrongly) that brooklyn was a commenter there who had come to Alas to debate.
It is implausible to me that feminism contributes to the romantic and sexual difficulties faced by shy men. Anxiety is a form of thought distortion. It is not logical or rational. People who have issues with anxiety will always find things to be anxious about. Anxious people will also always find things that reinforce those distorted thought patterns and ignore the things that disprove them.
When anxious men say that feminism is responsible for their anxiety about asking women out, I’m inclined to believe that these guys actually have low self-esteem. They think they’re unlovable. They may think they’re unlovable because they’re not stereotypically masculine, or they’re short, or they don’t have lots of money. Their anxiety prevents them from actually seeing that lots of short, poor and middle class, non-stereotypically masculine men have relationships with women. So they don’t express romantic or sexual interest in women, as a result, they have fewer relationships – further proof that they’re unlovable. I can imagine that this is difficult. One tenet of patriarchal masculinity is that part of a man’s worth is defined through his sexual sucess with women. And most people, men and women, enjoy sexual and romantic intimacy.
The heart of the matter is that I don’t think this is a zero-sum game. Women gaining does not mean men losing unless you’re operating from a patriarchal framework. Protecting women from sexual harassment and assault doesn’t hurt men unless they believe that being able to sexually harass and assault women is in their interest.
Do you think it is reasonable or logical for men to assume that expressing romantic or sexual interest in a woman is going to result in being labeled a harasser or rapist? I don’t (absent the context that would actually make it harassment, i.e., the guy’s her boss or professor). Am I wrong in assuming that the line between expressing interest and sexually harassing someone is sufficiently wide? My impression of sexual harassment laws in the US is that there has to be context, so asking out a coworker on a date once is not harassment, asking her out five times when she’s already said no is.
People mag’s sexiest summer single guys is all sensitive artist types and metrosexual manly men. Check it out yourself. Macho men are out of vogue. As far as nice guys and bad boys people chase a sexual fantasy. Men don’t fantasize about tomboys. They fantasize about high maintenance girly girls and princesses.
“Do short men have other men lift them off the ground while “accidentally” coping a feel?“
One thing’s for sure — we little guys get our asses kicked by bullies in junior and senior high school. It got so bad for me that I decided to carry a large knife to school, wave it under a few people’s noses, and only then did all that sh*t come to a stop. It happened 40 years ago but I remember the incident like it happened only yesterday. I’m not proud of what I did but it sure as hell worked.
I checked that FCB site and it appears to have considerable merit but will not be pursuing a discussion there.
For the record, I find that the discussion here is very rational and that the exchange of ideas has by and large been highly constructive.
OK, I withdraw the assumption. Are you?
Yes. I also have a child with Asperger’s. And you may or may not be aware of how sexist assumptions have impacted the diagnosis of Asperger’s in girls, but that’s a rant for another thread.
De rigueur for these parts, I would have thought.
Oh, and here I thought you were going to educate us all about our follies, not insist that wallowing in victimhood is the proper response to an insufficient supply of pussy.
A component of shyness is self-consciousness. Worry over treating women according to feminist dictates contributes to self-consciousness.
You’re right–if you could just treat women as things, rather than people, it would make shy guys have an easier time of it. I’m having a hard time seeing this as a legitimate counterargument against feminism.
I have long thought that short men endure issues thata re not unlike what fat women experience, sans increasing fatphobia and misogyny. IIRC, short men are paid less, respected less, less likely to be elected, hired, and so on.
Not sure what the hell that has to do with invalidating feminism.
I agree, Mandolin.
I think that prejudice and discrimination directed at short men and fat people in general (and fat women more harshly) is based on misogynist gender expectations. Men are supposed to be big and strong in order to protect women. Hence, women must be delicate and small. Fat women are often portrayed as unfeminine (they’re loud, they eat too much, they’re overly interested in sex), and fat men as effeminate or otherwise not measuring up to the masculine ideal (they’re corrupt/self-indulgent/evil).
Now I’m really going to stop checking Alas every 30 seconds and write my essay.
“based on misogynist gender expectations“
By this do you mean that women can also be misogynists?
Yes, and? think snotty wanna be badass girls didnt pull the same shit? I didnt learn how to fight because it was fun. Little females get the same shit pulled on them and get it from both genders. Other girls thought they could whip my ass (they could not) and guys think they can pick me up, make disgusting jokes, lean on me and pat my head like Im a dog. Or discuss how my boob size doesnt fit my frame and I get jokes about falling over. So it doesnt just happen to short men, thanks. And the only thing that would be different if I was a guy would be the lack of sexual harrassment.
less likely than….?
A short fat woman?
You havent seen it because feminism isnt about getting a man.
Succinctly. Men run the world and can change the Hollywood and print media fantasy makers any time they want. With power comes responsibility. When men chase tomboys and old, plain and infertile women as opposed to young, beautiful and fertile women, women will chase unhot men. You first. When People magazine’s ideal woman is Camilla Parker Bowles men can talk about Feminism’s Failure To Get Shy Men Laid.
“the only thing that would be different if I was a guy would be the lack of sexual harrassment.“
It’s a common myth that females are the exclusive victims of sexual harassment. There are plenty of proofs that dispel that myth:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503827/
And like you I also took up Tai Chi and Taekwondo to shake some people up. Again, I’m not proud of doing so but it sure as hell worked.
Do some scrolling and find where I said females are the exclusive victims of sexual harrassment. I asked if being picked up and groped was a common occurance for short men. You failed to answer.
When you make the statement
“At that height, just be glad you weren’t born male.”
the implication is that it’s worse for men.
Its not.
I cant be any plainer. It Is Not Worse.
So dont tell me I should be glad Im not male at this height, unless you enjoy exposing your utter ignorance to anything else beyond a male centric viewpoint. You assume its worse for men because you havent a clue what its like for women.
I didnt take up anything. I was merely meaner and stronger than they figured. Their mistake. And I dont regret it at all. You put your hands on me uninvited and you’ve chosen to lose teeth.
I wrote:
“IIRC, short men are paid less, respected less, less likely to be elected, hired, and so on.IIRC, short men are paid less, respected less, less likely to be elected, hired, and so on…”
Pheno asked: Less likely than who?
Less likely than tall men.
I agree, Pheeno, that the construction of the other person’s statement indicated that life was harder for short men than short women.
Re: Men’s height versus their probability of getting laid: HR is probably right that taller men have an advantage in the dating/sex department. So what? Everyone has their advantages and disadvantages in that area. Short? Play up your incredible musculature or clever whit or sensitive, artistic side or whatever your strengths are. Also, just because the “average woman” whoever she is, prefers taller men, that doesn’t mean that every woman does. Myself, I’m not attracted to men more than a couple of inches taller than myself (and I’m only average height for a woman.) If I can’t look in someone’s eyes without straining my neck, I just can’t get into them. Short, intelligent men with PhDs, mmm…There are 6 billion+ people in the world. The chances that none of them will be compatible with you, whoever you are, seems unlikely.
I suppose feminism might decrease the chances of some men getting sex because it allows women other options besides the institutionalized prostititution known as the traditional marriage, so that they aren’t anxious to marry anyone, anyone at all, just to have a position in society. So what? Would you (any man complaining about not getting enough interested women) really want to be tied for life to a woman who had no interest in you, either sexually or as a person, but only married you because it was her only choice in life? Yuck. Fantasize, hire a prositute, get a blow-up doll, whatever helps you with your needs, but wait until you find someone you really want to be with before you enter into a relationship.
I haven’t read to the end of the comments, but as a feminist female person with a penchant for shy folks of all genders, I just felt like I wanted to put my oar in.
The talk of sexual assertiveness for women on this post seems to assume that women are a lot more interested in the men around them than they ever let on, and that if they were just a little less… hmm… shy? themselves, they would run around saying “Wow! You’re cute! Let’s have sex!” with a frequency that would sweep the shy retiring men into a surprising flurry of unexpected but not unwelcome sex.
I’m afraid that despite my deep and abiding affection for shy folks, I just don’t buy it.
I was very shy as a child and teenager, and I made a conscious decision to just not be shy anymore as an adult. I don’t claim that this was easy or that this is a blanket solution, I just mention it to give some perspective on shyness as it relates to me. As a more outgoing adult with a sensitivity for shyness, I have actively sought out shy folks as friends and partners, because they’re often interesting and intelligent and thoughtful and kind and likely to think before they speak, and so on, all traits I like in friends and partners.
Sometimes it is these traits which are part of why they’re shy in the first place, because being thoughtful and intelligent and kind aren’t exactly the kind of traits that get you carried on shoulders around a football field* (I wish they were, but they’re generally not).
But sometimes there are real reasons why some shy folks have difficulties starting and maintaining relationships (of any sort) with others. There are shy people who are unthinking, unkind, judgemental, shallow, and so on. These are also not the kind of traits that get you carried on shoulders around football fields*, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same as thoughtful, kind, blah blah blah, what I said above.
As for attractiveness, I gotta say that browbeating lots of people for having preferences that don’t include you instead of finding the people whose preferences do include you is kinda silly. For myself, I’m a plump, muscle-y, butch, talkative, opinionated bi white woman with a low-ish sex drive who sometimes likes to dress up as a man and doesn’t shave anything or wear makeup. Complaining that omiblog, lots and lots of men don’t like plump women/butch women/opinionated women/women who cross-dress/women who don’t shave and that’s so frackin’ unfair doesn’t really solve any problems I might have about being unpartnered. Because you know? There are enough folks in the world who LOVE plump butch opinionated women who cross-dress their hairy selves and who won’t pressure them for sex. Those folks and I will have a fine time where I will never have to hear and they will never feel the need to say “You should lose some weight.” “You make me feel unmanly when you act so butch.” “You should shave.” “Why don’t we have a lot more sex?” etc.
My preferences, man-wise, are for hairy, plump-bellied, balding men, with good hygiene, rare haircuts and beards they buzz three times a year, dark eyes, shy smiles, glasses, tenderness with kids and animals, a certain fearless physicality (like to wrestle, lift each other up, etc.), good debate skills, respectfulness and a willingness to think new thoughts and learn. Geeky is good, so long as they’re not hyper-focused on one geek-ism to the detriment of all other interests. I also have a certain passing fondness for the tall, slender and long-haired, so long as they also measure up in the tenderness/physicality/debate/respectfulness items.
So surely I should have sex/relationships with those sorts of folks, if/when I’m wanting to have sex/be in relationships. It seems best for me and for those folks, no?
When I look around my world and my circle of friends, there are so many people who don’t measure up in terms of pop culture attractiveness. After all, very few people realistically do. They’re short. They’re tall. They’re skinny. They’re fat. They have acne scars. They’re balding. They’re hairy. They have weird teeth. They have disabilities. They have fine lank hair that not even the most well-advertised hair product could improve. And many of them are partnered anyway with people who find them attractive just as they are.
In my case (a sample size of one, and therefore not representative), being sexually assertive would, 99% of the time, mean saying, “Just so we’re absolutely clear and so that there’s no misunderstanding, you should know that I have no intention of ever having sex with you. However, I’m interested in you as a person and as a possible friend, so let’s keep talking.” Heck, maybe I should say this more, I don’t know. Somehow, however, I suspect this isn’t the type of sexual assertiveness that people are talking about.
As another aside, I also think that more women will be sexually assertive in the “I want to have sex with you!” kind of way when there’s less likelyhood of having sex with a partner who unconsciously frames their sex in traditional damaging patriarchal ways. For myself I’ve often been turned off of sex with men because they unconsciously and unquestioningly frame sex as something they are taking from me instead of something we’re sharing with all of the ramifications that entails (as has been mentioned above), as something with an assumed sequence and outcome (that they will penetrate me, as one example), as something that has little or no meaning or lots of lots of meaning without checking in, etc. And there’s still the risk of pregnancy born only be women, the risk of STD transmission, which is a greater risk for women than for men… It’s by no means as simple as women sitting at home painting our nails and waiting for the mens to call and ask us out, though I can see how framing it that way is more satisfying for certain types of shy and awkward men.
*What do I know about football fields? I’m from Canada ferblog’ssake, and therefore we didn’t even play football in high school. I intend this analogy to be representative of the passing phenomenon of popularity as experienced in high school/college.
“I cant be any plainer. It Is Not Worse.“
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
“life was harder for short men than short women.“
That certainly is true in my experience and in that of other height challenged guys like me. Unfortunately, too many of us suffer in silence and this leads to the false impression that it is not worse as Pheeno believes.
A couple of years ago I remember reading of a scientific study that showed that there was a significantly higher rate of suicides among shorter as opposed to taller men (and taller women). But as that is not at issue here I won’t post a link or diverge any further from the topic at hand.
I know accusing shy guys of raising this issue as an expression of unabashed self-interest is a cardinal sin, but are you guys who advocate for short, fat, conventionally-unattractive, non-stereotypically macho, financially lacking men to be considered for relationships equally vocal about men abolishing all of their standards, as well? Are you advocating just as loudly for women who fall short of the “perfect woman” standard (extremely “ethnic appearing” woc, single mothers, overweight women, disabled women, unconventially attractive women, older women, butch women, tall women, flat chested women, under/over-educated women the list goes on and on), and furthermore, do you fine uber-egalitarians have interest in women who don’t fit conventional standards in real life? If so, your expanded pool of options as a result of your uber-egalitarianism would undoubtedly counteract the amount of women that refused to date you because you were short, etc. Is it the responsibility of women alone to rise above their cultural conditioning, and not just choose, but agressively pursue men like yourself, or is this a game of chicken where you’re challenging women to do it first, so ya’ll can attain the “uber-hawt” spoils? I also agree with pheeno… assertiveness would have resulted in me being less afraid (due to the specter of violence/rape that still looms in interactions with unknown men) to say unequivocally “no, I would never sleep with you, or even entertain the thought of such” to many, many more men than would have “benefited”. Oh, and I don’t see how feminism is responsible for a rise in men being sexually harassed — usually by the same types of men who harass women, according to your source. . the penalizing of sexual harassment and a “macho” culture in the workplace would seem to benefit both women and the kind of men that are particularly prone to being sexually harassed, so I don’t see your point. Furthermore, why do ya’ll feel feminism in particular is to blame? The cultural power that it wields over our society is peripheral, at best, contrary to what some pundits may believe. Why not blame a society that paints men/women who are bad at/incapable of romance as “throwaway people” and “losers”, regardless of whatever else they may have accomplished, or a culture that says that romantic love is the zenith of human existence and without it, one is consigned to a cold, monotonous, fruitless “life”? That isn’t feminism’s doing, just ask any pre-2nd wave “spinster”.
That’s Ampersand, surely.
By this do you mean that women can also be misogynists?
Can be? Women like Camilla Paglia, Kathleen Parker, Ann Coulter and Christina Hoff-Summers make a living being misogynists.
Yes, what mythago said. Women who make careers out of bashing women are certainly misogynists. There are also women’s groups who actively campaign against feminism – REAL Women of Canada is one example.
But that really wasn’t the point of my comment in 154 is the gender roles are patriarchal (a word I tend to use interchangeably with misogynist).
I thought I’d weigh in here with a peripheral issue, that of traditional masculinity as the real unspoken default of “what women REALLY want.” I am not shy, just simply low-dominance, and I would argue that certain men here are really arguing that failure to adhere to gender-norm is debilitating to a man’s social and romantic life in a way that similar divergence is not for women. Hence “it’s harder for short men than short women.” Brooklyn seems to be coming from this perspective, and I certainly am as well. This contention is normally read as “entitlement”, “right of access to women’s bodies”, or “feminism’s failure to get shy men laid” from a rad-fem perspective. There is also the constant contention that addressing the issue by retooling these guys’ masculinity (which will presumably make them more desirable to women desiring traditional-gender-role-based relationships) is a horrible act of reinforcing patriarchy. IBTF, etc.
What about Hugh’s questions? Seems to me like those would sort of help things. I’m not Amp, but i’ll answer anyway:
Yes, it’s plausible. The smaller the class of men you intend to include in your description, the more plausible it gets.
No. Well, maybe… I suppose anyone who thought about it in detail might, eventually, come to realize it. But that requires a different framework (focusing on men) than feminists normally use. So expecting it isn’t really reasonable. ESPECIALLY if you’re talking about a small group.
No. The difference in harm is obvious.
It’s justified enough that caring about it, or discussing it in detail, is irrelevant Because it’s obvious that the % of men (whatever it is) is way, way, below the % needed for feminists to give a hoot, there’s no point in debating the magic number.
Sure, in theory.
None. So long as afeminists are working towards any important goal (and reducing sexual assault is clearly in that category) there will likely be tradeoffs.
No, not unless the problem you cite was even vaguely in the same realm of concern as the problems that are being “fixed.” Which isn’t the case.
Yes. that general statement remains true, even if it is untrue for a tiny segment of men. You can justify it a number of ways.
-Feminism could justify it as random “noise”: because of the variation in humans, we’ll always have some people at either end of the spectrum.
-Feminism could justify it as necessary collateral damage.
-Feminism could justify it as an acceptable temporary harm, much like a person who seeks racial neutrality can support affirmative action as a temporary means of achieving that end.
What do you mean by this?
Wow, this thread has been active while I’ve been away. I’m glad that more articulate folks than me – like pheeno, debbie, mandolin, mythago, etc. – have made the great comments that they have.
I just don’t see that the FC folks (bloggers & commenters – it takes both to create the mise en scene of FC) and their sympathizers doing anything but confirming my initial impression of them. That is to say that they cannot accept the blame for their failures to attract women and that they believe that, therefore, feminism is to blame. And also that they don’t view women as people.
People! Women is made of People!
[/Soylent Green]
So….that means you get to ignore everyone elses experiences because it doesn’t jive with your opinion?
In my experience, men see big boobs and think the woman with them is stupid. Does that mean men are all idiots? Or should I take other womens experiences into consideration and recognize only sometimes men can be idiots or only certain men are idiots?
Evidently, you also think only men suffer in silence.
Eurosabra, you use short men/short women as a comparison of how a failure to adhere to gender roles disproportionately impacts men. The glaring problem with that analogy is that short women FIT PERFECTLY with their gender role, while short men do not. Our ideal for females — supermodels aside — is not tall. It is small and lithe, or small and curvaceous. The drawbacks that pheeno describes are results of her appearing ultra-feminine in size, not masculine. A more apt comparison would be short men/tall women, short men/”butch” women, or short men/fat women. What you and Brooklyn argue would be the equivalent of saying that muscular men and muscular women are similarly penalized because they both defy gender roles. Only the latter does, therefore the statement is false on its face.
Dianne:
Right. All else being equal, tall men are at an advantage (though it’s centainly no guarantee), but a short man can still be very successful with women. In fact, the two men I know who have the most success with women are 5’6″ and (I think) 5’3″. One’s built like a tank and has spent years trying to make a science of seduction, and the other…well…I don’t know. I think Patri has magic powers or something.
Bannana Danna — good point.
“science of seduction” is one of the dumbest turns of phrase I’ve ever heard. It
it makes me think of cheesy euro-trash or a late night infomercial. Maybe both…
In a bad French accent.
“For just 3 easy payments of 19.95 you will receive piere’s science of seduction series. Order now and Edmondo will throw in his patented conversational cue cards. Never be at a loss for words again.”
You’d have be right of the turnip truck to buy this. Either that or have the social skills of computer science junky. Endlessly seeking the correct algorithm for human interaction…so that they can use it to make WoW’s npc AI that much better.
Lame. I mock all who take it seriously. hahaha
Jake:
Well…sort of. The typical man’s perception of women is a bit of a hodgepodge. He assumes some differences that don’t exist, but he also relies too much on introspection, i.e., trying to predict how a woman will act by considering how he himself would respond in a similar situation.
For example, women are more responsive to physical contact (non-sexual contact, like a light touch on the arm) than men believe themselves to be. This could be because women really are more responsive to it, or it could be because men underestimate the extent to which they themselves are responsive to it. Either way, introspection fails.
Absolutely. Let’s start with the most obvious difference: Men are* attracted to women, and women are attracted to men. And the physical qualities that women prefer in men are radically different from the physical qualities that men prefer in women. Women prefer men who are taller than them. Men prefer women who are shorter than them. Men prefer enlarged breasts and wide hips, and women don’t. Men prefer long hair, and women prefer short hair.
And the differences aren’t just physical. Women select more strongly for wealth than men do. They also select more strongly for intelligence (though probably not to the degree that certain feminists claim). Being assertive and socially dominant is a much bigger advantage for men than for women.
And I could go on. And someone more knowledgeable than I could go on even longer. You could argue that some of this is the result of cultural conditioning, and some of it probably is, but so what? The fact remains that, whatever the reason, women are attracted to different things than men are.
Also “women are people” doesn’t mean nearly as much as feminists think it does. Ukranians are people, but they’re different from Americans, because they’ve been exposed to a different cultural environment. Likewise, women are exposed to different cultural environments than men. On top of that, there’s considerable evidence that sex hormones affect behavior, and men and women are exposed to radically different hormonal environments. Women are people, yes, but they’re not men.
*I’m speaking in absolutes for the sake of brevity, but of course none of this applies to all men or to all women.
I think that Brooklyn was making the point that social LIFE is harder for short men than short women, because the same bullying/persecution issues are compounded with a greater chance of romantic disappointment. But yeah, gender-norm-divergent women probably have a rough time of it too, although I would argue (anecdotally) that butch straight women are more acceptable to straight men than effeminate straight men to straight women, just based on the whole GI Jane Demi Moore phenomenon. Basically, more women, numerically, and as a percentage of women as a class, are considered to find the absence of masculine behaviors in men a deal-breaker than men consider the absence of feminine physical traits to be a deal-breaker. (As was mentioned in one comment above.)
joe, it *is* exactly like that. You have no idea. And yes, it did originate with computer geeks.
Eurosabra, but comparing short men/short women to begin with on the basis of gender role divergence and its punishments is preposterous, due to what I mentioned. One film — a notoriously unpopular one, at that — says nothing about the general standards of a society. I acknowledge the admitted anecdotal nature, however ;) The boundaries of femininity are currently more fluid than those of masculinity (masculinity is generally measured as ‘how unlike a woman are you’, and women have the right to generally wear pants/have short hair/play sports with impunity — for the historical equivalent of five minutes, and as long as they stay sexy/conventionally attractive while doing it), but to a point. Women who would be generally referred to as “butch” are FAR beyond that “point”. Butch women aren’t “tomboys”, butch women aren’t that girl you know down the block who looks like Cindy Crawford with a pixie cut and likes football/can work on a car/does perfect HTML. Truly butch women are virtually absent from the media because they’re considered that objectionable/unacceptable by mainstream society (plus, they’re also quite rare, population wise). Oh, a more accurate (than GI Jane, at least) anecdotal mainstream media version of a butch woman can be found in the movie ‘Set It Off’, where Queen Latifah plays a lesbian bank robber named Cleo. The aforementioned CC-doppleganger I mentioned is acceptable to men, while butch straight women are overwhelmingly not. A large part of Western femininity is the care and feeding of the beauty industry. A woman — of average “natural beauty” — who decides to neglect it renders herself virtually invisible to mainstream-type men, because many of our society’s “feminine traits” are bought and cultivated through products, not nature. I hesitate to compare punishments for flouting gender roles, because these punishments are by their very nature gendered. A man who doesn’t fit gender roles has, in his eyes, the ultimate trump card — the beatdown. Women generally do not have to face “pure” beatdowns as punishment for being “deviant”. Women more often face sexual harassment/violence from men, and/or social ostracism by men and other women. Perhaps the implied (I note, implied) idea that the beatdown generally trumps sexual harassment/violence should be explored further.
Let’s start with the most obvious difference: Men are* attracted to women, and women are attracted to men. And the physical qualities that women prefer in men are radically different from the physical qualities that men prefer in women. Women prefer men who are taller than them. Men prefer women who are shorter than them. Men prefer enlarged breasts and wide hips, and women don’t. Men prefer long hair, and women prefer short hair.
There is a difference between what people are attracted to and how attraction works. You’ve phrased this paragraph in absolutes and admitted that these are not universal. By this logic, though, you believe that attraction also works differently within class men and within class women – meaning that attraction works differently between men who like brown hair and men who like blonde hair, for example. This kinda invalidates what you’re saying about men and women.
What you’re attracted to vs what I’m attracted to is not a fundamental difference. FC & their sympathizers speak about the fundamental differences of those inscrutable women.
My friend Amp really, really likes comics. Me? Not so much. Do I need to treat Amp differently than I’d like to be treated in order to be friends with him? I don’t think so.
Just the same, Mrs. Squid really, really likes sewing and gardening whereas I find those to be chores. Do I need to treat her differently than I’d like to be treated in order to be her friend? Do I need to treat her differently than I’d like to be treated for us to have a romantic relationship? No, I don’t. I don’t because we each find the other to be a nice person who we’d like to be friends with and to whom we are also physically attracted.
I can’t make myself taller or smarter, she can’t make herself have larger breasts or larger hips. So, I guess we’d be out of luck if we weren’t physically attracted to each other.
But physical attraction is a small part of the FC complaints and something that even they can’t place at the feet of feminism. Their major complaint, it seems to me, is that they don’t know how to interact socially with women. That problem is a result of believing that there are fundamental differences (intellectually, emotionally) between men and women. This is why I keep harping on the fact that women are people and interacting with them is exactly (yes, exactly) the same as interacting with men.
“Brooklyn was making the point that social LIFE is harder for short men than short women“
That is correct. The fact is that suicide rates are much higher and longevity rates much lower for such men. A fact that is all too often ignored in this reverse sexist society.
“Why not blame a society … {rather than} feminism?”
Feminist theory is not in itself a failure. It is society that has failed to adopt viewpoints consistent with the goal of an egalitarian society. Thus, ultimately, it is society that has failed, not feminism. I have said that above several times before but this has been ignored by some commentators here.
The one thing that has remained consistent on this board is, that except for a couple of commentators, everyone seems to attribute problems that men suffer from to personal character deficiency. By contrast, problems that women suffer from are attributed to society.
… everyone seems to attribute problems that men suffer from to personal character deficiency.
Your statement is too general. I’d agree with it if you changed it to:
… everyone seems to attribute problems that men who blame women as a class or who blame feminism for their problems, the FC blog cummunity in particular, suffer from to personal character deficiency.
I think all of us disagreeing vehemently with FCB would agree that the current patriarchal society bears a large amount of blame for the problems that men suffer. I think that we’re also saying that we believe feminism is the best option to overcome those problems. FCB, OTOH, would like to blame feminism and women for their problems.
Brooklyn, I thought you said that you wouldn’t continue to pursue that subject (male suicide) because of its lack of relevance. What made you change your mind? And you didn’t answer my questions about non-conventional women, your willingness to build relationships with them in the name of your self-professed egalitarianism, and how this could possibly render the adverse effects of your height invisible. The only study on male height and suicide I’ve found solely consists of SWEEDISH men, and unless you’re trying to say that Western culture in general is anti-male and/or that Sweedish and American cultural differences are negligible, I don’t see how it’s remotely related to U.S. gender norms, mating rituals, or a “reverse sexist” culture. I just don’t understand how it is feminism’s duty to ensure that no one has any physical standards regarding who they share their bed with, nor understand how they would go about abolishing physical standards for physical relationships. And this is coming from a woman who prefers men 5’5” and below, even below my own height of 5’2”.
“the current patriarchal society bears a large amount of blame for the problems that men suffer“
This is undoubtedly true — this is why I cannot accept the notion some say here that these problems are strictly attributable to personal character deficiency.
But certain minorities in society such as Blacks and Hispanics are largely matriarchal (for the record, I am Hispanic and know the various Latino cultures quite well). Perhaps their problems are compounded by the fact that they come from matriarchal households but must make a drastic adjustment to patriarchy.
“feminism is the best option to overcome those problems“
If by this you mean the classical definition of feminism – that is where we have an egalitarian society based on the beliefs of Mead and others – then, we are in agreement. In fact, it is what I have trying to convey (and, evidently, unsuccessfully) all along.
An egalitarian society where we measure people by their character, by what’s in their hearts, minds, and souls, and not by their size, aesthetic appeal, or amount of material worth, is what we need. This is what classical feminism always stood for. And this is what we need today.
BD,
It was to emphasize what Eurosabra wrote, not to expand upon it.
As for size or aesthetic appeal, it never meant a damn thing to me. I like women regardless of outward appearance. But it was they who rejected me.
I’m now at an age where retirement rather than romance is in my mind. Perhaps in another lifetime I’ll be thinking about romance again. It’s too late for me now.
“A fact that is all too often ignored in this reverse sexist society.”
Sugar, that “ideal” man stereotype came from a male dominated society. This society is set up to cater to men, so if you have an issue with a specific aspect of societal beliefs, men are who you need to talk to. Gender roles and stereotypes are 2 things feminism is trying to eradicate, because, as you can clearly see, they fuck people over if they dont fit the “norm”.
Mens issues arent set aside and labelled as special interest. Until it is, claiming male issues are ignored is inaccurate. Male issues are the default.
Bottom line, dont blame male centric ideas of gender on women. We didnt come up with the macho manly man bullshit.
Brooklyn, I have some sympathy for your romantic troubles, and I do think that our culture encourages unrealistic gender roles for men as well as women . . . but seriously man, when the words ‘reverse sexist’ leave your lips, I have trouble taking anything after that seriously.
I’m a black woman (since we’re measuring ethea, now), and black American culture IMO, is definitely not matriarchal, nor has it ever been. I notice that you didn’t address your study’s relevance after you reentered it into the fray, and after you previously “abandoned” it under the pretense of avoiding tangency. Also, if feminists were to fight against women dating, marrying and being sexually aroused by attractive men, how would they go about this effectively, in your opinion, without circumventing free will regarding women’s own bodies — which you would have to do to achieve this “egalitarian utopia” of which you speak. And I would also like some evidence of early feminists’ espousal of this — even you must concede — extreme form of egalitarianism (the abolishment of physical standards in individual romantic relationships), or universal egalitarianism in general, because your ideal (in the excruciatingly vague terms that you use to describe it) sounds like a reversed version of reductio ad absurdum (reversed in that I’m assuming in good faith that you actually believe what you’re saying). I just wonder how you could interpret men=women to mean that everyone should ideally pick their sexual partners with blinders on.
“We didnt come up with the macho manly man bullshit.“
”Machismo” did not become an issue in the predominant North American culture until a couple of decades ago. But among Latinos, it actually originated with women who imposed this ridiculous standard on men!
Latino men put on these idiotic airs because women love this idiocy so damn much. It is such a stupid thing that it boggles the mind that anyone can approve of it. But remember, Latinos are largely matriarchal!! Contrary to what most people believe, it is women who call the shots at home and who dictate the social norms. Unless you are Latino, you would not know this to be true. But it is so.
As I wrote above, macho is Spanish for a male mule: a strong, stupid, stubborn, and sterile animal. Anyone who calls himself a macho man is literally making an ass of himself. But he is no more stupid than the women who admire him.
“egalitarianism“ … I would also like some evidence of early feminists’ espousal of this …
Definitely a good question but one I cannot fully answer as I no longer read Mead, Steinem, or other feminist writings as I did back in the 60s. However, I did come across this:
http://www.ou.edu/womensoc/feminismwomanism.htm
quote:
“ ”The most frequent misconception about feminism is that feminism is solely about “women’s issues.” “Women’s issues” are everybody issues. Also, feminism by nature of it being about equality also works to liberate men from their “roles.” “
As that writer notes, feminism historically always was about liberating both genders. Since I no longer read very much on the subject, I could not honestly tell you when or if it evolved to one where it is or changed into an exclusively female oriented ideology.
You obviously are more in tune with the current feminist outlook which, regrettably, I am not. Since I am no longer read the old writings on the subject nor have I kept up with the current views, I could not give you a more informed answer.
Interestingly, I did a Google search for some early feminist writing and came up with this gem:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=421244&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
This appears to be satirical but, at least, it does say, “feminism was going to liberate both sexes…”
And lastly this:
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/wrc/rethinking.html
quote:
“feminism has been characterized as anti-male, when in fact it seeks to liberate men from macho stereotypic roles ”
And this article was written in the early 1980s!!
Therefore, there is some proof that feminism was intended to liberate men as well as women!
Oookay… but if you believe that the society is “reverse sexist”, why not call on MRAs (who generally share your belief) to lead the campaign for women to date “unattractive” men? How can you simultaneously believe that our society is patriarchal see “drastic adjustment to patriarchy” in 85, and “reverse sexist”? And do you have any proof that American society is “reverse sexist” besides a study of Swedes? I’d also like some proof regarding the origins of macho culture, because I’m an anthro major, and it’s pretty well known that anthropologists have searched far and wide for a truly matriarchal culture, and they have found no such thing — the closest they came were extremely egalitarian cultures in Nepal. I’m sure they would be quite intrigued by your discovery.
“when the words ‘reverse sexist’ leave your lips, I have trouble taking anything after that seriously.“
Last week, a woman was convicted of killing her preacher husband in cold blood (she shot him in the back when he was asleep in bed). She got a 3 year sentence and it was said much of it has been suspended. I doubt that had the situation been reversed that the guilty husband would have gotten off so easy.
Had that victim been your father or brother, you would reconsider whether reverse sexism exists in our society.
MRA’s???
Never heard of them and don’t have the interest.
Thanks anyway.
Boy, that sure sounds awful. Can you give me a link to a news story about it?
Waits for an answer to this, since it was conviently ignored.
They — men’s rights activists — share your view that our society is reverse sexist, Brooklyn, why aren’t you interested in them? I reiterate, what could feminists feasibly, effectively do to abolish sexual preferences? And you unashamedly, blatantly took my statement out of context.
Universal egalitarianism means egalitarianism in every facet of human existence, adhered to by every individual. Universal egalitarianism does not mean gender egalitarianism. If gender egalitarianism was what I meant, I would have used that term. I don’t know if you would’ve if that’s what you meant, but I know that I would have. Feminism is still about gender egalitarianism (with allowance for obvious biological differences between genders). Please prove that universal egalitarianism was ever feminism’s aim, in addition to proving that macho culture was created by Latin women, and that our society is “reverse sexist”. Hell, prove that short American men commit suicide more often. I’ll be waiting.
http://www.salisburypost.com/2001aug/081601f.htm
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/15/15crerar.html
hmm…reversed situations. The husbands got probation..
A sentence of 10 years probation is more serious than a sentence of 40 days, I would think.
Good catch, Pheeno.
So it looks like in cases where mental illness and crimes of passion are factors in a death, the juries are more likely to be lenient?
That seems reasonable to me. How about you, Brooklyn? Do you have any evidence to the contrary?