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?
Both are ridiculously lenient sentences for murder. Wives clearly are not the only ones who recieve it.
He doubted the leniency if the situations had been reversed. Seems he is as wrong as wrong can be.
Robert, they aren’t being compared to each other, they’re being compared to Brooklyn’s aforementioned case where a woman got 3 years — later changed to an as of yet undisclosed by Brooklyn lesser sentence than that — for killing her spouse. Women are indeed known to garner lesser sentences for crime — barring filicide — due to widely held paternalistic ideas regarding women’s ability to be “driven” to crime by men, however.
There’s my state’s contribution…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050106-1358-jealoushusband.html
That being said, I hate playing “Battle of the Anecdotes”.
I’m not sure I follow the reversal, Pheeno. The gal who got the light sentence was doing proactive self-defense against an abuser. The killers in the cases you cite either caught their spouses in flagrante, or were involved in some weird suicide pact.
Are there cases where a man killed his wife, citing abuse, and got a lenient sentence? (There could well be, no argument from me because I don’t know.)
I’ve never heard of such a thing, either… that’s why I hate battle of the anecdotes. No two situations are going to be exactly alike, and only a few cases like these get enough publicity for us to pick out of thin air. There very well may be a case like that that we’ve never heard of, and never will. Of course, the comparative rarity (and socially taboo nature) of female on male abuse makes it more likely to be newsworthy, so I’ll dig. Robert Chambers (1980s) ended up with a plea deal that meant he would plead guilty to manslaughter and burglary for killing a woman that he claimed was in the process of raping him, got 5-15 yrs., and served all 15. That’s the closest I’ve got.
Anecdotes aside, studies have shown that on average, men are given harsher sentences than women for the same crimes. The disparity is larger if the judge is male.
As I mentioned in 202, Ampersand… things like that are what a gender egalitarian society would solve. I’m completely willing to take the “good” with the “bad” as a woman. I’m willing to do equal time for equal crime, get drafted into the military, propose to my husband, marry someone who makes less, or ask a guy out to facilitate a world where I have an equal shot at being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, walk the streets at night with as much fear of rape as a man has, and see a man that’s not animated in TV ads for cleaning supplies :) Are most women willing? Probably not, but, then again, (much to the suprise of some disgruntled “femnazi” hating folks) most women aren’t feminists.
And you unashamedly, blatantly took my statement out of context.
Yeah, I noticed that, too. It’s the same thing as lying.
Robert Chambers (1980s) ended up with a plea deal that meant he would plead guilty to manslaughter and burglary for killing a woman that he claimed was in the process of raping him…
Not quite true. Chambers defense was that they were having rough sex, which she liked, and he accidentally strangled her to death.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Chambers_(killer)
Except you need the “_(killer)” in that link otherwise you get a completely different Robert Chambers.
Which again is a direct result of the tired old bullshit gender stereotypes. That neither feminism nor women cooked up.
Which also has little to do with brooklyns guess that men do NOT recieve leniency for murder of spouses being wrong. It can and does happen.
His ancedotal “evidence” of reverse sexism actually bolsters the accusation of a male dominated society and not reverse sexism by women directed at men. Thats like blaming the bomb for blowing up in your face, when you made the bomb.
…
Are you accusing me of lying regarding Chambers, Jake Squid, or implying that Brooklyn quasi-lied? I got this from the same Wikipedia article you did… I’m also ashamed by my use of Wikipedia, however. Take a gander at the Wikipedia entry on “spousal abuse”. It’s a typical MRA stance on SA, with no attempt to adhere to the NPOV standard. The “race and intelligence” entry is obviously written by white nationalists and Bell Curve disciples. Folks with an agenda know that people frequently use Wikipedia as a reference during discussions online, so they post screeds most suited to aforementioned agenda. It is by no means a neutral source, and I personally will try my damnedest to never use it again.
Argh, sorry about the blockquote fiasco above. It seems that I have broke the Innanets.
[Tried to fix it, but I’m not sure I worked out what you wanted to quote and where. Feel free to correct me. –Mandolin]
[Whoops. I just tried to fix it too, cross-posting with Mandolin. Sorry if I undid the fixes you did, Mandolin. Oy. –Amp]
Are you accusing me of lying regarding Chambers, Jake Squid, or implying that Brooklyn quasi-lied?
I was saying that you were mistaken in saying, “… killing a woman that he claimed was in the process of raping him…” It may be that I am mistaken, but I don’t remember any claims of rape or sexual assault at the time. The rest of it matches my memory of the reporting.
Yeah, wikipedia isn’t too good as an ultimate source, but it is often a good jumping off point. Chalk it up to laziness on my part.
This is more akin to my memories:
In 1988 Chambers confessed to strangling 18-year-old Jennifer Levin, which he claimed happened during a “rough sex” encounter in the park after the two left an Upper East Side bar popular with the preppy crowd at the time.
I was saying that the way in which brooklyn quoted you in pieces and mangled the context is the same as lying.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear on all of that.
“that sure sounds awful. Can you give me a link to a news story about it?“
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/421369,CST-NWS-preach10.article
At trial the victim’s mother said that the wife made up the stories of spousal abuse.
But that’s “justice” for you.
Right, it’s pretty much what I’d assumed. She claimed 1) abuse, 2) mental illness, and 3) it was a crime of passion, and was given a lighter sentence because of it.
You may think that that’s unfair, but the same thing happens to male defendants all the time.
If you’re going to claim we live in a ‘reverse-sexist’ society, you’ll need something better and more wide-reaching than one case.
Plus: ‘reverse-sexist’? What the hell does that even mean?
“a study of Swedes? “
Sorry, I don’t know what this is a reference to. It was Banana Danna who made reference to a Swedish study, not I.
My earlier reference to suicides among shorter as opposed to taller men was a study I read years ago. Having no expertise on the subject, I cannot make further reference to it.
Myca disputes whether lighter prison sentences are generally given to women. The following suggests that it is true:
http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/prison-sentencing-study-whites-women-non-poor-and-us-citizens-are-given-lighter-sentences/
quote:
”Being a woman is an even larger advantage for bank robbers:
The female-male difference is statistically significant for all six categories, the largest of which is for bank robbery, where females receive 21.6 months less than males.
Although the bank robbery differential was largest, women received a break on sentencing compared to men across the board.”
Brooklyn, you whine about the results of a sexist society and then whine that feminists are trying to change that because it might not benefit all men in all ways. Make up your mind.
So, I have more proof of the existence of ANY study regarding a correlation between short men and suicide than you do?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/13/health/webmd/main708912.shtml
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-msgr&p=short%20men%20suicide
I guess “your dog ate it”, along with the quotes from prominent early feminists regarding universal egalitarianism. I’m not asking you to go to the Library of Commerce and spend a month searching, I’m asking you to do a quick Google search and shoulder the burden of proof regarding your own arguments. Like, dude! And what about my other questions… proof that Latin women created macho culture/Latin culture is matriarchal, non-anecdotal proof that American society is “reverse-sexist”, as well as proof that short, U.S. males commit suicide more often. I’m also awaiting your proposal for what feminists could feasibly, effectively do to get women to date unattractive men that wouldn’t circumvent said womens’ free will/privacy/ownership of their persons with baited breath, especially in light of feminisms’ peripheral/negligible “cultural pull” in our country. What about the tons of other words addressed to you in my posts (192, 197) that you didn’t bother to quote, address, or even humor at all?
“whine that feminists are trying to change “
Can you be more specific?
I have already endorsed feminist theory about two dozen times here already.
While insisting that actual feminists don’t follow it, and unfairly pick on men while encouraging women to be selfish jerks.
Right, Brooklyn, what Mythago said.
I believe that we live in a sexist, patriarchal society. This society believes certain things about men and certain things about women, and I believe that the society generally privileges men over women (as classes).
However, it’s also true that within this sexist framework, both men and women are expected to conform to their gender norms and gender ideals. For women that means being cute, nurturing, and harmless. For men it means being strong, powerful, and assertive.
Why is being short so awful for men? Because it runs counter to the gender ideal, and men who run counter to that get punished.
Why can being short be so awful for women? Because it conforms to the gender ideal, and women who conform to that tend to get punished, objectified, treated as harmless, etc.
Why are men often punished more for the same crime under the patriarchy? Because, remember, under the patriarchy women are cute and harmless. Men are strong and aggressive!
Thus a woman who commits a violent crime ‘couldn’t have meant it’, but a man who commits a violent crime . . . well, he’s strong and aggressive!
Feminism wants to demolish these gender expectations. Feminism wants people to be strong and aggressive if they choose to be, OR cute and nurturing and harmless if they choose to be, without reference to gender expectations. That’s what I want.
From what you’ve said, it’s what you want too.
So what’s the problem?
—Myca
Brooklyn, do you realize the post you just linked to (about sentencing disparities) is the exact same post I linked to just 11 posts earlier?
Why do you assume that the mother of the dead man, rather than the accused, is telling the truth? Both of them have an obvious motive to lie. Nor is it safe to assume that if abuse happened the abuser’s mother would have necessarily known about it.
If the accused was lying, then this was a terrible miscarriage of justice; but if she was telling the truth, then the situation is horrible, but the verdict may be reasonable.
Also, my snark about ‘reverse-sexist’ was because what you’re describing is not a reverse-sexist society, it’s a straight-out sexist society.
Nothing reverse about it.
When did I call women ”selfish jerks”?
That statement is totally unfair. I have said that today’s feminists do not practice what earlier feminists preached. I was asked to prove that early feminists sought equal rights for men and I presented some evidence. But this does not in any way mean that I was calling today’s feminists ”jerks’.
Please retract that statement at once.
“exact same post“
Sorry, I missed your post.
“miscarriage of justice“
Shooting someone in the back can hardly be called manslaughter. BTW, the mother testified under oath. But so did OJ.
“it’s a straight-out sexist society“
If by this you mean that there are certain form of gender based double standards, then we are in agreement.
I don’t think it’s necessary for modern feminists to specifically crusade for equal rights for men, because they *are* attacking the underlying structures that cause inequalities like the sentencing inequality and the work-death inequality, and as those structures crumble, men will benefit.
We have the same target.
This is (as I’ve mentioned before) why MRAs piss me off so mightily. If they would stop shooting their allies and turn their guns on the patriarchy, so much might get accomplished.
—Myca
Do you also agree the source of the gender based double standards comes from a male dominated society?
Id shoot an abusive asshole in the back if I knew it was the only way to kill him with as little risk to me as possible. I’ve dated an abusive man. If I could travel back in time, Id shoot the son of a bitch in his sleep and not blink twice about it.
Well, yeah, but while that might be justifiable homicide, it’s not manslaughter.
“as those structures crumble, men will benefit.“
Agree 100 %.
“Do you also agree the source of the gender based double standards comes from a male dominated society?“
I’d say it is largely true. A lot of women out there like it the way it is and they need to be more enlightened as to the benefits of an egalitarian society.
————————————————————–
I missed the reply before about Ann Coulter and how she allegedly is a misogynist. Dunno if that is entirely true as she is a mindless hater who knows nothing of principle and whose hatred is endless.
Phyllis Schlafly was one who initially described herself as feminist back in the 60s but did a 18o° when the Republicans bought her off.
[One of a double post deleted by Amp.]
Jake Squid said:
Some of our commentators notwithstanding, we do not talk about “fundamental difference of those inscrutable women,” but rather average differences between men and women.
Average differences in male and female attraction are well documented. I did a literature review of some of this research on my blog, here, here, and here.
There are both similarities and differences in men’s and women’s average preferences. One similarity is that both men and women prefer agreeable mates (though that preference does not always match female behavior). Some of the differences are that looks are more important to men, while personality traits and behavior are relatively more important to women on average. Another is a female preferences for various masculine traits in men, preferences that men don’t share in women. There are also differences in sexual fantasy. On average, women associate sex with submission on a subliminal level while men don’t (Sanchez et al., cited here). Furthermore, while women tend to fantasize about submission when they have power-related fantasies, men’s fantasies tend to be split between dominance and submission, on average (Zurbriggen & Yost, cited in the previous link).
Yes, these differences are on average, and there are differences within women and within men. There are also average differences between the chance of men and women being elected for political office, yet the large differences in chances within men and within women does not make that average difference uninteresting.
Another big difference, that I mentioned in post 107, is that women’s preferences in men fluctuate according to their menstrual cycles. When women are at a more fertile point in their menstrual cycle, they prefer more masculine men (e.g. taller, deeper voice, more masculine facial features, and more dominant behavior), while when they are less fertile, they prefer more feminine men (see the section “Female preferences and and the menstrual cycle” of this post).
Keep in mind that while this research does not support the notion that male and female preferences are basically the same, it also does not support some of the more extreme theories about women being attracted to “alpha males.”
I think this is somewhat backwards. When I was clueless about women, I believed that women looked for similar traits in men that men looked for in women. Consequently, I treated men like male friends of mine (or to be more accurate, I treated women like I was a female friend of theirs). The result was that they saw me as “just a friend” (surprise!). Following the exact views that you advocate were a big part of me getting rejected and subsequently resenting women.
It wasn’t until I recognized the differences between what men are attracted to in women, than what women are attracted to in men, that I was able to stop resenting the women who had rejected me, and make some progress.
Yeah, except when it isn’t.
While I understand that your experiences (at least, how you construe them) are that treating women the same way as men is enough, many men have a different experience, and the current research suggests that our experience is much more typical than yours.
Honestly, I agree with you that seeing women as inscrutable, alien creatures is both objectifying and unnecessary. Still, there are important sex differences in preferences that can’t be ignored, such as the female preferences for various masculine traits in men that I mention above. Men need to be aware of these differences in preferences, so that they don’t resent women for rejecting them for looking for something different from what they are looking for.
So, it turns out that I have more evidence of the existence of a study (a study that you brought up and the ONLY statistical evidence that you use to prove that American society is “reverse sexist”) regarding correlations between male height and suicide than YOU do?
The big media coverage.
The whole shebang.
Like, dude! I guess your dog ate it, along with the quotes from Mead and other prominent feminists regarding universal egalitarianism.
In the spirit of full disclosure, this paper cites another study done in SOUTH KOREA with the same correlation. However, I really don’t think you can argue that SK culture is all that similar to ours/Western culture and/or is “reverse sexist” in any way, shape, or form. You don’t have to have expertise. I’m not asking you to go down to the Library of Congress, do 4 months worth of research and hand me a dissertation. I’m asking you to do some quick Google searches, and shoulder the burden of proof by supporting your OWN arguments.
What about the other questions — explicitly addressed to you, sir — in 192 and 197 where I asked you to prove your previous assertions/implied statements that Latin culture is matriarchal/Latinas started macho culture, short men in the U.S. commit suicide at higher rates, and provide non-anecdotal evidence that American society is “reverse sexist”? Additionally, how is society simultaneously patriarchal and “reverse-sexist”, according to you? I’m also waiting with baited breath for you to explain how feminists would go about making women date “unattractive” men in a feasible and effective manner without circumventing the free will/autonomy of said women, especially in light of feminism’s peripheral/negligible “cultural pull”, even (gigantic leap of faith, here, people) if we were to say “You’re right, Brooklyn, feminism should be about making sure no one cares what their sexual partners look like!” And I’d greatly appreciate it if you didn’t rip that statement from its context. Please do me the same courtesy that I have done you in this post regarding quotes. Thank you in advance.
Well, when should you treat a woman like she’s not an individual who doesnt represent some generalized whole, speak to her like she has a brain and show interests that actually include thing outside of sex?
THAT is what treating a woman like you would a man means. It doesnt mean treating her like a buddy, it means treating her with the same damn respect and viewing her as a human outside of just a sexbot.
Ah, disregard 218, the latter one is “new and improved”, and the double posting is a result of a spam/innocuous link mixup… I’m still getting the hang of this thing. Sorry!
pheeno said:
I agree that most women prefer to be treated with respect, and like they have brains. No argument there. The problem is that merely doing that isn’t enough to actually attract them.
For an analogy, many men like being treated as human beings and respected, but doing so isn’t enough to attract them; most straight men will reject women who are not conventionally attractive, no matter how much those women respect them as human beings. Likewise, a man can respect a woman as a human being all day long, yet it won’t result in a date unless he also manifests other qualities that are attractive to her.
Sexual attraction is about more than respect and mutual acknowledgment of each other’s humanity.
Well, this conversation has certainly moved since the last time I dropped in. After reading through, there are a couple of things I want to say:
1. To Myca – Thanks for the kinds words; it’s nice to know I have readers out there.
2. Mythago: you are right; the way I initially framed my question about feminism and sexual proactiveness was wrong; I tried to refine the question as I went on, maybe not successfully enough; someone else somewhere upthread made the point I was trying to make (sorry I don’t remember who), which was that those who were complaining about feminism not encouraging women to be more proactive seemed to have in mind only a proactivity that would lead to sex, not a proactivity that would exclude sex as a possibility.
3. Hugh Ristik: I am really curious to know what you mean by the phrase “feminist socialization of men,” which you have used a couple of times here.
4. Is it just me, or doesn’t the notion that feminism is at fault in some men’s inability to relate to women sexually–because it exacerbates a problem they already have, if I understand at least one way the argument is being made correctly–suggest that that class of men is somehow exempt from a feminist critique. I mean if a shy man is sexist and feminism makes it more difficult for him to be sexual with women, isn’t the problem, at least in the context of this conversation, his sexism and not his shyness? And if the man is not sexist, or is at least working very hard not to be, why would it be feminism that exacerbates his shyness?
I treated men like male friends of mine (or to be more accurate, I treated women like I was a female friend of theirs).
So, you’re saying that you didn’t treat women the same way you treated men.
I have never heard, or heard of, a woman telling a man, “You know, I find you physically, sexually attractive. But I could never have a romantic relationship with you because you treat me with respect and kindness and you care about my life and my opinions and I have such an enjoyable time when we hang out.”
In a quick readthrough of your link to your blog, everything in there is from a single culture. Unless I missed a reference to non-Western culture, which is quite possible.
Richard:
Your essay about your Korean girlfriend is rendered unintentionally humorous by the fact that shiro is a fairly emphatic way of saying “do it!” in Japanese. I bet the last 100 years of Korean-Japanese hostilities can be traced back to a misunderstood shiro.
1) it gets him in the door
2) those “other” qualities vary from woman to woman. The definition of masculine varies from woman to woman. One womans masculine is another womans too goddamn macho is another womans not very masculine. One woman looks at the face, another looks at the shoulders, another looks at the arms (some upper arm, others forearm) another looks at hands. And so on. For some, masculine may mean avoiding profanity in mixed company, for others maculine behavior may mean opening a door or having an opinion beyond ” i dunno…where do you wanna eat”?
3) Generally, women want to be treated like women. But WE decide what a woman is, on an indivdual basis. Not you. And if you dont care for our definition, youre free to move on. Likewise, if we dont like your definition of masculine, we are free to move on. But so far, all I see is you defining masculine through male eyes. Which doesnt smack of female understanding that you claim to have.
For instance “take charge” doesnt mean control everything and not ask or consider others opinions. It means I dont want to have to make every single damn decision. You have a brain, use it. It also doesnt mean the decision is up to you or you’re the default when it comes to who makes a decision. When you’re with someone who never makes a decision, you feel like a parent. Are you attracted to your children? Me either. Nor do too many non controlling types want a washrag for a mate. And often it means be proactive for once. I dont want to have to remind you to stop on your way home and buy milk. You have eyes. You see the milk is gone. Buy the goddamn milk without having to be told.
Those are many womens idea of take charge. The male version is abit different, but a great deal of men cant seem to see it any other way but theirs.
Take you for example
When you read Take Charge, does that translate into Buy The Goddamn Milk Without Your Mommy Telling You?
I wonder what might be achieved if socially marginalized men and socially oppressed women worked together and/or commiserated, instead of (as seems to be the rule) blaming one another for the problems they face.
I wonder what might be achieved if socially marginalized men and socially oppressed women worked together and/or commiserated, instead of (as seems to be the rule) blaming one another for the problems they face.
*looks at Myca, Ampersand, Jake and others*
Excuse me? I think we are working together, thanks.
I recognize that. On the other hand, from where I sit the number of Amps and Jakes in the world I can comparatively count on one hand. The number of Brooklyns and Darans and Hughs are comparatively legion. And that’s in the articulate, activist-type segment of the male population – I suspect the distribution is starker in the general pool.
*shrug* And the Darans, Brooklyns and Hughs aren’t interested in those spaces in which they are oppressed so much as those spaces where they can cling with dying grip to male privilege. They want to face giving up their privileges so that the underlying oppressions can be addressed? They’d be welcome allies. I certainly am willing to accept harsher sentences if I murder someone, should the sexist assumption that I’m a halfwit who can’t control herself change to a judicial belief that I’m a competent human being. That acknowledgement has come from several feminists in the thread, in contrast to the continued whining from D, H, and B that not sexually harrassing people gives them blue balls.
I work with the men who understand that they are oppressed, and who are willing neither to blame me for it nor to attempt to further my oppression because they feel that they are entitld to the benifits they reap from my second-class state.
If I were to work with everyone oppressed absent their aims, then I’d be locking the shackles ’round my wrists.
Oh, and I don’t really appreciate your positioning in your earlier comment as if you were some kind of removed metacommenter who could observe the squabbling of the feminists and MRAs from a remote, elevated distance.
Your attempt to define yourself as the center and us as the periphery is hollow — you aren’t objective; you are no’t outside the systems of oppression.
I never claimed to be objective, Mandolin. It was simply an thought, not intended to privilege myself as the epicenter of the world communication system, or whatever absurd framing you’re trying to cast me into.
I perceive both merit and error in the positions of most everyone in this discussion, and that leads me to an inclination that cooperation and truth-seeking might be a higher-valued use of time than argumentation and truth-evangelizing.
You all appear to be hurting; maybe looking for bandages together would be more productive than another iteration of the I Bleed Deeper Than You Olympics, or demands for purity before partnership. That’s all. YMMV.
Great questions, RJN.
I used it as a blanket term for ideas and concepts from feminism that are part of the socialization of all or some men. For instance, notions of avoiding sexual harassment, date rape, pressuring women sexually, or being a male chauvinist pig.
Note that I am not against those goals in principles. I just want to see us work towards them in a way that doesn’t have the side effect of psychosexually damaging some men.
Yes, and thanks for working to understand my argument.
No! Rather, I am arguing that given two possible and effective methods of feminist critique, one that is psychosexually impairing to those men, and one that is not, feminists should implement the second. I do think there could be effective methods of educating men in anti-sexist ways that would be less damaging to some shy men. Unfortunately, many feminists seem in figuring them out, because that would mean considering men’s interests in addition to women’s.
I do think it’s justified to hurt a few men if it means helping many women. However, it’s much better to find a way to help those women without some men having to pay the price. Would you agree?
Hugh, what you are failing to grasp is that it isn’t up to feminists to figure out how to make life better for men. In any way. At all. Ever.
If you can’t figure out how to not be sexist asshole rapists on your own without “suffering psychosexual trauma,” tough shit for you. And why the hell should saying that men should treat women like human beings be “traumatising” anyway? Because you just can’t handle the notion that beings with cunts are human? Because you can’t handle being told that you can’t just trample over whoever you want to satisfy your urges?
God, get over yourselves.
It’s not the job of feminism or feminists to do anything for men or to make men feel better about themselves or to otherwise coddle you or take care of you. Bloody hell, for a change why don’t get on your high horses about how MEN should be worried about the psychosexual trauma inflicted on WOMEN by the brutality of sexism? That’s a far, far bigger problem in this world, after all. But no, once again we have to listen to how a tiny handful of men are getting their fee-fees hurt by being told they can’t behave like pigs. How my heart bleeds.
I worry far, far more about all the suffering, misery and death inflicted on women by men’s hatefulness.
crys, do you have a quote of Hugh saying that he objected to being told that he cannot behave like a pig? Or of anyone in this discussion saying that?
Richard Jeffrey Newman said:
This is a good question, and my response has turned into a post on my blog.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
Hugh, regarding your review of the literature of what heterosexual women are attracted to, I think it’s biased in some significant ways.
You really underplay how tiny some of the differences you’re talking about are. For example, regarding Urbaniak and Kilmann, you fail to mention to your readers that the “dating success” of “macho” men was, at most, only 15% higher than that of the “nice guys.” In two categories — casual sexual relationships and committed romantic relationships — the difference was much lower than that, about 2%.
Yet this limitation isn’t even mentioned in your discussion of “limitations” (although several less important factors are).
By not informing your readers of how small many of the effects you’re discussing are, your post misleads readers about the real-world significance of these results. For instance, NYCMom responded to your research post by writing:
Others in the thread seemingly agree with NYCMom’s interpretation of your post. But none of your cites that I’ve looked up the original of support the conclusion that if a young man is nice, agreeable, etc, then he’s extremely unlikely to have a real relationship until his 30s.
Again using Urbaniak as an example, the study could accurately be said to show that, all else held equal, “cute macho” men have virtually no advantage over “homely agreeable” men when it comes to the likelihood of having either casual sexual relationships or committed romances. (The “cute, macho” guys do better than homely agreeables when it comes to casual dating and one-night stands.)
Another example: Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford’s article. You said that they found that women were more likely to prefer a dominant partner than men. This is true; but the difference, while statistically significant (and much emphasized by the authors), is pretty damn small (dominance was reported as part of “surgency”; On a seven-point scale, men on average rated surgency as a 5 in importance, compared to 5.3 for women).
Furthermore, Botwin et al found that women and men actually had a huge amount in common when it comes to what they value in mates; out of the 20 traits that women and men rated most important, 17 overlapped. This seems to support what some people on this thread have been saying, which is that what men and women look for in a relationship is often pretty similar.
That’s just two examples, but I could name more. The differences found in the research are frankly much smaller than your posts suggest.
Hugh:
I read your blog post, a little more quickly than I would have liked, but I have to say, it sounds a whole lot more like you are trying to find a way to avoid having to feel, deal with and get past the guilt that comes along with recognizing one’s own male privilege than anything else. Your description of your own experience could be, with few adjustments, used to describe my own when I was in my early 20s and first really coming to terms not simply with the content of the feminist thinking and polemic that I was reading and hearing, but with how it made me feel about myself and about my own heterosexual feelings. The guilt is, seems to me, a natural and necessary part of the process, if you’re really serious about coming to terms with feminism and the realities of male heterosexual privilege. It’s not about feminism–as if that were a monolithic entity–finding more palatable ways of critiquing men; it’s about men being willing to go through the process within ourselves.
I don’t have time to say more, but it would be an interesting exercise to rewrite that post and the thinking within it so that it’s about race or class or any other oppressive “ism” to see what it sounds like.
“I’m also waiting with baited breath for you to explain how feminists would go about making women date “unattractive” men in a feasible“
First, thanks for those links (I’ll give them a look later on).
Second, let’s put it this way: I have always felt that there is no such thing as a woman who isn’t beautiful. To me, a woman’s beauty does not come from her outward appearance but from her heart and character. It is a manifestation of her true inner self, not outward self. Therefore, to me there is no woman who is not innately desirable or who is not or cannot be beautiful. I have always looked upon women in this manner and this is a viewpoint that I will always have.
Perhaps if women were to look upon men in a similar fashion, there would be greater relationships between the genders. As to how to bring this about, I cannot say for certain. I do not have any magic formulas to propose. Somebody who is a lot smarter than I am will have to come up with a better answer.
“I wonder what might be achieved if socially marginalized men and socially oppressed women worked together and/or commiserated, instead of (as seems to be the rule) blaming one another for the problems they face.“
Don’t know about anyone else but I am among those socially marginalized: live in the ghetto, am underemployed, low income, etc. Moreover, I have said repeatedly on this forum that I endorse feminist theory and wish it had been adopted years ago. Everyone, myself included, would be in a far better position if this had been done.
Unfortunately, many feminists seem in figuring them out, because that would mean considering men’s interests in addition to women’s.
Hugh, when this is your starting point, it’s not surprising that you make ‘mistakes’ like those Amp pointed out. You’re proceeding from the premise that women are selfish bitches who want their piece and who cares if “nice guys” suffer. Are you surprised that feminists aren’t falling all over themselves to “honor” your experience?
Ok, Im just going to be blunt. Thats the biggest bunch of BS I’ve ever read.
All women aren’t beautiful. Some are selfish, hateful, spiteful, cruel, arrogant and just plain mean. Why? Because they’re human beings and human beings can be selfish,hateful, spiteful cruel and mean. We arent some sort of noble creature to be put upon a pedestal.
What is so hard about viewing us as just humans for gods sake? Can we get rid of the madonna/whore thing? We’re human, warts and all. You cant only focus on the warts and you can’t be blind to them either, or you’re missing the entire person.
Brooklyn:
So why do you have a problem? Aren’t there plenty of women out there who, not being conventionally attractive themselves, can’t afford to be too picky about how tall you are or how much money you make?
Rainbow K, I *heart* your post. This has been a very interesting thread – I’m learning a lot from y’all, as always.
Being very good friends with several Very Shy Men, I would have to say by observation that getting up close and personal with people to whom one is attracted involves not only expressed consideration, respect, and caring for the other person, but also a willingness to let the other person behind what I call The Wall. IME, The Wall is what most people use to protect their real selves, sort of the inner sanctum for their souls, if you will. Most people have a haha in front of their Walls, so they can let others have access to pieces of themselves, but I think very few shy people have anything between their Walls and the outside world, which might actually be why they are very shy in the first place.
To switch to a real estate analogy, and to address the general tenor of the FCB comments here as I perceive them: you own a War Bride Bungalow near the railroad tracks, and the buyers you want seem to prefer lakeside Colonial homes. You can: 1) work within the existing brokerage system and complain bitterly how unfair it is to the owners of houses that are not lakeside Colonials; or 2) join with other homeowners who are seeking to reform the existing system to make it easier for buyers and sellers to interact in mutually satisfactory ways. Some people on this thread seem to be blaming the Internet for their problems in selling their homes, as opposed to choice 2, which seems to me to be counterintuitive.
To judge by the frequency with which they are addressed, the two most common questions for advice columnists who write for teenagers are “how do I get this girl/boy I like to like me back?” and “I’m very shy, how do I meet/talk to girls/boys?” A close third is “I’m very shy, how do I make friends?”
Stock answer to first question: you can’t make someone like you, but you can show you like them by saying hello when you see them and raising a topic of mutual interest, such as the weather, the horrible math test you just took, or if the bus is ever going to come. If you do this every time you see them, they’ll figure out that you like them, and may or may not like you back. Even if they don’t, you gain practice in approaching people who attract you.
Stock answer to second and third questions: join a club, class or organization doing something that interests you; talk to your fellow students/members about it, or about whatever else comes up (the weather, the bus, etc.).
It seems to me that a) everyone must know this, having seen it in an advice column at some point; b) it’s reasonable advice (maybe minus the math test) for shy and lovelorn people of any age; c) following it offends no one (as long as you practice basic hygiene and don’t follow people around and like that).
No reasonable human being will take umbrage at being addressed with “Nice day, isn’t it?” — she may not want to discuss it because she’s busy or worried about an upcoming math test or just plain not very friendly, but if she’s actually rude, that’s her problem, not yours, move on. Women are human beings, and you talk to them the same way you would to any human being, and you can gauge a woman’s reaction to a friendly remark just as you can that of any human being.
Likewise, if you join a group activity that interests you, you’ll have plenty of people to talk to, and some of them may actually talk back. The key phrase here is “that interests you”: if you’re a science geek and she’s a cheerleader, or vice versa, you probably won’t have much to talk about.
(Btw, if you take up ballet or knitting, you will find yourself surrounded by women. One of these pastimes is much less physically demanding than the other and can be mastered at any age.)
(I know pheeno and others have said most of this already, and I apologize for being repetitive; I just figured I’d give it one more try in different words.)
So if it’s feminism’s fault that shy, socially awkward men can’t get laid whose fault is it that I couldn’t get laid as a shy, socially awkard and short female teenager? Can I blame the patriarchy?
This is a sidetrack and a rant, but:
FUCK, YES!
YES, it is the fault of the anti-sex, body-phobic, purity-obsessed gender-role-obsessed, heteronormitive, monogamy-obsessed, kink-hating, puritanical patriarchy that is to blame for you not getting laid. It’s also to blame for shy young men not getting laid. Anything that tells us that sex is dirty and wrong and evil and ‘good girls don’t’ and that the job of men is to pursue and that there is somehow virtue in feeling shitty about your body and your desires is to blame!
Okay. Rant off.
;-)
—Myca
Word.
What’s going on in the minds of the shy young men who are afraid to express any desire for women is a toxic combination of (a) the feminist idea that women should be able to choose whether they want sex or not; and (b) the patriarchal idea that sex is harmful, shameful, and degrading, and something that women would never want. (I use the term “Just Say No Means No” to describe it.)
I just don’t get why so many people think that it’s the feminist idea that’s the problem there.
And d) it doesn’t work.
I have yet to say anyone saying that it is feminism’s fault that shy, socially awkward men can’t get laid; This is the Jason Voorhees of Straw Men. It just will not die.
Hugh’s position is that feminism can inhibit shy, socially awkward, men who are symathetic to feminism from engaging in intimate relationships with women. Yes, intimacy includes sex, but it’s not just about “getting laid”.
Moreover, he’s articulated reasons for this. Why don’t you address them?
And yes, you can blame the patriarchy if you like for your failure to get laid, but unless you give your reasons, we’re unlikely to be convinced. Tell us how it has done this and we”re more likely to take you seriously.
What we won’t do is dismiss your feelings, denounce you as ‘entitled’, or suggest that you want to commit abuse and rape.
People here have addressed them. Numerous times. Feminism advocates treating women with respect. If shy men are intimidated by that, then the fault lies somewhere within themselves. And its their fault to fix. It’s not complicated. Treat people like PEOPLE. If you’re shy, work on it with friends or therapy or any of the numerous options out there. Random women arent your guinnea pigs. Feminists aren’t here to help your social life, its your life you make it work.
If you want allies in human rights, feminists are the people to see
If you want advice on how to meet women and overcome shyness, write Dear Abby. She gets paid to do it.
Daran – the problem is still that he’s blaming feminism for this, as if the problem were that he cared whether he harmed women rather than that he was mistaken about sexual interest being inherently harmful. Just because someone’s “sympathetic to feminism” doesn’t mean that they’re free of internalized patriarchy.
Tell us how it has done this and we”re more likely to take you seriously.
In my particular case? Mostly I was just being sarcastic and flippant, but I probably really could blame the partriarchy or maybe other forms of privilege for my adolescent inability to form relationships with people of the opposite sex. Or the same sex, for that matter. But it wasn’t about thinking that sex was bad or dirty or even fear of pregnancy or STDs or even, entirely, shyness and social awkwardness. No, the basic problem was that I went to a private high school* with mostly rich kids and frankly the boys were all boring jerks who weren’t worth having a conversation with muchless having sex with.
*I have an excuse. My older sister went to the local public HS and had a creationist for a biology teacher. I bailed.
Well, yeah, the basics of ‘the patriarchy creates assholes’ is another way in which it tends to inhibit healthy relationships.
:P
—Myca
Daran said,
Thanks for the sympathy, here’s your cookie. Feel better know?
I’m going back to lurking.
“All women aren’t beautiful. Some are selfish, hateful, spiteful, cruel, arrogant and just plain mean.“
Ok, so say you. No argument from me, I promise you.
“So why do you have a problem?“
Correction: HAD a problem. At my age I no longer think about it.
Well, that’s just about it for me. don’t think I have anything further to add.
Thanks to all for their replies. This has been a good discussion and am very glad to have been a part of it.
Blessings to all.
Dianne (quoting me):
I realise that. We, however are not.
I’m sorry you had the difficulties you did, whatever the reasons.
In my case, my problem in part was not really a feeling that sex per se was bad, but that I was bad for desiring sexual intimacy with a woman. Lovely women were all around, but I was bad for desiring intimacy with them, and simultaneous less than a man for not being able to achieve intimacy with them.
Now let’s look at the feminist response in this thread.
Firstly, there’s an insistance on framing the problem as “getting laid”, i.e., meaningless selfish sex. Some commenters on our blog framed it that way, but not Tom, Hugh, or myself.
Secondly, we “can’t handle being told that you can’t just trample over whoever you want to satisfy your urges“. The implication is that this is what we want to do. In other words, we’re would-be abusers.
Thirdly, (OK, this isn’t from this thread, but still…) it isn’t a real problem. Thanks Dianne, It’s really good to know that when I was trying to kill myself with rat poison, it was because I didn’t have a real problem.
In summary, the feminist message I get is: “You’re bad for wanting sexual intimacy with women”, the very same toxic idea that I struggled for so many years to reject.
Pheeno:
What options, specifically, are there for “working on” achieving sexual intimacy with women? “Working on it with friends”, surely, is what teenage dating is all about.
So what are my options if I can’t even get to the point of a date? Are there evening classes I could go to? You suggest Dear Abby, but do you really think dating is something you can learn through a correspondance course?
I agree feminists aren’t here for that. What I want from feminists is for them to stop denying that I have a problem, and to stop calling me an abuser merely for saying that I do.
Daran, did you read my comment #62? (Did anyone at FC?) I don’t think it fits into any of the three responses you outline. I’m not about to go through the entire thread and reread every post — I’ve got to run to work — but offhand I don’t think Richard’s responses can be fairly fitted into your characterizations, either, and there are others as well.
A significant number of comments here have not denied that you and others have problems; they’ve merely denied that feminism is to blame for the problems experienced by shy men, or that it makes sense to go to a feminist site and make demands like “So what are my options if I can’t even get to the point of a date? Are there evening classes I could go to?,” as if solving men’s serious shyness problems is feminism’s job.
Many comments here have not suggested that the FC folks are abusers (I know I’ve never made any such suggestion).
[Edited to add a bit]
So what you’re seriously suggesting is that IN ADDITION TO working to keep myself and every other woman from becoming a rape victim, getting fucking screwed by employers who pay is less, getting the government the fuck out of my pussy, end wife beating, sexual assualt, sexual harrassment, being viewed as sexbots, being treated as subhuman baby ovens, getting murdered left and fucking right among other things, what youre saying is ON TOP OF ALL THAT, I should stop and help you because you cant get a date.
Women are murdered and raped, globally on a daily basis, but DARAN cant get a fucking date. Well watch as the world grinds to a fucking halt, because surely there cant be anything more fucking important.
This is the only time I will act like your mother.
here
http://www.wespsych.com/shyness.html
here
http://www.planetpsych.com/zPsychology_101/overcomingshyness.htm
here
http://www.more-selfesteem.com/overcoming_shyness_tips.htm
here
http://www.hypnosisdownloads.com/downloads/self_improvement/overcoming_shyness.html?735
here
http://careerplanning.about.com/cs/personalissues/a/shyness_2.htm
here
http://www.reneegilbert.com/shyness.htm
here
http://www.coolnurse.com/shyness.htm
here
http://members.aol.com/cybernettr/shysite/overcome.html
here
http://www.counseling.caltech.edu/articles/shyness.html
I didnt say feminists. I flat the fuck out said women.
All of us
Period.
And who the fuck said you didnt have a problem?
And yeah, its pretty fucking abusive (not to mention fucking manipulative on the scale of fucking astounding) to demand someone other than YOU or people who VOLUNTEER help you with your social issues when there ARE IN FACT people DYING. Its fucking pathetic to whine when they dont treat you like a fucking infant.
You want more people to like you? Stop being a self absorbed asshole. Try it. You might be surprised. I just gave you a shitload of links. There are such things as fucking phone books. You dont even know of a class can help you, thats how much youve bothered to help yourself.
No one has said you dont have a problem. What has been said is that there are MORE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS. And if you dont mind, Id like to deal with the ones that will ya know, get me killed thank you very much. last I checked, no one fell down dead because shyness beat them to death.
Hell, go the easy route and take a fucking pill. If I could take a pill that would repel rapists, Id be eating those bastards like candy.
Oh and if you’re the one with Aspergers
here
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/
and here
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu7NdeXhGlsIAfFpXNyoA?p=asperger%27s+support+group&fr=yfp-t-472
Its amazing what you can find when you bother to get off your ass and look instead of expecting someone else to do it. Thats from a 2 minute search. Wow. What an effort THAT took.
Normally I’d say something like “Daran actually lives with his condition; it seems safe to assume he’s already read the easy-to-find links (or things very much like them), is aware of their content, and either is pursuing them, has pursued them but found them ineffective in his case, or has reasons not to pursue them. It’s not for us to give him unasked-for advice.”
However, since Daran did kind of ask for it, I’m not certain that my usual response applies here.
I am certain, however, that this thread has simply ceased being useful. I’m closing it. I’m planning a follow-up post, in a few days or a week or perhaps not until I get back from my trip to New York; I think a cooling-off period might do the discussion some good.