Beauty, Power and Feminism: Part 1
Published by Lisa Kansas October 4th, 2008 in Culture, Feminism, Human Rights, Lick My Jackboots of Love, Soapbox, What Patriarchy?Antigone, our happily married blogger, upon posting her wedding pics:
I would also hope that this would not undermine any credibility I have as a feminist, based on my appearance (for good or for ill), but again I have no guarantee of that. I always thought that people who put their photos out there (particularly feminist bloggers) were brave: they deal with all this stupidity day-in and day-out, and it just seems to roll off their back…If I write that “women are judged on beauty standards that don’t have a reasonable basis in reality, and those women who do meet those ridiculous standards are rewarded with illusonary and temporary benefits to undermine everyone else” someone can come back with “Well, you just say that because you’re ugly”. Even if I respond “that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, and whether or not those unreasonable standards are moral or not”, it is still an effective method in derailing the thread.
Is our Antigone imagining things? Being overly sensitive? Hysterical, perhaps? Nope, I don’t think so.
From Feministing’s troll mailbag just a few days ago, for a quick and easy example:
Why are you obsessed with Sarah Palin? Are you jealous of her? Are you pissed that she has accomplished things without whining like a little child? Before you get all upset and call me a right-wing nut, I’m not voting for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. They all suck. But, you girls on feministing.com are what I would call stereotypical women. You are jealous, angry, and resentful of women who have success. It’s probably because she is hotter than any of you girls on feminsting. And that is at age 44. You girls have no chance of being that hot when you are that age.
Yep, yet another in an endless line of variations on the theme of feminists and how butt-ugly they are. Endless, seriously. And it’s completely ridiculous, because as any random sampling of pictures of women all over the philosophical spectrum when it comes to gender equality will demonstrate to you, feminists as a group are neither unusually ugly nor unusually beautiful. They look like…brace yourself!…women who aren’t feminists look as a group! They look like, well, just like women in general.
So why is “ur uglee!” such a pervasive and frequent component of anti-feminism? One easy answer, of course, is that people who don’t like feminists want to hurt feminists’ feelings, and it is a cultural standard that to insult a woman’s looks is the harshest criticism of her you can put forth. Her beauty, after all, is her most significant intimate personal asset, as a man’s virility is his, and the types who have a burning resentment of the ideals of feminism are frequently obedient robots when it comes to regurgitating the most reactionary of cultural stereotypes. So, no doubt they feel they’re delivering a crushing personal blow. But I think it goes deeper than that.
The clue for that deeper thrust can be found in the Feministing troll mail above, where the, er, we’ll call him author states that not only are Teh Feminists ugleeee! but that they’re jealous. I think that, even more than the accusations of ugliness, is the thrust of the argument. Keep in mind that anti-feminist types are, by extension, big-time supporters of the patriarchy, whether consciously or otherwise. While many if not most of them are not capable of articulating their you’re ugleee! argument to this degree, they do genuinely believe that the patriarchy is the natural order and the way things should be going. They do not believe that the feminist objection to the patriarchal social structure is, indeed, a philosophical one. What they have chosen to believe is that, if only feminists could experience the wonderful benefits that women draw from living in a patriarchy, then they wouldn’t be feminists anymore! They would love the patriarchy. Even they must acknowledge, however, that whatever benefits there are to a woman living in a patriarchy, they are overwhelmingly accrued by the beautiful and the young. Therefore, goes this simplistic line of reasoning, no young beautiful woman would ever object to the patriarchy. Only ugly or old (or worst of all, both!) women might not be benefitting to the degree that they perceive women do–so by a magnificent illogical reverse of cause and effect, they decide that any woman who objects must, indeed, then, be ugly.
It really explains a lot. Many anti-feminists, of both genders, spend a lot of time dwelling on patriarchal social constructs that they loosely group under the term “chivalry,” from such minor items as the man traditionally paying for a woman’s dinner on a date to the major ones like men traditionally giving up their seats on lifeboats to women. One thing I’m unsure of is the logic behind why they think these things are such wonderful benefits to women–two reasons suggest themselves and I really can’t choose between them. Either they secretly wish somebody would really take care of them as if they were small children, even to the point where they would be willing to sacrifice their personal autonomy for it (I do know people like that, of both genders) or they think that women aren’t much of a step above children in terms of emotional and psychological maturity and therefore don’t have any real problem with exchanging freedom for security. (I think we’ve all seen this level of indulgent contempt displayed towards women by anti-feminists before.)
Now, the above line of reasoning I have seen employed equally by both male and female anti-feminists–the next piece of the puzzle is far more of a man’s piece only, as even women who are anti-feminist tend to know better than this–this is a purely male fantasy. Men imagine that women, especially young beautiful women, really do hold power in a patriarchy. In the abstract, they witness wealthy powerful men reduced to begging at the feet of some young beautiful woman for positive acknowledgement, both in the overtly sexualized world of sex work and in the more subtly sexualized world of a bar. They see the slavish worship of the young beautiful female form plastered over every piece of merchandise possible and presented as the highest possible material marker of a man’s societal success in life, the “trophy wife.” In the personal, they themselves see the beautiful young female form staring back at them from all directions–magazine covers, billboards, TV and computer screens–and they desire it. Sexual desire is a powerful thing–I know from personal experience. Sometimes it can seem like all there is to life, especially if you haven’t been getting any lately. You can genuinely feel like you’d do a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g to get it, have it, touch it–yet you, in this case your average everyday joe, really can’t. Not without the full and free consent of the woman involved. And most likely, young beautiful women don’t want you, the average everyday joe. Not unless you pay them, and even then, no matter what fantasies you’re weaving for yourself to convince yourself that on some level that young beautiful woman you’re paying does really want you, you know deep down that she does not. So because of this, these guys convince themselves that young beautiful women do indeed hold the position of power from an operational sense, even if they don’t hold it directly themselves in terms of having the money and position that is the generator of the power in the first place, and they become deeply offended, even enraged, at the suggestion that women should be offered any more power when the women can already control the men who have the power in the first place. When this is understood, the obsession with many anti-feminist men about the legal boundaries of consensual sex also becomes a lot more clear. It is so hard, they are really saying, for us to GET the pussy–so what if the pussy is less than enthusiastic about being got, is drunk or drugged or even unconscious? As long as I’m not physically beating it into submission, cut me some slack!
Now, unfortunately, to continue this line of argument, I am going to have to put forth something that is not entirely comfortable for me to put forth, but it must be done as it is an integral part of the argument itself. …this is EMBARRASSING! Bear with me…I’m only gonna say it this one time in this particular blog post and we never have to bring it up ever again.
I’m beautiful.
Well, not at this moment. At this moment I am in my pajamas with bed-head, no makeup and glasses firmly planted on my nose; I haven’t been to the manicurist’s in about a month and worst of all, I don’t think I’ve shaved anything since Tuesday morning. However, I clean up very nice. Now, if you’re into petite ladies built like Kate Moss, I am not for you–I am five feet eight inches tall in my stockinged feet and I’m built like Jessica Rabbit. If you prefer darker hair, eyes or skin, I am not for you–not only am I proportioned like a Valkyrie, I have the coloring of one. But aside from those caveats, it has been forcefully borne upon me for many, many years now that I am extraordinarily appealing to heterosexual men. To fail to acknowledge it at this point in my life would be a mockery of self-depreciation. And it’s relevant.
Why? Because I have been on the receiving end of all those patriarchal “benefits.” I have gotten to experience them first-hand. Often. Over and over. Still do. I have had men literally fall to their knees in my presence on more than one occasion and offer me whatever I might whimsically desire in exchange for not much more than a smile and some conversation. And not just men wanting to crawl into my panties for a night–I honestly couldn’t tell you off the top of my head how many genuine marriage proposals I’ve received, and I haven’t even spent that much of my adult life single where I was in a position to be able to rack ‘em up. (Yeah, I said “yes” probably two more times than I should’ve. But the dynamics of marriage itself in the patriarchy is, like, a whole ‘nother blog post.) I’d have to sit down and tally them up.
So, whee! I’ve been a young beautiful woman in the patriarcheeee! And yes, it still sucks. It isn’t power, or even equality. It’s not any different than being a particularly prized horse on a stud farm. Without the legal protections that feminism has so grimly fought for over the last century and more, I wouldn’t even have that much power; I’d have been sold to the highest bidder, either once in the form of marriage or over and over in some form of concubinage depending upon my birth status, my particular culture and my father’s whim, decades ago. I’d probably be dead from childbearing by now, as fertile and as prone to developing pre-eclampsia in the third trimester as I am.
But, say the anti-feminists, you do have those legal protections now–so now you have the best of both worlds! Admittedly we want to move back in time as far as possible, but let’s say we can’t manage it and we’re stuck with the situation as it is now; why be a feminist now, other than in a struggle to maintain the status quo? What more do you want..?
More in Part 2!
I love this post.
I recall a great comment I saw on Feministe a long time ago which pointed out that under patriarchy (I still hate that term) we’re talking about women’s status as objects; being a more valuable object than another woman doesn’t mean you’re benefiting, because you’re still a sodding object.
I’m sure there is a distinct benefit, both emotionally and practically, to being appealing to the eyes of others. I know damn well it makes me feel more secure, because I was an ugly duckling and I remember that - and I don’t doubt that it’s easier to gain power if people remember your face, and think well of it. But that’s got nothing the fuck to do with feminism. As this one Alas post pointed out, most people who become powerful are attractive, regardless of gender.
Some feminists might write about the beauty industry, usually to reject it - but I’ve never heard a feminist declaim the power attractive men have over women and over other men, and nor have I ever seen a feminist cite personal quests to get laid more as being a key motivator of their ideology. Yet MRAs and anti-feminists seem to care passionately about the misuses of feminine wiles, and there’s clearly a big crossover between MRAs and the PUA ‘community’. Why? Srsly, why?
And of course, men aren’t treated differently based on their looks either hey? C’mon Lisa, that’s pretty weak. How many girlfriends you got that go out looking for an average guy to take home for the night? Or want to find a nice, middle income man to have a quiet, non-descript life with?
It’s hilarious to watch feminists complain about social inequities like this when men have the EXACT SAME issues, plus ones women don’t have (status/money comes to mind), and yet it never crosses the minds of these “gender equality advocates” to look at things from a male perspective.
I see the point with the judgments of intellectual worth based on looks/attraction though. In fact, my original howdy here referred to you as a hottie, and a couple guys at GS took issue, deciding they could lecture me on the proper criteria for respect, let me have it. Heh.
How is this different from a feminist saying an MRA has a “little dick”, or he “can’t get laid”, or calling a guy a “loser”? Hell, look at fembot bingo. In fact, watch a thread or two in a debate…it’s funny how often the same phrases come out, and sometimes even verbatim.
One thing I can tell you is that very few women have the slightest inkling of how hard it is for most men to get laid, I problem I do not personally share, but I see it a lot. Try this….mentally limit the number of men you’ve slept with to the ones YOU personally made the first move (by that I mean YOU introduced yourself to HIM). OK, it’s a stretch, but let’s just say that this is once again an area where men share the exact same stresses with women, plus get a few more because “that’s just the way it is”….
What I can tell you, is that I can count on one hand the number of feminists I have come across that DON’T resort to name-calling and strawmen ad nauseum.
I’m an anti-feminist, as you well know. I don’t resort to that sort of crap (well, unless I’m having one of the elsewhere mentioned “bad days”), and neither do you…but er…puleeze. Suggesting feminists are in ANY way better than that is total bullshit.
Thene, it’s no secret that women have considerable power over men via their sexuality. The PUA community is simply men learning how to turn the tables on women, and have the ability to utilize THEIR sexuality.
This scares feminists, ergo the current drive to criminalize/denormalize straight male sexuality. And things like IMBRA.
Actually, Factory, I did state pretty much most of what you’re stating above–to requote me: “Men imagine that women, especially young beautiful women, really do hold power in a patriarchy. In the abstract, they witness wealthy powerful men reduced to begging at the feet of some young beautiful woman for positive acknowledgement, both in the overtly sexualized world of sex work and in the more subtly sexualized world of a bar. They see the slavish worship of the young beautiful female form plastered over every piece of merchandise possible and presented as the highest possible material marker of a man’s societal success in life, the “trophy wife.” In the personal, they themselves see the beautiful young female form staring back at them from all directions–magazine covers, billboards, TV and computer screens–and they desire it. Sexual desire is a powerful thing–I know from personal experience. Sometimes it can seem like all there is to life, especially if you haven’t been getting any lately. You can genuinely feel like you’d do a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g to get it, have it, touch it–yet you, in this case your average everyday joe, really can’t. Not without the full and free consent of the woman involved. And most likely, young beautiful women don’t want you, the average everyday joe.”
And you note, I say nowhere that feminists are “better” than that in terms of what sort of men they want, whether they are beautiful young feminists or some other flavor of feminists. I suspect I will get to that, though, in later parts.
Thene, I think I can kind of gather what a “PUA movement” might be in terms of the context you and Factory are using it in, but embarrassing as it is to say, I don’t really know what it is. Have I heard of it before..? Am I displaying my gross pop culture ignorance yet again..?
You may say it, but you believe it to be imagined. Much like Marie Antoinette “sympathized” with the poor and hungry.
I don’t think we disagree much Lisa, and when we do, it’s usually because …well, cause you’re stoopid.
But I think we can all agree that women can, and frequently do, use their sexuality to gain advantage. At the very least in personal relationships.
I think this is damaging. In fact, I submit that while in the last 40 years many have done their level best to eliminate masculinity, and male sexuality, most women would be more than happy if men started growing spines. Men are not cowed by the prospect (or lack thereof) of having sex. Men are cowed by the prospect of not being able to find another. And women KNOW this, as evidenced by “you can’t get laid” accusations.
When men finally learn that women are BY FAR hornier than men, and that they think with their clitoris EASILY as much as men think with their penises…
When men finally come to understand that they CAN get laid, and that it’s NOWHERE NEAR as hard as Mom, his buddies, and the scorned girl would have him believe…..
That’s when men can start to be in relationships on their own terms.
As long as men feel that sex is a rare reward for “good behaviour” (ie, merciless manipulation), they’re screwed, and not in a good way.
And the sooner men gain some confidence as a sex in that area, well….I personally think women as a whole would be a lot happier then…
Indeed I don’t think the sexual frustration to be “imagined;” I think it’s quite real. And I can empathize with the feeling, though I freely admit that when I have felt sexually frustrated, it was a matter of choice (as much as a person finding herself emotionally and psychologically incapable of healthily engaging in a certain behavior can be construed as a “choice,” of course). It has always been much more of a matter of choice for me to abstain than for most men, certainly.
“As long as men feel that sex is a rare reward for “good behaviour” (ie, merciless manipulation), they’re screwed, and not in a good way.”
I find that to be a very enlightening statement, probably in much more ways than you intended. I agree heartily that it is very true, as well. I believe, though, that while we both ID this as a problem, I think we ID the root causes of it very differently, and probably the best solutions to it as well.
It’s hilarious to watch feminists complain about social inequities like this when men have the EXACT SAME issues, plus ones women don’t have (status/money comes to mind), and yet it never crosses the minds of these “gender equality advocates” to look at things from a male perspective.
I don’t understand this paragraph.
Lisa’s saying that feminism is not based on jealousy towards young attractive women. If you’re saying that the men’s movement is based on jealousy towards young attractive (or, as you say, rich, powerful) men, then, I guess we can’t help you can we?
Thene, it’s no secret that women have considerable power over men via their sexuality.
…then why are there so few women in positions of economic and political power? (And, as the post I linked to pointed out, powerful men are usually above-average in the looks department, so attractive people having power isn’t much of a gender issue other than in that to some men, it’s the only power they see women as having).
Honestly, I accept that this is a power straight women have over straight men, if the men allow it; I believe in personal autonomy in that regard. But people exercise power over each other in a vast number of ways. Why is this ‘considerable power’ women have so worth itching over. Feminists do not do this. They don’t agitate about the terrible power attractive men have over women. Some find PUAs sinister, but I don’t.
One thing I can tell you is that very few women have the slightest inkling of how hard it is for most men to get laid, I problem I do not personally share, but I see it a lot. Try this….mentally limit the number of men you’ve slept with to the ones YOU personally made the first move (by that I mean YOU introduced yourself to HIM).
I am not sure that average-looking women have an easier time when it comes to getting laid (got any evidence as to this?), but I am sure that, on average, they don’t get so stressed out about it. (I’ve known a few who do). Doubtless the culture of masculinity plays a part in this… I’m not a man, so it’s not my call to make, but to me it seems like some men who are not ‘winners’ in the great game of masculinity choose to resent women for not giving them points, rather than resenting the game itself.
Many feminists have chosen to reject femininity and the culture of feminine beauty standards. We quit makeup, diets, bras, shaving, fashion. (Yes, not all feminist do this. And some who do - myself included - do not do so for feminist reasons as such; personally I just don’t want to spend my money on that crap, get called beautiful without such fripperies, and suspect it’s more about social class than gender anyway). I don’t know a lot about men’s movement but I’ve not seen any rejection of masculinity that resembles this. Why not? Is the masculine ratrace just that awesome? Is it really better to use your PUA skills to make you ‘win’ than to walk away from the whole edifice?
Personally I reserve sex for serious relationships, but when it comes to people I’ve dated &/or fooled about with over the years? By ‘mentally limiting’ I’d lose two female romances and one male romance. That would leave, by my vague criteria, one woman and three men - including my husband - who I’ve made the first move on. Fwiw.
Why is getting laid so important to you?
One thing I can tell you is that very few women have the slightest inkling of how hard it is for most men to get laid, I problem I do not personally share, but I see it a lot. Try this….mentally limit the number of men you’ve slept with to the ones YOU personally made the first move (by that I mean YOU introduced yourself to HIM).
You know, it’d be a lot easier for ME to get laid if I didn’t have to worry about rape. And it’s not just the first time. I have to worry that if I sleep with a dude, he’ll decide that I’m a slut and that he can then rape me and use our prior relationship as his cover. Just saying, the next time you are wondering why that woman you approached acted so weird to you, you may want to consider that she has a history, which may include other men attacking her (yes, even if she planned to sleep with them anyway. Yes, even if she made the first move). If you want women to be more willing to take that chance and go home with you, or to walk up to you and make the first move, the first thing that needs to go is rape culture, with the virgin/whore dichotomy following very quickly behind. And the only people that can end rape culture are men. Demanding that we put your boner over our safety is not just clueless, it shows a (sadly unsurprising) disregard for our common humanity manifested in the basic instinct of self-preservation.
Thene: “to me it seems like some men who are not ‘winners’ in the great game of masculinity choose to resent women for not giving them points, rather than resenting the game itself.”
Yep, you nailed a big part of my point dead-on.
Thank you for reminding me to take down those pictures.
I find the question of “limit the number of guys you have had sex with to the ones you approached” hilarious. Because, quite literally, that would be ALL OF THEM, including my husband.
And this approach has actually kept me from getting laid a number of times. Sometimes, it was because the guy wasn’t interested, and I respected that. Sometimes, the guy has said something to the affect of “well, I wanted to until you came over and asked me” and I’ve more or less felt a sigh of relief. Some of their reactions caused me to quickly rethink engaging in being alone with them, much less any sort of intimate physical experience (think threatening looming with a creepy smile) and, so far, I’ve been okay with not being raped by them (my only rape was an ex, but I’m not going to talk about that).
No feminist I know would say that interpersonal relationships are easy. But, near every feminist I know said that interpersonal relationship dynamics would be better if gender roles were not so damn toxic.
The basic cultural script seems to go like this:
Girl: A list of contradictory actions to do, but mostly be as beautiful as possible, while making it look effortless. Be sexy, but not sexual, attractive and available, but not slutty. You may do subtle cues that you are interested in a guy, but you cannot ask him out without seeming too forward or too desperate.
Boy: Different list of contradictory actionspoq’QA
fudging cat, and fucking internet.
I had a whole rest of a common typed out, but right now I’m just pissed.
Boils down to: men also have contradictory and difficult social roles to fill. Biggest difference between the script for men and women are that women are passive and men are active, which effects the consequences for them (both in violating social norms and attempting to navigate their role).
Interesting tidbit, which I bet a lot of feminists have heard, but MRA’s may not have:
The number one thing that men fear about women is that they’ll laugh at them.
The number one thing women fear about men is that they will beat/kill them.
Boils down to: men also have contradictory and difficult social roles to fill. Biggest difference between the script for men and women are that women are passive and men are active, which effects the consequences for them (both in violating social norms and attempting to navigate their role).
Somehow, queer people manage to have relationships without these handy gender role whatsits. (Now look what you’ve done - you’ve made me bring out the lesbian sheep metaphor. Human beings are not sheep, and we don’t need a ’script’ of binary gender roles to get each other off).
Thene:
I’m not saying this script is universal, nor am I saying it’s a particularly good one. But, it exists, and there are consequences for violating it. I think the more people who violate it, the better off we are, but what do I know? I just had/ have lots of intimate, good sex and found a sweet husband that I want to spend the rest of my life with.
Lisa, this is interesting…
“I find that to be a very enlightening statement, probably in much more ways than you intended. I agree heartily that it is very true, as well. I believe, though, that while we both ID this as a problem, I think we ID the root causes of it very differently, and probably the best solutions to it as well. ”
Any chance of getting you to explain what you think the causes are…and possible “solutions”?
Thene:
Denying the biological urges of either sex is a losing game. Men are required both by biology AND by social custom (which women are the primary driver of by the way) to be the pursuer. Men’s “status” or desireability is very closely tied to the number and “quality” of women they can attract. Or have you not noticed that about female behaviour (not interested in a guy until a woman she dislikes is “getting close” with him…THEN it’s all of a sudden important to “get” him).
It’s well known that the best way to get female attention is to already have plenty of female attention. Dating and mating for men is closely tied to status, much as women’s dating life is determined primarily by looks.
The problems both sexes have in the dating realm are simply varying mixtures of the same pressures. I realize there are some women (apparently I can include you in this subset) who place little emphasis on “getting laid”. I also know quite a few women who are wildly enthusiastic about the prospect, whenever possible.
I know men on both sides of that fence too.
It’s really easy to condemn people for behaviour you are not required to “master” in order to be desireable. If it makes you feel any better, women are very much “pricing themselves out of the market” when it comes to relationships - so really, all there is likely to be in future is a series of short, shallow, commitment-less flings.
Which oddly seems to suit men better than women - ironic these changes came about due to feminist influence eh?
Thene:
“to me it seems like some men who are not ‘winners’ in the great game of masculinity choose to resent women for not giving them points, rather than resenting the game itself.”
I think you’re close. The thing you need to understand to “get” my point is that WOMEN, not men, are the ones laying out the rules for men. So, to many men, being consistently undesireable to women is blamed on women…which I think is utter bullshit. In much the same way that a woman who says “guys don’t like me because I’m heavy….men should learn to see the REAL me”.
They’re both at least marginally true. Men shouldn’t be held to the ridiculously high standards they are (especially given the “quality” of the average woman these days), and looks shouldn’t be everything.
But to those people I say “If something is consistently standing in the way, wouldn’t it make more sense to try and change what impedes you rather than whining for the rest of the world to change to suit you?”
Antigone:
This….
“The number one thing that men fear about women is that they’ll laugh at them.
The number one thing women fear about men is that they will beat/kill them. ”
…is hilariously melodramatic. 5 points.
It’s not melodramatic, it happens to be the truth.
Then I am truly sad for what the fear mongering and propaganda have done to women.
It’s true that women have to be careful about their own safety. But, as you make it clear with your personality, Factory, we also run the high danger of dealing with whiny douchebags who have a lot of privilege, but feel entitled to snap their fingers and have someone sucking their cock. That’s the sort of entitlement I can’t even begin to understand. I’ve never thought a man owed me sex with him.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at here Amanda. Are you saying that I am a whiny douchebag disappointed that I can’t snap my fingers and get a blow job? Or that I feel entitled to such because I’m a “nice guy” (I’m not, by the way)?
Or are you using my persona as a characterization of MRAs, or men for that matter, in general?
Or is it that you just don’t like me?
Factory, if you want to call Antigone’s statement ‘melodramatic’ instead of listening to it and considering it, don’t be surprised if no one wants to listen to your talk about social inequalities and how important it is for you to get laid. When it comes to respect, you get what you give. There’s things in your comment I’d like to respectfully reply to, but I won’t do so until you’ve bent an ear to Antigone. Why should I engage with your concerns if you don’t give a toss for hers?
OK, perhaps an explanation and apology is in order then. I tend to be quite hyperbolic in my writing. It’s meant to be conversational in tone, and while the above could easily be construed as arrogant (more on that in a sec) it was not deliberately so, and for that I sincerely apologize.
My point in the above statement was simply that the rape/assault/etc statistics either side of this debate uses are quite dramatically different. My point was to illustrate that, based on the actual number of occurrances of certain crimes (vs the hyped statistics (see, I really AM an MRA)), it’s a shame so many women are so fearful. I would hate to live my life like that, and I don’t know why so many women cling to the fear-mongering.
I realize my viewpoint is markedly out of sync with this blog’s. Forgive me, this is the first time I’ve debated on a non-MRA blog, where the majority know the viewpoint I am taking. I’ll try to do better in the future.
Thanks, Factory.
My point was to illustrate that, based on the actual number of occurrances of certain crimes (vs the hyped statistics (see, I really AM an MRA)), it’s a shame so many women are so fearful. I would hate to live my life like that, and I don’t know why so many women cling to the fear-mongering.
It’s not statistics that cause the fear of rape. Offhand, I don’t even know any rape statistics. There’s only one thing that has ever made me fear rape, and that is the assholes.
Now here’s a story I’ve never shared with another living soul before: One night a few years ago, I was in a London park long after closing hours - it was probably about 1am. It’s one of several times I’ve done that, to walk about alone or with a friend, or to take a swim in the lake. I was sat by the water, and a man came by. He said hello, and we talked for a while, walked together a bit - spoke quite intimately about what was on our minds, like strangers in a strange place sometimes can. When I decided it was time to go home, I gave him a little hug, it’s what I do. He held at me and kissed my neck several times, and wouldn’t let go until the third time I asked.
I am glad that stern words worked, in that case; I felt I was going to have to fight that man physically in order to avoid being raped.
That one asshole changed my way of acting towards strangers, at least a little. I don’t engage with them if there’s no one else in sight. I am colder. I might be more prepared for the possibility of fighting - I’m not certain. It’s the only time I’ve ever seriously feared rape, but one time is enough to make me part of Antigone’s ‘melodramatic’ statement. Rape isn’t even the only form of public sexual assault I have to be alert for. Factory, have you ever been upskirted by someone with a cameraphone while you were crossing the road? I have. And I didn’t even notice that asshole - a stranger chased him away, then told me what he’d done.
I want to go over your earlier comment later, but that’s enough for me tonight. Sweet dreams, all.
Remind me sometime to tell you the story of my wife, and depression…
At any rate, and not to sound like a major ass here…but another possible take you could have with that situation is that he thought you were “resisting” like in the movies…you know, keep going and her resistance melts.
Yet another reason why men need to learn how to use their sexuality.
My point is this. That man could have been a scary almost-rapist, or he could have been an inept loser….the only difference given the facts presented is one of mindset. Specifically yours.
This is not to say he was right, or that you did something wrong, or even that you didn’t (and it’s irrelevant). My point is only that your viewpoint on the situation determined your memory of, and reaction to, said events.
And that’s precisely what I’m talking about when I say I can’t understand why anyone would want to cling to it….
I mean hey, I’m not saying throw caution to the wind and walk around naked at 3 am in a park or something. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen.
I am saying it’s far less common than most people think it is. Far, FAR less common.
Sorry, almost missed the questions. And no, I’ve never been upskirted before, but then it’s been a while since I wore one (ever since I turned 30, I just don’t feel sexy in a skirt, so I stick to jeans).
I have been grabbed, pinched, groped, stroked, kissed, felt up, propositioned by bosses, and generally treated like a walking dildo. I used to hate it, but now it’s like wallpaper… Yeah, it happens to men too. No one cares though.
Like I keep saying, many of the same issues, in different mixtures.
Oh my god, too many stereotypes at once!! i’ve never met any women like this, myself. “female behavior”? what are we, mares?! we are as unique as men, and in fact individuals vary more among each other than across sexes. there is no such thing as “female behavior”.
propaganda?! men DO rape and beat women, you know. it’s a valid fear. the most likely cause of death of a pregnant woman is MURDER. we are not making this shit up, this is not PROPAGANDA, this is our life!!
since i was 13 i’ve had men staring at me, groping at me, taking pictures of me, trying to rape me. this is the life of a woman. this is a life in the patriarchy.
cite? my understanding is that it’s far MORE common than people think, and than we have police records for, etc. (for example, i’ve never even met someone IRL who DID report their rape…)
just so you know, what a woman is wearing does not change her chances of being raped.
Sorry that this is off-topic, but in response to Thene:
I’d love to think that women (or men for that matter) could walk safely unacompanied around a large city’s park at 1am. In an ideal world, they could.
In the real world, however, badly lit green areas with lots of natural cover are always going to attract people who’d rather keep their activities hidden.
That could include muggers, homosexual and straight men ‘cruising,’ ‘doggers,’ or drug dealers and users. It could also include serial rapists or even just pissed-up opportunists.
Some of these people aren’t going to pose a threat to a lone woman walking (or swimming? In a London lake?!! at 1am???!) around at night. To others, you’re just going to be an early Christmas present.
Are these people representative of the majority of London’s population? No.
They’re all small subsets of the local community.
Should you judge all men (and I’m not suggesting YOU are) on the behaviour of these small groups? No, just as I don’t judge all women on the actions of people like Mary Winkler, or Deborah Le Favre, or Rosemary West.
The problem is that people take an annecdote similar to yours, or use their own (often quite horrific and tragic) experiences to then propose a course of action that grossly affects 49% of the population but actually does little to stop the 1 or 2% mainly responsible (who’ll offend anyway, regardless of any re-education attempts and no matter how draconian the punishments are).
Does that mean I think we should do nothing? Again no, but there has to be a balance struck between ensuring personal liberties for all and the reality that some segments of the population will resist socialisation whatever the consequences.
Too many of the policy propositions coming from organisation such as NOW (and a lot of the positions taken on what I assume are the ‘leading’ / most popular feminist blogs) are extreme and have far reaching consequences that seem to hold little regard for who they ultimately affect (as long as they’re male of course).
I don’t like to see hard-won civil liberties suborned by anyone, regardless of their supposed justification, (which puts me squarely against some MRA-inspired ideas as much as it does some of the consequences of the application of VAWA).
For the majority of my life, I was a young beautiful desireable girl. This supposedly gave me “power”. Power to do what? Essentially, my power consisted of having to implicitly promise to have sex with men, in order to get them to do things for me. Like change a tire. Of course, once they changed my tire, I would have had to have sex with them. Sooooo……I had the “power” to prostitute myself, in exchange for occasional, trivial assistance.
(Hey, you guys could do that for each other if you think that it’s so great! When another guy helps you move or something, you could let him fuck you in the ass!)
Big Surprise, I learned to change my tires myself. (Feminazi!!) And all the screaming whiny entitled dewds get bent out of shape (like you are doing) because, if the gals get self-sufficient, our only hope of getting laid, by coercion following implied promises after trivial asistance, will be gone !! BOO HOO
What exactly is it you think beautiful girls get out of being beautiful? Nobody gets PAID by the government for being pretty. You don’t get a free education, or a good job even. What you get is endlessly hassled by total stangers who think they might get to have sex with you if you do something radical like smiling.
Seriously: you don’t get anything for free for being a young gorgeous gal. Nada. Zilch. What you get is preyed upon.
You had to implicitly promise sex for something like having your tyre changed? Are you kidding?
Just because some men might like to sleep with you, given the chance, it doesn’t mean that they expect that as a consequence of helping you.
I’ve certainly helped change my fair share of tyres (and helped with removals, decorating, re-jigging CVs etc ad nauseum) and never once expected or assumed that there’d be anything reciprocated (other than a hope, sometimes fulfilled and other times not, that similar assistance would be offered when it was my turn to move, decorate, apply for a job etc).
I can’t think of ANY of my male friends or acquaintances that have expected sex in return for such favours. I’ve never heard any of them call a woman a ’slut’ or ‘cocktease’ for not giving such favours either, either to their face or in ‘lads only’ conversations.
All I can assume is that either you have a shitty circle of acquaintances (in which case, perhaps changing the crowd you hang out with would change your experience) or that you’re projecting your fears/expectations into a situation, in which case changing your friends wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.
You had to implicitly promise sex for something like having your tyre changed? Are you kidding?
It’s not always a straight sex for tire exchange, but it is true that being an attractive woman means pretty much any time anyone does something nice for you, you have to evaluate the situation to see if they’re hitting on you. And it leaves you open to charges of being an ungrateful bitch if you respond to the kindness with only a sincere smile and a thankyou. But then some guys are just helpful, and you’re a bitch to them to if you refuse because you think they’re trying to mac on you and you just don’t want to deal with that right now.
You can’t really win either way.
I’d think it would depend on how much eyelash-fluttering went into the asking myself* but if help is offered then it should be offered unconditionally.
Still, I can’t really project as I’m neither a woman nor ‘attractive’ (I’m not too bad looking, but I’m unlikely to ever make George Clooney worry).
(*One of my ex’s sisters would regularly ‘tout’ for professional help (car servicing, domestic repair work etc from professional tradesmen) by ‘going out’ with the guys for as long as the work took. She was pretty open about it too.)
And you don’t see how that script promotes the belief that a women’s dissent is real, and valid? You don’t see how that script flies in the face of “no means no”? You don’t see how that trope makes it much, much more difficult for women to believe that their limits will be respected? And how this, in turn, makes women that much more fearful that people won’t stop?
Yes, we have entire cultural memes devoted to telling men that women are available for them, and that women can’t be taken seriously when it comes to setting their own boundaries, dictating their own social or sexual availability, or granting meaningful consent. How, precisely do you think this benefits women, as a group?
My point is this. That man could have been a scary almost-rapist, or he could have been an inept loser….the only difference given the facts presented is one of mindset. Specifically yours.
I’m going with ’scary’ because a mere loser wouldn’t've ignored two ‘let go of me’s. If you think it’s acceptable for a man to do that and still not be described as ’scary’ then…you’re treading into what we call ‘rape apologism’: finding reasons to excuse a man’s behaviour when he crosses lines with women and ignores every ‘no’ that they say. Paying heed to a third ‘no’ doesn’t magically erase the way the first two were ignored, does it? It means no harm done, sure, but it speaks volumes about the attitude. And if you think the attitude is acceptable, justifiable…well.
Anyway, your earlier post: I can’t speak about the straight dating dynamics you describe because I’m not straight. I will say that the straight relationships I’ve been in haven’t been anything like that, but perhaps that’s just because I’m not a straight woman. What Casey says is true - there’s always greater variation within groups than between them. I’m a woman who doesn’t do what you call ‘female behaviour’…but my behaviour is my behaviour and I am female, so what is it I do if not ‘female behaviour’?
Denying the biological urges of either sex is a losing game. Men are required both by biology AND by social custom (which women are the primary driver of by the way) to be the pursuer.
Bollocks. I much prefer being the pursuer to being the pursued; the latter makes me uncomfortable and turns me off (particularly if it’s coming from a man rather than a woman - dunno what’s with that). That’s why most of my relationships have been initiated by me, and of those that haven’t all but one has been with a woman. So you’re saying I’m either a freak of ‘biological wiring’, or, as a woman, I must be personally responsible for a bunch of social customs that actively repel me.
There’s a name for this too: ‘gender essentialism’. That’s when you say that something is a direct result of biological (or cultural) sex, no individuality or choice or variation involved. And it’s always utter bollocks.
It’s really easy to condemn people for behaviour you are not required to “master” in order to be desireable. If it makes you feel any better, women are very much “pricing themselves out of the market” when it comes to relationships - so really, all there is likely to be in future is a series of short, shallow, commitment-less flings.
Which oddly seems to suit men better than women - ironic these changes came about due to feminist influence eh?
I’d be interested to know how you regard that as ‘feminist influence’, and how this influence has played out. I’m not sure it suits men better than women, though - a few women of my mother’s generation have told me that they married the first man they had sex with, and were afraid of the consequences of not doing so; they thought that other men wouldn’t want them because they weren’t virgins, or they felt that their religion required them to do so. So even if feminism has made short flings the new standard, it may not be an unintended consequence, and could be as welcome to women as to men. I consider it more likely that there’s simply more variation in relationship styles than previously; there was a time when people were more or less forced to marry, and now people can choose not to, and both men and women are more likely to be happy now there’s more options in play.
The converse is true too - imlx most men are up for commitment.
I think you’re close. The thing you need to understand to “get” my point is that WOMEN, not men, are the ones laying out the rules for men. So, to many men, being consistently undesireable to women is blamed on women…which I think is utter bullshit. In much the same way that a woman who says “guys don’t like me because I’m heavy….men should learn to see the REAL me”.
So, again, why play along? As I just said, not all female people do what you call ‘female behaviour’ so why not simply avoid the ones who do instead of playing along with them?
I wish to point out that my ex-husband, who was neither conventionally attractive nor anything approaching well-to-do, was inordinately successful at seducing young, beautiful, women, because he was very good at appearing to be the antithesis of the posturing males these women were used to. He was charming and funny, and could waltz in and get a phone number and a date from a girl when younger, better looking, less impoverished fellows were wondering whether they had the guts to ask the woman’s name.
Many men who have less success at the dating game like to think that all attractive women are interested only in attractive men, but my experience watching my ex and other less-conventionally-attractive successful charmers indicates that these guys are bargaining with another coin entirely. I could tell you exactly what they did that made them successful (having been seduced by any number of such charmers before I raised my own standards to include substance as well as style). But if you think that all women are after is either teh hawtness or money, my answer won’t make any sense to you, because what these fellows appear to have to offer is something that the women they seduce find much more rare and precious than either money or status.
Thene:
“I can’t speak about the straight dating dynamics you describe because I’m not straight. I will say that the straight relationships I’ve been in haven’t been anything like that, but perhaps that’s just because I’m not a straight woman. What Casey says is true - there’s always greater variation within groups than between them. I’m a woman who doesn’t do what you call ‘female behaviour’…but my behaviour is my behaviour and I am female, so what is it I do if not ‘female behaviour’?”
I am more than a little aware that personal behaviour varies considerably more than group behaviour. In fact, that’s my point in a way. You may not behave this way, hell, 90% of the posters on this blog may not behave that way, but it is an easily observable behaviour pattern shared overwhelmingly by women. er…IMHO.
Do you speak for all women? Only if you think I am exactly like every other man out there. I am right there with you on the individuals will fall way outside the “norm” in behaviour for any given “group”.
And yet, clearly defined and consistent behaviour among women, tendencies if you will, form the very basis for PUA philosophy.
Backhanded compliments.
Stealing her frame.
Cocky & Funny
Etc….
They work. Really, really well. For a reason.
Moreover they work abundantly well with nearly any woman, to the point that my PUA buddy can literally write down the first 6 or 7 sentences of a male / female conversation….and I can follow along while they talk, nearly verbatim (he even writes down when she’s going to blush, smile, “smack him”, what animal she will choose to make a noise of, and volume of each response).
And no, I’m not kidding, it’s frightening how often he’s right. With woman after woman, day after day….same conversation. Which is why I don’t do that stuff. Boring.
Women get this type of thing about men too. I’m sure we’re just as “simple” to some women.
So I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say that I’ve seen this “group behaviour” illustrated quite vividly, right before my eyes. I’ll take that over a study any day.
Thene:
” I much prefer being the pursuer to being the pursued; the latter makes me uncomfortable and turns me off (particularly if it’s coming from a man rather than a woman - dunno what’s with that). That’s why most of my relationships have been initiated by me, and of those that haven’t all but one has been with a woman. So you’re saying I’m either a freak of ‘biological wiring’, or, as a woman, I must be personally responsible for a bunch of social customs that actively repel me.
There’s a name for this too: ‘gender essentialism’. That’s when you say that something is a direct result of biological (or cultural) sex, no individuality or choice or variation involved. And it’s always utter bollocks.”
Actually, given your description of your preferences, I would guess you prefer to be the dominant one in the relationship, and tend to choose men that are non-threatening / physically smaller, while the men that approach you tend to be larger (as most men are).
My psycho couch aside, I would likely have to exclude you from the group I am referring to (general dating scene), not for any slight or anything, but simply because you are unlikely to be part of that scene.
My take on the whole issue is that feminism did nothing at all for men in the way of escaping traditionally male gender roles. In fact, the result of feminism (from my perspective) is that not only do men have the same expectations placed on him as before, but have since (the popular inception of feminist thinking) had much more placed on their shoulders, both legally and socially.
Many men feel that women’s traditional dating expectations have not been supplanted, but rather have been ADDED to, since the 70’s. I find it hard to disagree with many men on this. I do think, however, they’d be far better off learning how to get some power back than complaining.
But what do I know.?…
Zingerella:
I am quite well aware indeed of which coin these men trade. I believe I alluded to it in the beginning of this response. Let’s just say the words you speak and the conversation you have are nearly mutually exclusive….learn how to do that and you can nearly look like Alfred E Newman and get laid.
But just so we’re clear…being an ugly man is an impediment when it comes to picking up women. I’d wager just as much as being an ugly woman is to getting a guy.
Incidentally, I have a lesbian acquaintance (she goes by Billie) who swears by PUA stuff. So it works whether you’re male or female (she likes it cause she can pick up tons of straight women with it).
“And yet, clearly defined and consistent behaviour among women, tendencies if you will, form the very basis for PUA philosophy.
Backhanded compliments.
Stealing her frame.
Cocky & Funny
Etc….
They work. Really, really well. For a reason.
Moreover they work abundantly well with nearly any woman, to the point that my PUA buddy can literally write down the first 6 or 7 sentences of a male / female conversation….and I can follow along while they talk, nearly verbatim (he even writes down when she’s going to blush, smile, “smack him”, what animal she will choose to make a noise of, and volume of each response).”
I think I gotta look into this “PUA” thing…sounds incredibly bizarre. Wait, this doesn’t have anything to do with that guy who made such a complete and total national idiot out of himself by leaving that incredibly funny pathetic series of messages on that one woman’s answering machine, does it..? Who WAS that? It’s tickling a neuron…did Kyso write a blog on this…lemme look it up…nope, it was Sabotabby!
Woot. If that’s the face of “PUA,” don’t think the majority of women have too much to worry about.
Actually, given your description of your preferences, I would guess you prefer to be the dominant one in the relationship, and tend to choose men that are non-threatening / physically smaller, while the men that approach you tend to be larger (as most men are).
LOL. My husband is 6′4” and is a martial arts enthusiast. Best leave the psycho couching to the pros.
My psycho couch aside, I would likely have to exclude you from the group I am referring to (general dating scene), not for any slight or anything, but simply because you are unlikely to be part of that scene.
Fair enough. But that only goes to show that the ‘general dating scene’ is not the whole world and discussing the whole world in essentialist ways on the basis of one’s experiences in that dating scene is wildly erroneous.
My take on the whole issue is that feminism did nothing at all for men in the way of escaping traditionally male gender roles. In fact, the result of feminism (from my perspective) is that not only do men have the same expectations placed on him as before, but have since (the popular inception of feminist thinking) had much more placed on their shoulders, both legally and socially.
Many men feel that women’s traditional dating expectations have not been supplanted, but rather have been ADDED to, since the 70’s. I find it hard to disagree with many men on this. I do think, however, they’d be far better off learning how to get some power back than complaining.
I think you’re right, esp. about men not being aided in escaping from traditional gender roles. I guess that’s something that men have to do for themselves - just as feminism has enabled women’s shunning of feminine roles. What I find paradoxical is that the MRA movement doesn’t seem too interested in doing that. You yourself lament what you call the ‘elimination’ of masculinity (and you blame feminism for that, though imo feminism has done more to attack femininity than masculinity - I guess it’s taken shots at both, though).
Yes, if that was the face of PUA’s, then you would indeed have nothing to “worry about”. Why would you be worried by men doing essentially the same thing women have been doing for aeons (learning to utilize their appeal/recognize their appeal)? Why would you construe the desire to get the best woman possible, by whatever means possible, nefarious? As far as I know, that’s just life….
I recommend you check out David D’ Angelo myself.
I don’t think that’s what PUAs are doing (learning to utilize their appeal/recognize their appeal), not if this guy is a good example of ‘em. I sure can’t say that no woman on earth has ever taken the kinda route this dude has, but happily I can say if they have, it’s been a minority of ‘em. Yeek!
OK, this guy is totally funny. He’s be an asshole no matter how you told him he could “get some”…mostly because he’s an asshole.
I don’t think there’s anything to worry about myself (anyone I’ve spoken to that is has, upon review, pretty much flipped over and said they’d LOVE it if more men were like this….).
Factory, I’m saying you radiate an unpleasant, misogynist personality that is sadly not uncommon out there, and women who are on the market have to protect themselves against rapists, yes, but also men like you who wear down your willingness to believe in the fundamental decency of humanity because you appear to have none.
Being 6′4″ and into Martial Arts does not make you a Dominant personality, it simply means you’re big and like Martial Arts. I have plenty of huge friends (one so big you can’t see me stand behind him - sort of embarrassing at the bar and such) that are great big pussy cats. But I’m not going to argue with you, after all, I don’t know you.
….OK, can’t resist, must argue…
Thene:
“I think you’re right, esp. about men not being aided in escaping from traditional gender roles. I guess that’s something that men have to do for themselves - just as feminism has enabled women’s shunning of feminine roles. What I find paradoxical is that the MRA movement doesn’t seem too interested in doing that. You yourself lament what you call the ‘elimination’ of masculinity (and you blame feminism for that, though imo feminism has done more to attack femininity than masculinity - I guess it’s taken shots at both, though). ”
First of all, feminism has been saying for years (even right to the dictionary Lisa erroneously quoted in the post that led to my presence here) that it is about equality of the sexes. This position necessitates taking on the responsibility for BOTH sexes’ equality issues. The simple truth is that feminism has done nothing at all for men (except as by product), and currently feminists seem to be collectively saying “I guess that’s something that men have to do for themselves - just as feminism has enabled women’s shunning of feminine roles.”
In other words… “Gee, you guys should do something about that”.
Yet, when we do, or try, we’re called every name in the book, by feminists. We’re accused of wanting to “roll back the calendar” and the like. Unless, of course, we do what feminists tell us to. Then it’s ok.
This is self-determination?
Feminism is either women’s advocacy, or about equality.
It can’t be about both.
Incidentally this: “feminism has done more to attack femininity than masculinity” positively SCREAMS for expansion, and would make an excellent feminist dissident post.
Amanda Marcotte Says: “Factory, I’m saying you radiate an unpleasant, misogynist personality that is sadly not uncommon out there, and women who are on the market have to protect themselves against rapists, yes, but also men like you who wear down your willingness to believe in the fundamental decency of humanity because you appear to have none. ”
Factory checks off option “B” - doesn’t like me.
Factory,
I’m curious why you keep evading Thane’s question: why have MRAs done nothing to critique or resist masculinity as a broad concept the way feminists have done with femininity? Why ‘work’ the system rather than dismantle the system?
Mainly because we don’t see Masculinity as quite the “blight” feminists seem to. In fact, much the opposite.
One thing that strikes me continually is that MRA’s and Masculists (I do not count myself among the latter) tend to be very consistent in their support of things we call “masculine”. Honour, integrity, stoicism (with caveats), sensitivity (hey, there aren’t a ton of male artists for nothing….and no, it’s not always about getting laid), protective instinct, sense of duty, etc.
We simply want men to stop pursuing these traits to their own detriment. To develop a sense of self worth, where men can value their characteristics, rather than feel the need to defend them, if not be outright ashamed of them.
Feminism tends to view Masculinity as a disease, something to be corrected and stamped out. As well, femininity has little use in a truly feminist world.
Yet, these are our default states. This is what we have to be “educated” out of. Nature vs Nurture debate, all over again.
Feminism lost me when it shifted from “be who you are, no one should judge” to “Be like this, or you aren’t truly worthy”
As to why MRA’s have done nothing to address social concerns that effect us, I would respond to that by saying we have indeed done so. Some MRA groups are astoundingly effective in doing so. Fathers for Justice, in the UK for example, has brought the concept of fathers and children to the forefront of political debate in the UK.
In the US, when it was put on a ballot, a major MRA opinion was supported by an overwhelming majority of people. (Boston, Shared Parenting)
As to why we’re not working on societal attitudes rather than legal issues…..all I can say is there are only so many of us, and broad social attitudes are my particular interest. And some things are more important than others….
That’s why I’m here.
Myself, I recognize that without winning the hearts, the minds won’t matter. I want to put a face on certain things….one of which being the face of an MRA.
My videos are me. I actually do talk like that in real life (yeah, the way I type is the way I talk), although the vids are scripted (I’m a scatterbrain). We really are normal men (and even some women). We really do want to make things better (OK, I speak for myself, but I’m sure a ton agree). I say this because I will try to be as secret free as I can. Lisa could likely bring up some horrendous post or two of mine from the past. I freely admit to being one screwed up individual….I’m all open. Flay me if you wish. But consider my arguments….
We’ll do this, with or without you guys. It’d be a lot cooler if you came along and helped out though. Even if only by telling us why you’re right, and letting us respond….(you know, kinda like a debate)….
It’s a chance at better understanding. How could that be wrong?
Being 6′4″ and into Martial Arts does not make you a Dominant personality, it simply means you’re big and like Martial Arts. I have plenty of huge friends (one so big you can’t see me stand behind him - sort of embarrassing at the bar and such) that are great big pussy cats. But I’m not going to argue with you, after all, I don’t know you.
Nice of you not to argue. Claiming you know more than me about some stranger I met in a park once is one thing, but now you know more than me about my own husband? That would be pretty weird.
What I think you’re doing with your psycho-couching there is employing a form of the ‘heterosex matrix’ (a term coined by queer theorist Judith Butler, iirc). Which works with a lot of people, sure, but not all. Basically when we meet someone we mentally assess them in the following manner:
Female body / Male body
Woman / Man
Feminine / Masculine
Attracted to men / Attracted to women
The first mistake is when you think that if someone lights up a box in Column A there, they must fit in EVERY category in Column A. I’m sure you know tons of people for whom that’s not the case. The second mistake is assuming that they’re neat, binary categories at all, rather than spectra, Venn circles or some other fuzzy arrangement that allows people to be between, both of, or neither of those things rather than one or the other. The third mistake - the one I think you may be making - is assuming that the categories are matching pairs. A feminine person must be paired with a masculine person, a person attracted to men must be paired with a person attracted to women, etc. Often true IRL, but also often not true. You assumed I’d be married to someone who was ‘physically smaller’, ‘non-threatening’, and ‘not dominant’. You’re wrong.
First of all, feminism has been saying for years (even right to the dictionary Lisa erroneously quoted in the post that led to my presence here) that it is about equality of the sexes. This position necessitates taking on the responsibility for BOTH sexes’ equality issues. The simple truth is that feminism has done nothing at all for men (except as by product), and currently feminists seem to be collectively saying “I guess that’s something that men have to do for themselves - just as feminism has enabled women’s shunning of feminine roles.”
Again you’re referring to the heterosex matrix - I ask about masculinity and femininity, you give me an answer that’s about men and women - even though the question involved nonfeminine women. It’s not a bad answer, though.
I sometimes get the impression that MRAs miss seeing how much work feminism has carried out, over the course of the last 150 years. Eg. MRAs might ask why there’s little support for men who have been abused, when a better question might be ‘How did women build support services from the ground up, and how can we do the same thing?’ That men benefit as a by-product is a reasonable assessment; paternity leave is a good example - it helps new mothers out at home, and hopefully outside the home too, and men benefit from the extra family time.
In other words… “Gee, you guys should do something about that”.
Yet, when we do, or try, we’re called every name in the book, by feminists. We’re accused of wanting to “roll back the calendar” and the like. Unless, of course, we do what feminists tell us to. Then it’s ok.
This is self-determination?
Feminism is either women’s advocacy, or about equality.
It can’t be about both.
Faulty logic. If you set up a racial equality campaign group, you would not find yourself advocating for white people. If you set up a religious equality group for Zoroastrians, you’d find it hard to help a Kemetist who turned up complaining that they were suffering religious discrimination. Similarly gender equality doesn’t necessarily differ from women’s advocacy - rebalancing the world involves getting women past the glass ceiling, closing the pay gap, protecting women from violence, etc. But when there’s work that needs doing for men to rebalance their world? I think women can’t do it. Because we don’t know what men’s lives are like, and particularly because we don’t know what male homosociality is like - so we only know how men benefit from it and never see its downsides, as MRAs seem to do with female homosociality (I had half a conversation with Ballgame on FC about that a while ago, but then stopped reading the site because of a - quite literal - rape apologist). Besides, all people are self-interested; women don’t trust men to do all their feminist work, and it would be foolish for men to trust feminist women to repair the entirety of the creaking gender system when they’re still seeing a lot of work to be done on their half of the crate.
I’m confused as to how ‘ MRAs doing something’='rolling back the calendar’ in anyone’s mind, unless you are trying to roll back the calendar (eg. the crazy rape apologists I sometimes run into online, notably the ones who want to repeal spousal rape laws). Are you referring to anything specific here? Because offhand I can’t think of anything other than the general suspicion some feminists level at the PUA community (which is a nice example because, as you said above, ‘Why would you be worried by men doing essentially the same thing women have been doing for aeons?’ - it’s basically about encouraging men to adopt what might be called a ‘feminine’ social goal/social skill set. Maybe MRAs are changing masculinity after all!)
Incidentally this: “feminism has done more to attack femininity than masculinity” positively SCREAMS for expansion, and would make an excellent feminist dissident post.
Feminism has made femininity an option for women rather than a prescribed path; I think it’s largely failed to do the same for men, as few men see masculinity as optional rather than the only possible way to be. Feminists are culturally stereotyped (generally wrongly, sometimes not) as being women who shun femininity and feminine paths - things like beauty culture, the role of a housewife, being sexually desired rather than sexually desiring, doing the kitchen chores rather than the garden/garage chores. Some feminist attack women who do do those things, (and the rest of us throw things at those feminists). How have feminists attacked masculinity? I think they’ve forced men to share some of the good bits, but what else have they done to slight it so?
Feminism tends to view Masculinity as a disease, something to be corrected and stamped out. As well, femininity has little use in a truly feminist world.
This feminist views masculinity as good, hot fun, and holds that it is an equal opportunity pastime.
You might like to look at RadicalMasculinity, if you think all feminism is somehow against the concept, though that site is not updated nearly often enough for my liking 
It’s compulsory masculinity (not women and their ‘high standards’) that is the cause of all the frustration and angst of the ‘average joe who can’t get laid’ that you’ve been discussing throughout these comments. Maybe MRA’s should start seeing it as a blight.
All of those qualities you listed - honor, integrity, stoicism, sensitivity, protective instinct, sense of duty - are human qualities, not masculine ones, possibly with the exception of stoicism (and maybe it’s my cultural background here, but i really fail to see what’s so good about that). And you left out the very qualities in question with regard to frustrated men and beautiful women: competitiveness, machismo, and ill thought out compensation for person insecurity. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the standing binary gender scheme that you want. If MRA’s are going to glorify masculinity per se, then y’all gotta take the bad with the good, or else work to reform it. At least don’t act all surprised when feminists (and, yes, feminist men too) treat masculinity like a blight, because they’re seeing the parts of it you choose to ignore.
“MRAs might ask why there’s little support for men who have been abused, when a better question might be ‘How did women build support services from the ground up, and how can we do the same thing?”
….(drums fingers)……
Recharacterizes
Feminists might ask why there’s little support for women in sports, and business, and education, when a better question might be ‘How did men build those things from the ground up, and how can we do the same thing?”
Lets leave aside, for a moment, that it’s quite likely men helped a good deal (Hey, who’s that Biden character again? And why is he so afraid of bringing up VAWA this election?) Paid for by taxes (ie, everyone) should mean benefiting everyone. This is a meanspirited, thinly veiled dismissal of male victims of domestic violence. Given the recent extension of services to family PETS, while pleading poverty on men, illustrates the motivation quite nicely.
And no offense Thene, but faulty logic right back at you. If I was setting up a racial equality group, and I didn’t include whites in there, then I would be guilty of racism, pure and simple. Assuming a race (or class, or colour) has nothing worthy to contribute is one thing. To deliberately exclude them is another. That feminist theory has decided that there is a glass ceiling (hey, I’m not a CEO either, and I’m a white guy) is one thing. To agree with the validity of the position is another.
“I think they’ve forced men to share some of the good bits, but what else have they done to slight it so?”
Ever since I can remember, men and males are “commonly understood” to cause all the ills of this world….we could start there.
Only men can stop rape? Implies rape is the fault of men (a view held by many feminists)
Domestic Abuse ads that only show men as abusers/women as victims.
Television shows and ads that depict men as losers, contemptible (even by daughters doing homework), or diseased, or violent…and not much else.
Newspaper articles asking “Are Men Necessary” (Maureen Dowd) would be unthinkable in reverse
Even some of the “positives” have had negative consequences for men, some socially and some legally. A couple of great examples would be the increased expectations women place upon men (if women make the same amount, they have a hard time “marrying up”…), and the incredible financial/emotional gamble men take every time they have sex. (now THERE’S some hyperbole)
As to the last point, I’m really not sure what the site is about, since white text on a black background hurts my design sense nearly as much as it hurts my eyes….
Maybe it’ll help if I say that I have no issues whatsoever if women want to act all masculine and stuff. Just don’t expect me to find it attractive. If I wanted to do a guy, I’d do a guy.
Ephraim Says:
“All of those qualities you listed - honor, integrity, stoicism, sensitivity, protective instinct, sense of duty - are human qualities, not masculine ones, possibly with the exception of stoicism (and maybe it’s my cultural background here, but i really fail to see what’s so good about that). And you left out the very qualities in question with regard to frustrated men and beautiful women: competitiveness, machismo, and ill thought out compensation for person insecurity. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the standing binary gender scheme that you want. If MRA’s are going to glorify masculinity per se, then y’all gotta take the bad with the good, or else work to reform it. At least don’t act all surprised when feminists (and, yes, feminist men too) treat masculinity like a blight, because they’re seeing the parts of it you choose to ignore. ”
Most of the time Ephraim, in fact a large majority of the time, when I omit things like that it’s because I don’t want my posts to read like something out of the old testament (begat, begat,begat). But let’s do address that stuff. By the way, MRA’s are most definitely debating and reframing these concepts.
So let’s see, the list…
competitiveness, machismo, and (rephrasing) risky behaviour. Let’s throw in aggression for good measure.
An MRA’s take on these?
Competitiveness…well, that’s the basis of our society. Indeed, it’s the basis of Evolutionary Theory. That the “fittest” survive is a method to continually improve, ergo it’s a “good thing”. Yet those that fail this competition do not deserve oblivion. The consequences of failure have gotten way out of hand.
Aggression…well, you can see where I am going with this. It’s a Bad Thing ™, but usually only when it’s directed against you. If someone is protecting you aggressively, it’s a good thing. Like all human characteristics, aggression is best mitigated by its opposite. In this case, disapproval.
Risky behaviour. This is how you jump from one social strata to another. With great risk, comes great reward. The MRA take is that risky behaviour is best tempered with responsibility. Without risky behaviour, society would not have developed.
Machismo…I had to look this word up, and since wikipedia both defines and makes my point for me…
“Machismo is a prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity.[1] As an attitude, machismo ranges from a personal sense of virility to a more extreme male chauvinism. In many cultures, machismo is acceptable and even expected.
The trait may be seen as the product of runaway evolution, as Frits Staal notes,
The peacock’s tail, the grotesquely enlarged claw of the male fiddler crab and the machismo of members of the human species are all exaggerated features that may cause injury to individuals that display them but attract females.”
In other words, it’s annoying, but the chicks dig it.
What MRA’s seem to mostly circle around when it comes to “redefining masculinity” is the removal of the desire for women’s approval from the equation. Chivalry and the like have got to go. One thing I can tell you is there doesn’t seem to be an idealized goal, but more an affirmation of some aspects, disparagement of others. Seems to be more or less embryonic really, but it does go back to what I said earlier about time and money and picking battles…
Other than that, I’d have to go back to HQ and ask the Grand Patriarchal Council for permission to disclose…
Ephrahim - All of those qualities you listed - honor, integrity, stoicism, sensitivity, protective instinct, sense of duty - are human qualities, not masculine ones, possibly with the exception of stoicism (and maybe it’s my cultural background here, but i really fail to see what’s so good about that).
Stoicism is a pretty neat survival trait, IMO. It means not sweating the small stuff, retaining the ability to help & support others, and surviving the inevitable damage life deals with calm. Like any trait it’s unhealthy when taken to extremes, but too little stoicism is clearly as harmful as too much.
You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the standing binary gender scheme that you want.
Yes, yes, you can
But only by accepting that it’s an entirely false binary, and that positioning one half of the binary over the other is totally dumb.
Factory - Feminists might ask why there’s little support for women in sports, and business, and education, when a better question might be ‘How did men build those things from the ground up, and how can we do the same thing?”
Feminists often do just that; feminists fight exclusions and inequalities, but also build, encourage, and applaud the practical work that women do. The reason why, of all pro sports, tennis is the one that has the closest gender parity is because female tennis players made it be so. It wasn’t women on the outside arguing about things that did that - it came from women on the inside of the problem. Personally I think that’s usually the most realistic way to get things done - not always, sometimes it’s like trying to open a box with the key that’s locked inside, but a simple demand for equality is less likely to get a result than an attempt to build is.
that feminist theory has decided that there is a glass ceiling (hey, I’m not a CEO either, and I’m a white guy) is one thing.
You’re not on death row either, yet I’ve seen MRAs bemoan the gender inequality in executions.
Ever since I can remember, men and males are “commonly understood” to cause all the ills of this world….we could start there.
Hetero-matrix again: I wasn’t asking about men or male people, I was asking about masculinity. They are not the same thing. I think it’d be pretty easy to prove that feminism has had a net bad effect on femininity while proving that it’s done good things for women and female people. When I ask about masculinity, I mean masculinity, not men or male people. So please, tell me about masculinity. Because I think the fact that men still embrace it and rely on it to a greater extent than women rely on femininity is interesting.
Thene: “Feminists often do just that; feminists fight exclusions and inequalities, but also build, encourage, and applaud the practical work that women do.”
Yeah there’s a lot of that around here too. “Women of Distinction” awards, Women’s Small Business Association. Etc. But there’s a problem Thene.
It’s illegal for men to do this.
As to the Death Row inequality…I think it’s pretty obvious that’s an allusion to the sentencing disparity. You know, the one where women get off a lot lighter for every crime than men?
I haven’t really thought all that much about masculinity as a concept. I agree, it’s an interesting idea for discussion.
actually, FEMINIST men do see masculinity as an option. i tend to date feminist men who do not believe they have to be “masculine”, just as they are ok with me not being “feminine”. all the more reason even men should be feminist and date feminists. feminist women will usually not expect their partners to have some conservative idea of “masculinity”.
i think we should get rid of this binary gender shit altogether, you’re stereotyping is just awful. i guarantee you women are not as different from men as you think we are. we are all human and like i said before, we vary more among individuals than across gender lines.
do you really think having XX makes women want to wear high heels and cover themselves in makeup? do you really think having a dick instead of a pussy makes you that much different?
“i guarantee you women are not as different from men as you think we are. we are all human and like i said before, we vary more among individuals than across gender lines.”
True, except how many times do you hear the “all men are useless” routine from women or, indeed, the reverse from men?
Whether we are more similar to one another as individuals than as a gender or not, gender is used today as a still-acceptable way to divide people in a fashion that would be beyond the pale for almost any other label.
Could you imagine anyone saying something like “all blacks are lazy” or “all Jews are tight with money” and getting away with it or being applauded for the sentiment (outside of the national KKK convention of course)?
Yet far, far worse is said of ‘men’ (as a homogenous group) by some of the intellectual leaders of feminism, with regrettably few dissentors. That the same applies to some misogynists amongst the ‘MRM’ just proves the point that it (gender) is a pervasive and devisive label that neither ’side’ is going to be discarding anytime soon, however much you (or I for that matter) dislike it.
That’s why I use the term “sex” when I refer to male or female. You know, cause that’s how many there are. I thought the term “Gender” was brought forth by feminists to evade your very complaint? As in, “There are two sexes, but many genders.”
I don’t agree with that by the way. I have quite a few gay friends who concur, interestingly enough. Not that that lends weight, just an observation.
From the stress you place on the term “feminist men”, does that mean they must self-identify as a feminist before you will date them? Or that they must demonstrate a belief in equality? Or that they must espouse certain beliefs that can be described as a subset of feminist thinking?
Additionally, by referring to their willingness to reject masculinity, do you mean as in they HAVE rejected their masculinity? Or that they’ve rejected SOME masculine traits? (If so, which do you deem best discarded?). Or that they themselves are utterly masculine, bu