In a discussion over at Alas, a Blog about the effect of feminism on men’s ability to find sex and relationships with women, I argued that for some men (particularly shy, socially unskilled, and sexually inexperienced men), feminism can impair this ability and result in sexual repression, by criticizing (often with justification) certain male behavior but without providing any guidelines to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and without suggesting any practical alternatives that feminists would find satisfactory. This argument is unsurprisingly met with skepticism on Alas. In the discussion, Richard Jeffrey Newman asked me some good questions.
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?
Yes. But I don’t think that curtailing sexist behavior is that only reason that feminism can impair the ability of heterosexual men to interact with women.
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?
Good question. Actually, I think my failure to answer this question is why a lot of people in that thread can’t understand where I am coming from. They seem to assume that if a man’s ability to interact with women is impaired by feminism, it must mean that his previous behavior to women was sexist, and that now he is complaining about being stripped of his privilege to harass, date rape, or just be an asshole. For example, Mandolin says:
I think the idea is not that there were assertive women pre-feminism, but that men didn’t have to worry about whether or not they were assholes pre-feminism. So if they happened to date rape someone, so what? S’all cool.
Only now feminism is around saying “DON’T date rape people, DON’T harrass people, DON’T be an asshole.” And so some shy guys have to think about whether tey are date rapists, harrassers, or assholes.
So, it’s feminism’s fault they can’t get laid, because sans feminism, it would be okay for them to harrass, date rape, and asshole it up.
Yet there is another route by which feminism could exacerbate the sexual and romantic difficulties of heterosexual men (particularly of shy and sensitive men):
Feminism can exacerbate a man’s shyness, anxiety, self-consciousness, and guilt exactly because he is working very hard not to be sexist, and because he is sympathetic to feminism. Just as some workers, even conscientious ones, have trouble getting work done out of a perfectionistic fear of making mistakes, some men, even pro-feminist men or proto-feminist men, have trouble interacting with women out of a fear of making what feminism defines as mistakes (it doesn’t help that feminism’s criteria for acceptable behavior and so ambiguous and vague, and fail to clearly distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, but that’s a whole different post).
Trying not to be a male chauvinist pig
Because of the kind of non-masculine personality traits and behavior they develop with, some males tend to have difficulties in heterosexual interaction (e.g. being too shy, too unassertive, too self-conscious, or not masculine enough to attract females), and they tend to identify more with women and be less invested in masculinity, which makes them more sympathetic to feminist views.
These males are relatively less likely to behave in a sexist manner, yet they will also take messages from feminism more seriously. Furthermore, they listen to women’s experiences with asshole men, and try to do their best not to be like those men. Thus, they may fear being sexist towards women in a way that is disproportionate to their actual likelihood of being sexist.
Here is an example from radical pro-feminist Allan Hunter’s essay on “heterosexual sissies”:
The sissy must behave against a patriarchal backdrop, not in a vacuum. Sexually assertive behaviors which would not be considered oppressive otherwise are open to being interpreted that way precisely because other men, in general, have behaved as they have. Nowhere does this have greater impact than in the matter of the simple, honest declaration of sexual attraction. Surrounded by females complaining of the exploitative, insensitive nature of men’s raw sexuality, and often confronted head-on with the generic automatic female response to all male expressions of immediate sexual interest, the sensitive young male who identifies with and respects women is likely to be rapidly polarized. He ends up being driven towards a masculinizing track of ceasing to feel hurt by such interpretations of his sexuality, or else towards complete (or nearly complete) cessation of expressing appetite for women in order to avoid being accused of, to put it tritely, “being only after one thing.” [Emphases mine]
Hunter links this “cessation of expressing appetite for women” to identifying with women and hearing their criticism of male sexual behavior, which would be a great example of how males can be impaired and psychosexually harmed by internalized negative attitudes towards male sexuality. Like me, Hunter doesn’t consider sexism the only reason that males would become sexually repressed. Hunter doesn’t directly connect this reaction to feminism, but I think that connection is implicit: after all, who else criticizes male sexuality and encourages men to listen to women?
I have no problem with feminism criticizing sexual and relationship abusiveness and sexism towards women by men; I have no problem with feminists encouraging men to listen to women, as long as this listening goes both ways. Yet when men hear a large amount of negative female experiences with male sexuality, and victimization by males, but a very small amount of positive female experiences with male sexuality, how could they develop a positive view of their own sexuality? As Hunter says, they are likely to internalize a negative view, which they either try to avoid by acting like a eunuch around women, or embrace by acting like the male chauvinist pig they believe they are.
What I am suggesting, based on my own experience, is that some of these men might worry so hard about being sexist that it exacerbates their anxiety and self-consciousness around women. Furthermore, it exacerbates their reluctance to make sexual initiatives, because they don’t want to just be another male chauvinist pig who pressures women and sees them as objects. If these men are creative and intelligent, then they can read sexism into just about any way of manifesting sexuality around women; feminism provides no means for men to put on the brakes of self-criticism for sexism. In short, their over-zealousness in following feminist ideals greatly impairs their ability to interact with women. Not only egregious sinners experience religious guilt, and not only egregious sexists experience feminist guilt.
In my case, I was scared to bring any sexual undertone (or overtone) into a conversation for fear that it would make women uncomfortable, or that I would be being one of the “male chauvinist pigs” who always hits on women and disrespects them. Consequently, women saw me as just a friend rather than as a sexual prospect, probably because I was hiding my own sexuality. I was anxious about asking women out, because I didn’t want to pressure them. Consequently, either I didn’t ask, or I asked in such a hesitant way that they always said no. When I touch a woman, part of me will worry that I’m somehow molesting her (even if she is touching me back). Yes, this is irrational, but it was partly a consequence of having feminist messages drummed into me at a young age before I could think critically about them, and before I had the social skills to put them in context. Thanks a lot, feminism.
Routes to feminist sexual repression of men
To summarize, I identify several overlapping ways in which some men (often non-masculine men who identify with females and are sympathetic to feminist concerns) might be impaired in interactions with women by listening to feminism, other than being sexists who are unhappy that feminism prohibits their sexism:
1. hyper-self-consciousness about harassing women, objectifying women, or being sexist to them, resulting in decreased comfort and spontaneity around women
2. fear of showing their own sexuality due to internalizing negative female/feminist perceptions of male sexuality
3. fear or hesitance making any initiatives, from asking women out to physical advances, in order not to pressure them
4. guilt that making physical advances on women is somehow molesting them, regardless of any consent or participation they display
I don’t claim that every male who listens to feminism will have these difficulties, or that even every shy or feminine male will have them. I have no idea how prevalent they are, and I doubt that the list is complete (actually, there is at least one more item, but I will save it for another post). I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has experienced what I describe. I would also be interested in hearing counter-examples to this analysis: feminist men who feel that they are successful in finding the sex and relationships they are looking for with women, and/or that feminism does not impair their ability to do so.
The irony
There is an irony here. The males who most need to hear feminist prohibitions of sexism towards women are the ones who are probably least likely to listen, while the males who least need to hear them are the ones who are probably most likely to listen. And when these males listen to feminists, the consequence is that some of them may be impaired in their interactions with women. Yet feminists don’t really seem to care about that. Instead, feminists will risk hurting the romantic prospects of some of the men who are most likely to listen to them. If, like me, these men figure out that they were screwed over by feminism and speak up, a common feminist response is to blame the victim.
What I propose is not for feminism to stop advocating against sexism towards women. I propose for feminists to look for ways to do so that don’t needlessly cause lasting sexual repression or guilt in a subset of men most sympathetic to feminist concerns. However, this would require considering men’s interests, perspectives, and experiences, not just women’s.
thats a rational and intelligent well argued post. And thus will be ignored.
Such observations can be self-fulfilling, and I, and I suspect Hugh, would rather that they weren’t.
One thing that I would add from my own experience is that, when combined with a history of abuse with female victimizers, these factors can contribute to a man being willing to tolerate or accept abusive behaviors from women as a way of paying for the sins and transgressions of other men, or our own past transgressions, no matter how distant or innocently intended. When we internalize negative perceptions of male sexuality and behavior, I think that we sometimes also internalize the notion that we deserve the reactions that this behavior can provoke, even if we ourselves take pains not to engage in it (successfully or not). The willingness to suffer such treatment can become a way of signaling that we are trying to be different.
Damn. You have really hit the nail on the head. This describes many of my male friends (although these days, they’re a lot more mature and confident than they used to be). One problematic side effect is that it makes it hard to call guys out on those occasions when they really do something mildly sexist, lest it turn into a huge guilt-fest. (My gut reaction to unjustified guilt is ZOMG MAKE IT STOP!, which is just as unproductive as the original guilt when left unchecked.) If essentially decent guys were not so freaked out about being sexist, it would be much easier to change their occasional mildly annoying behaviors.
Been there too, but I’ve come to different conclusions. (Apologies in advance for the length of this comment.)
I think the problem is that “feminist guilt” doesn’t replace “Catholic guilt” (by which I really mean sex-negative guilt that’s not religion specific), but that feminist messages and non-feminist message about sexuality combine into a toxic attitude I call “Just Say No Means No.”
The feminist messages that “no means no, and ignoring no is rape” and “persistent, unwanted sexual attention is harassment” are pretty much the only ones that have gone mainstream. Other ideas, like sex-as-performance or “enthusiastic participation” as a standard for consent, don’t really get acknowledged outside of feminist discussions.
There are other messages about sexuality in our society that don’t come from feminists, but exist “at large.” (Perhaps they’re based in religion, but they’re not particular to any faith.) I very much disagree that these messages are coming primarily from feminists. These messages are a lot more ingrained, though, because they’ve been around much longer and are usually implicit rather than explicit.
The ones that particularly impact the sort of men we’re talking about here are: “Women aren’t *really* interested in sex; they just play along to get love, relationships, gifts, etc.”; “Men’s sexuality is inherently aggressive and coercive, about ‘conquest’”; “Women’s sexuality is only reactive; that is, all they desire is to be desired”; “Sex is something that shames, degrades or harms people, especially women.”
What happens is that many men internalize *both* sets of messages, and reconcile them with the following logic:
* It’s wrong to impose sexuality on someone who doesn’t want it.
* Men’s sexuality is inherently harmful to, and unwanted by, women.
* Therefore, men should refrain at all times from being sexual.
Why does this happen? I think a lot of it has to do with the state of sex education, official and unofficial, in our society. Anti-rape and anti-harassment messages are common because they’re easily co-opted into anti-sex messages. We teach young women how to say “no,” and young men to respect that “no,” because we want to reduce rape, but also because we as a society don’t want them having sex. Just Say No Means No. We don’t teach them how to say “yes,” though, which leaves women with difficulty articulating their desires and consequently leaves men questioning the authenticity of a “no.” (Not to mention that it upholds the archaic “men ask, women consent” model of asynchronous propositioning.) It’s Just Say No Means No.
At its best, “seduction” advice can help eliminate this harmful paradigm, by telling men “Women are adults too, and capable of deciding for themselves whether they want sex; taking away that option out of a misguided sense of paternalism helps no one.” But far too often, it seems go the other route, boosting men’s confidence by telling them to stop caring about things like harassment or agency altogether.
What I *really* think needs to be done is not that feminists “tone it down” to protect the feelings of men who’ve internalized this mindset; rather, we need to present more positive examples of male sexuality, and make it clear that one *can* be sexual without resorting to the sorts of behaviors that are typically complained about. This is where men, especially feminist and pro-feminist men, really need to step up, I think.
Not to make it all about my desire to change a few mildly annoying behaviors when your emotional health is on the line. Just pointing out why mocking guys is not always the best strategy from a feminist perspective.
Seeing as how large swaths of feminism fail to make too many distinctions between making romantic advances on a woman and trying to rape her, I don’t think much of what Hugh says should be very surprising at all.
Hugh, isn’t it just easier for you to admit that “romance” is how you mask your sheer hatred and contempt for women?
jfpbookworm
Me (tearing out what’s left of my hair)
jfpbookworm
If you’ve followed some of the debates at Alas (a more than usually moderate and responsible feminist site) you’ll know that it is extremely difficult to discover what exactly is being complained about – where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable sexual enterprise lies. See here for instance. We are all agreed that bullying, intimidation and the refusal to take a clear “no” for an answer constitutes unacceptable courting behaviour on the part of men. But what kinds of male sexual enterprise are definitely acceptable – that is generally left undefined. By contrast, a complete absence of sexual enterprise on the part of men is alway acceptable from a feminist perspective – and if a man wants to make absolutely sure that his sexual behaviour is inoffensive in feminist terms, then the best way is to forswear all heterosexual initiative.
Defining acceptable male courting behaviour is not something men can legitimately do, jfpbookworm. From a feminist perspective it is entirely inappropriate for us to announce that it is acceptable to court women in this or that way when women feminists themselves have chosen to leave the matter vague. Until their female counterparts are clear about what the proper level and form of masculine sexual enterprise should be, there can be no question of male feminists “stepping up” in the way you suggest. I am at best a dissident male feminist – but even I can see that.
If you mean that they’re allegedly saying there’s no way to make romantic advances without resorting to rapist-like behavior, I call bullshit here.
There *is* a feminist argument that a lot of what passes for “romantic advances” is about aggression, coercion, and not giving a woman a chance to refuse. It’s the “better to ask forgiveness than permission” idea. But it’s not the feminists who say that this sort of behavior is the only way men can express their sexuality.
Aych
Yeah Hugh, y’bloody misogynist.
If you mean that they’re allegedy saying there’s no way to make romantic advances without resorting to rapist-like behavior, I call bullshit here.
Maybe you could call bullshit if that is what I had actually said.
Tom:
Good call on the “yes”/”no” thing. It’s a convenient shorthand sometimes, but it refers to a fundamentally flawed model of interaction, and it’s lazy of me to employ it. (Just goes to show how tenacious some of those patriarchal ideas can be, y’know?)
How’s this: we teach women that they’re allowed to have agency when it comes to choosing not to have sex, but not that they have the agency to choose to have sex. This leaves men with the idea that women don’t *really* have agency in this matter, or that they would never choose to have sex on their own.
I *don’t* think it’s very hard at all to figure out what’s generally acceptable and what’s generally unacceptable. My personal criteria:
* Is my behavior appropriate to the context? What may be perfectly fine at a party would be creepy on a city street, and totally out of line in the workplace.
* Am I letting a woman decide what she wants, or am I trying to make that decision for her?
That’s it. Sure, there’s still some gray area, but that’s not so big a deal when there’s plenty of ways to interact that don’t push the limits of acceptability.
Admittedly, it took me 30 years to get to this point, and there’s no way anyone should take that long to figure this out, but again – maybe if alternatives were out there, guys wouldn’t think they had to choose between asexuality and coercion.
I’m not saying that it’s up to me to define what’s acceptable to others. But I do think that, having been in the “love shy” situation, I have a better understanding of the mindset than the woman who just deals with the fallout from it. And I think that the problem isn’t really figuring out where the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is, so much as it’s putting out the idea that sexuality isn’t about coming as close to that line as possible without crossing it, and I think that’s best done by men.
[quote comment="9787"]If you mean that they’re allegedly saying there’s no way to make romantic advances without resorting to rapist-like behavior, I call bullshit here.
There *is* a feminist argument that a lot of what passes for “romantic advances” is about aggression, coercion, and not giving a woman a chance to refuse. It’s the “better to ask forgiveness than permission” idea. But it’s not the feminists who say that this sort of behavior is the only way men can express their sexuality.[/quote]
If there is such an argument, it rarely gets presented. To the contrary, many feminists will often insert not so subtle accusations about rape and harassment, as Hugh noted in his post. If one follows the links in his post, there are no examples of what behaviors feminists actually find acceptable or any expression of male sexuality that is not stated or implied to be predatory behavior.
I think that is part of Hugh’s point. There is no reflection on the impact of statements or the lack of positive views of male sexuality. For males interested in relationships with women, they end up in no-win situations as their sexuality will likely be vilified, the males themselves will be overly aware of how they express their sexuality and if the males complain about how this makes them feel, they will face mockery and accusations of entitlement, privilege and desires to rape women.
[quote]What I *really* think needs to be done is not that feminists “tone it down” to protect the feelings of men who’ve internalized this mindset; rather, we need to present more positive examples of male sexuality, and make it clear that one *can* be sexual without resorting to the sorts of behaviors that are typically complained about.[/quote]
This would create a contradiction. For example, if feminists continue to treat feelings like Hugh’s as inherently sexist and the result of entitlement and privilege, later stating that there are some good elements of male sexuality does not negate the feminist dismissal of those feelings. It would be akin spanking a child for an action he did not commit and then stating later that the child is well behaved. The latter has no reflection on the former. In particular, it makes the latter look like a lie or attempted justification.
For the males subjected to this, it would only create further confusion as they would still be unable to express how they feel without having it thrown back at them. However, if feminists lost the antagonistic tone it would make it much easier for them to understand the male experience and how males view their own sexuality. It would also allow feminists to see how they have negatively affected those views. From that feminist could learn how to approach the subjects they wish to discuss without destroying or vilifying male sexuality, which would in turn make them more open to the male perspective.
After TS’s statement above, I don’t have to further clarify what I clearly said earlier.
When you present someone with a 10-mile list of “don’ts” with 4 or 5 vague and narrow “dos” tacked-on as an afterthought, it’s very hard to regard this as being done in good faith.
It one didn’t know better, one might reach the conclusion that a great many feminists have an aversion to treating men as equals.
I don’t, by and large, see attraction in itself, or even statements of attraction in general, being vilified. It’s not feminists who have put forth the idea that sex is shameful, degrading and harmful to women, or that male sexuality is about coercion and conquest and “taking what you can get.”
If I tell a woman “I like you, would you like to go out sometime?” (assuming I’m not doing something obviously out of line like hitting on a coworker or someone I’ve just seen on the street) I’m generally not going to get attacked for that.
The reason that I think men need to articulate new models of sexuality is because women don’t have the same level of understanding about the fact that there simply *aren’t* any. The women who talk about this assume that men are well aware of a model of appropriate behavior and they’re choosing to forgo it, when a lot of the time there’s really no acceptable model out there, which makes it easy to take an objection to inappropriate behavior as a sign that the feelings themselves were the problem.
[quote comment="9782"]What happens is that many men internalize *both* sets of messages, and reconcile them with the following logic:
* It’s wrong to impose sexuality on someone who doesn’t want it.
* Men’s sexuality is inherently harmful to, and unwanted by, women.
* Therefore, men should refrain at all times from being sexual.[/quote]
I think that the logic usually ends up being more severe, along the lines of this:
* Sexuality is harmful when it exists outside of proper bounds, proper contexts and proper forms. It must exist within socially-approved constraints.
* Male sexuality, in contrast to female sexuality, is aggressive, invasive and overreaching — like male attitudes and attributes generally. Left unchecked, it does not respect boundaries, and must be disciplined, reeducated and controlled.
* Female sexuality, if not controlled, will fall prey to this, encourage it and embolden it.
* Therefore, men have an obligation to protect others, especially young women, from male sexuality, including one’s own. (And as a corollary, straight men have an obligation to protect themselves and other straight men from gay male sexuality.)
I brought this up in a thread at AntiPrincess’ place, but I still think that it’s a good example of this attitude in popular culture: Custom’s song Hey Mister. Gaspar Noe’s film Irreversible is a good example as well, although it’s not exactly mainstream (and it’s substantially more extreme).
Although I do not think that this results from feminist discourse, I think that the two exist in parallel and often draw upon each other.
Don’t you see, TS? Male sexuality is only unacceptable as it exists today but not as it could exist in the hypothetical, unforseen future.
“Real” feminism does not say that men are irredeemably bad– it says that men are redeemably bad.
[quote comment="9800"]I don’t, by and large, see attraction in itself, or even statements of attraction in general, being vilified. It’s not feminists who have put forth the idea that sex is shameful, degrading and harmful to women, or that male sexuality is about coercion and conquest and “taking what you can get.”[/quote]
Certain forms of feminist theory certainly state that forms of sexual expression, especially those based on an androcentric model, are degrading or harmful to women. Discussions about BDSM and sex work are rife with arguments of that type. Renegade Evolution could likely comment on this in depth, if she were so inclined.
Male sexuality may not necessarily be described as coercive and conquest-based, but IME contemporary views of sexuality are usually described as being both coercive/conquest-based (especially in regard to examinations of the SC) and androcentric, which is a roughly equivalent statement.
[quote]If I tell a woman “I like you, would you like to go out sometime?” (assuming I’m not doing something obviously out of line like hitting on a coworker or someone I’ve just seen on the street) I’m generally not going to get attacked for that.[/quote]
I’ve read arguments that do characterize, say, talking to a woman one has not previously met, regardless of context, if done without a clear invitation, as invasive. This is usually in the context of “the right to be left alone,” as I recall one post putting it. The sentiment may not be pervasive, but it does exist.
I think it comes down to the same thing – there are a lot of bullshit sex-negative ideas out there that serve to alienate us from their sexuality (for men, by presenting it as something inherently destructive; for women, by presenting it as something completely passive).
And this needs to stop.
I don’t think this characterization is particular to feminists; in fact, I think it’s more common among non-feminists. It’s only in feminist discussions that I’ve even heard any alternatives (e.g., sex-as-performance) proposed.
[As an aside, I'm not sure what you mean by "androcentric" there. Is it that our idea of "sex" centers around men getting off, and treats women's pleasure as incidental? Or something else?]
[quote comment="9806"]I think it comes down to the same thing – there are a lot of bullshit sex-negative ideas out there that serve to alienate us from their sexuality (for men, by presenting it as something inherently destructive; for women, by presenting it as something completely passive).[/quote]
I’d contend that the differences are substantial. As an example, I think that the emphasis on regulation of male sexuality by other males plays into homophobia, mutual suspicion, confronting or attacking another man for talking to one’s girlfriend or wife, etc. Further, I think that this plays into the antipathy that can exist between feminists, especially pro-feminist men, and those who have taken to the route aggressive polarity mentioned the article Hugh quoted. It can cast discussions of male sexuality as personal attacks or betrayals.
I would emphatically agree that an ethical emphasis on sublimation, redirection or denial of one’s sexuality does exist. I would also contend, however, that the internalized logic is more complex and has substantial social effects not suggested or accounted for by your analysis.
Yeah, you’re right, Infra. It does come down to a lot more problems than just alienation from sexuality – that’s just what I was focused on.
Are we agreed that it needs to end?
[quote comment="9807"]I don’t think this characterization is particular to feminists; in fact, I think it’s more common among non-feminists. It’s only in feminist discussions that I’ve even heard any alternatives (e.g., sex-as-performance) proposed.[/quote]
I’d agree that it’s common in many areas, and I would agree that feminism is not its primary domain. However, it does appear to me that the emphasis, analysis and codification of its specifics does tend to be stronger in areas that focus on gender analysis in combination with social policy, including certain forms of feminism (esp. radical) and the SC/MRA intersect (which I would distinguish from the SC proper).
I do think that alternative notions of consent, such as enthusiastic participation, do occur in other areas, such as the SC (reading body language, etc.). However, based on my readings to date I would agree that feminism seems to be the primary area in which they are codified.
[quote][As an aside, I'm not sure what you mean by "androcentric" there. Is it that our idea of "sex" centers around men getting off, and treats women's pleasure as incidental? Or something else?][/quote]
That’s one expression. That women are passive and males active is another, as is the idea that female orgasm is equivalent to male orgasm (a good book to read on this is E. A. Lloyd’s The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution, Harvard University Press, 2005). Basically, here it would refer to the notion that an examination of male sexuality and sexual experience is a norm by which female sexuality and sexual experience may be judged and analyzed.
[quote]Are we agreed that it needs to end?[/quote]
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: I think that we’re agreed that it’s immensely destructive. We’d probably disagree about exactly how and why this destructiveness comes about, what valid ideas may exist but be twisted into erroneous forms, and how to go about changing things, but that’s a much more complex subject. That would involve investigating the application of biopower in this context, and the social position of feminist theory in view of Agamben’s notion of sovereignty, among other things. (I think that a discussion of whether or not, and to what degree, men are responsible for developing an improved model would be deeply immersed in those issues.)
[quote comment="9800"]The reason that I think men need to articulate new models of sexuality is because women don’t have the same level of understanding about the fact that there simply *aren’t* any.[/quote]
That would not solve the issue at hand as the matter of rejection lies with the one who does the rejecting, not the rejected. As Hugh noted, males who do alter their behavior appear to face a greater likelihood of rejection as a result. As was also noted, feminists are rather unclear as to what exactly are acceptable forms of male sexuality and expressions of them. That is not to say feminists should be the ones defining or redefining male sexuality, only that their lack of clarity contributes to the problem at hand.
Not that I buy this – I’ve certainly found more dating success after realizing that women didn’t need me deciding for them – but we’re talking here about guys whose only model of male sexuality is one they see as destructive, and consequently are so worried about hurting women that they never, ever acknowledge any attraction. How is a way out of that going to make them worse off?
[quote comment="9811"]As was also noted, feminists are rather unclear as to what exactly are acceptable forms of male sexuality and expressions of them. That is not to say feminists should be the ones defining or redefining male sexuality, only that their lack of clarity contributes to the problem at hand.[/quote]
Since it seems that providing a schema of of acceptable sexual behavior is often interpreted as enabling entitlement views — basically, caving in to and answering the assumed question of, “ok, what would I have to do to be non-sexist and still get laid?” — it would follow, from a certain point of view, that providing any answer other than “figure it out” could be seen as ideologically, politically or socially dangerous; ambiguousness would be the only viable option. It may not be a matter of someone refusing to give an answer as finding that, from their position, they cannot do so without hypothetical or actual risk. (That is, someone could take this answer and exploit it, or having an answer would reinforce current power dynamics.)
If this were the case, there would be no real option except for those outside of that position to figure this out for themselves (and that is likely to be, dominantly, men) even in if it were in isolation.
Anyway, this would seem to reflect some of the things that I’ve observed, in that women who have identified as dissident or heretical feminists have been willing to give more feedback on the issue than those who have taken more orthodox or radical views.
(Oh, and it was comment #21 I meant previously, not #12. Ugh.) (Fixed, and deleted your comment referring mistakenly to #12 — Daran)
bookworm
Don’t feel bad – virtually everybody, feminists included, neglects this aspect of the matter.
(1) Naturally we all want to court in an appropriate fashion. The problem is that some men are not clear what that means in practical terms. You appear to be saying little more than, “play it by ear.” But much of the male behaviour that feminists complain of results from men doing just that.
(2) Again, I think we are all agreed that women should not be forced or bullied into sex. Beyond that, how is a man to decide to what degree an apparently acquiescent woman is acting from her own volition or under the pressure of his insistence? Presumably, once again, he is to play it by ear – with sometimes regrettable results.
Men cannot,then, trust their instincts in these matters, given that “I had a feeling that I was behaving correctly” is no excuse before the court of feminism when things go wrong. But they will look in vain for a feminist-approved courting codex which would allow them to know when they are behaving in an acceptable fashion.
On a postitive note: People outside the mainstream het dating scene are much better at communicating about sex, and het men and women could learn some valuable lessons from them. Despite all the smack that some feminists talk about BDSM (pun intended), I’ve found that the BDSM-involved men in my town have vastly healthier communication skills than your typical Joe Vanilla. Gay men also seem to have a model of dating that does not portray it as a predator/prey dynamic.
Dossie Easton and Catherine Lizst’s The Ethical Slut might be an excellent gift for men getting over sexual guilt issues, as well as somen getting over a fear of being straightforward about their sexual desire. The paradigms for feminist dating are out there; they’re just not widely available to vanilla heterosexual people.
And I forgot to mention lesbians and polyamourous people! After I specifically mentioned a book by them too.
Good one, aych.
jfpbookworm, this may not be as obvious to others as it is for you. I would not think that asking a coworker out (as long as they weren’t a subordinate) or a just-met stranger on the street (assuming there was some kind of rapport established) would be “out of line”.
[quote comment="9813"]Not that I buy this – I’ve certainly found more dating success after realizing that women didn’t need me deciding for them – but we’re talking here about guys whose only model of male sexuality is one they see as destructive, and consequently are so worried about hurting women that they never, ever acknowledge any attraction. How is a way out of that going to make them worse off?[/quote]
There is no guarantee that the altered male sexuality would be deemed acceptable. If so, the next course of action would be for males to again alter their sexuality ad infinitum until a solution is reached. However, this does not affect whether the males will continue to be rejected. Would this not be akin to women deciding for men?
[quote comment="9815"]Since it seems that providing a schema of of acceptable sexual behavior is often interpreted as enabling entitlement views [...] it would follow, from a certain point of view, that providing any answer other than “figure it out” could be seen as ideologically, politically or socially dangerous; ambiguousness would be the only viable option. It may not be a matter of someone refusing to give an answer as finding that, from their position, they cannot do so without hypothetical or actual risk.[/quote]
True, but that problem lies specifically with those who reinforce those ideological problems.
Lot’s of discussion about acceptable and non-acceptable male behavior and NO discussion about female behavior. We cannot have a rational discussion without BOTH!
Here’s the thing, feminists want all discussions to be based only on the changes males need (in feminist minds) to make. But! Sexuality is a complex-system with multiple feedbacks and thus is only changeable in terms of changing all parts of the system. Any male-only change would increase the troubles in the system: That is part of the nature of all complex systems.
This is the central point which is not being heard. If feminists see male behavior as wrong then feminists must also see female behavior as wrong, yet all discussion is only of the male-as-wrong. This demands, ensures and requires that any changes made create problems rather than solve them.
———–
We also have the problem of men damaged by female bad-behavior not behaving in their own (or society’s) best interest due to feminist contempt for males. This has been alluded to in this thread. Without feminists realizing the damage they personally due to wounded men there will be ripples of damage running throughout society which will block any system change in the parts of society feminists want to change! Feminist behavior is self destructive in this way.
[quote comment="9823"]Dossie Easton and Catherine Lizst’s The Ethical Slut might be an excellent gift for men getting over sexual guilt issues, as well as somen getting over a fear of being straightforward about their sexual desire. The paradigms for feminist dating are out there; they’re just not widely available to vanilla heterosexual people.[/quote]
This is a book that’s on my list, but I haven’t been able to read it yet. Could you provide a summary of how you see it applying here, the kind of model it suggests, etc.?
Jfp, please excuse me for focusing on just one tiny detail of your argument, but here goes the “women have lower sex drive == women really want other things” conflation again.
[quote comment="9782"]There are other messages about sexuality in our society that don’t come from feminists, but exist “at large.” (…) The ones that particularly impact the sort of men we’re talking about here are: “Women aren’t *really* interested in sex; they just play along to get love, relationships, gifts, etc.”;[/quote]
These are two distinct messages and even you do separate them with a semicolon. “[Women] just play along to get love, relationships, gifts, etc.” is a non-following sexist conclusion derived incorrectly from the objective observation that “women aren’t *really* interested in sex”. This latter statement (former in your writing) is not to be interpreted as saying that women are *really* interested in something else. It is just an observation that women’s *level* of interest in sex is significantly lower than some reference level of which we think as being *really* interested in sex. It is all purely comparative, and for the record, I maintain that this comparative observation is objectively true on average.
Jeesh. Not only did the computer eat my reply to Infra, but after I reconstructed it, I managed to post it on the wrong thread (“Dr. Framperstein…” instead of here). I apologize to the mods for the double post; feel free to delete the one on the other thread.
The central ideas I take from The Ethical Slut are as follows:
1. Sex is fun and pleasure is good for you. This is a basic idea, but it needs to be reiterated often, as people tend to lose sight of it.
2. Jealousy and guilt can be destructive, but are not inevitable. The authors offer a bit of practical advice for talking oneself out of negative emotions. Self-manipulation 101; very useful.
3. In any sexual interaction, people need to be explicit about asking for what they want. Nobody knows what you want if you don’t say something. By the same token, you shouldn’t assume your partner is OK with something just because they haven’t explicitly said no. If you talk about what to do before doing it, then each of you will have a better idea what the other wants. I think this is the book’s single most important message. The authors give helpful examples and exercises so you can practice soliciting and giving feedback. (Honestly, I think a lot of the problem is not that people don’t know what to do, but that they don’t practice enough.)
3. The authors specifically urge women to be more proactive instead of sitting around waiting for potential partners to approach them. (I thought Tom would be happy to hear that.)
4. Within the context of a relationship, people need to speak up in a non-judgmental fashion when something is bothering them (e.g., jealousy, insecurity, resentment). More good, practical advice.
5. Polyamory rocks! This is the one message that I’d advise taking with a grain of salt. Polyamory is not for everybody, and can be damaging to relationships, particularly if one party is inclined toward jealousy.
P.Burke
Yes, the ethical slut sounds like my kinda gal!
Well, I’ve got specific criteria for what’s appropriate. The most important of these are (1) any existing relationship with the woman in question; and (2) the ability of the woman to disengage from the situation if she so desires. There are a few other criteria as well (e.g., age), but those are the major ones for me.
I emphatically reject the idea that I’m supposed to be as insistent as possible without crossing the line into coercion. If I make someone aware that I like them, I don’t need to repeat it constantly, or demand a response from them; they’re perfectly capable of letting me know if they’re interested. And if they insist on playing games, well, too bad for them.
When it really comes down to it, though I listen to other people’s input on the matter, I’m the one in control of my actions, not them. The idea is to do what’s right, not what’s merely acceptable or what gets me laid.
Other people’s perspectives are useful (I’d go so far as to say necessary) to determine what’s right. Women’s experiences help me because I don’t have direct knowledge of their perspective. But the ultimate moral argument here isn’t “men should act this way because women want them to”; it’s that men should act this way because it’s the right thing to do.
I think there are a lot of shy guys who also want to do what’s right, but don’t know how to reconcile their idea of sexual morality with any expression of sexual interest and think they have to choose between being a “nice guy” or a “jerk.” I think it’s other men, due to shared perspective, who are better able to show that that’s a false dichotomy.
Basta: I agree that there are two separate social narratives there. One can certainly believe that women are less interested in sex without thinking that they use sex as a bargaining chip. (I’m not sure the reverse is a tenable position, though.) I really haven’t found *either* narrative to be true, though – the women I know *aren’t* less interested in sex than men. I think any perceived difference in libido is mostly due to socialization, and due to a limited definition of “sex” that focuses on those activities for which the risk/reward ratio varies most.
jw: I think there’s room for a discussion of female behavior when it comes to sexual ethics as well. But I think they work better as separate discussions, because it’s all to easy for a discussion of what’s right to turn into a competition over who’s got it worse, or into a transaction between the genders. One gender shouldn’t have to make concessions to get the other to stop harmful behavior.
[quote comment="9864"]I think any perceived difference in libido is mostly due to socialization[/quote]
Quite possible, but that doesn’t make the difference in libido any less real or easier to level.
[quote comment="9864"]and due to a limited definition of “sex” that focuses on those activities for which the risk/reward ratio varies most.[/quote]
This risk/reward ratio difference has been there since some algae or protists evolved oogamy. If you compress the history of oogamy into 24 hours, conscious mind capable of evaluating risks vs. rewards only exists for last few seconds. Earlier oogamous organisms nonetheless needed and evolved instinctive, non-conscious mechanisms to regulate optimal behavior for males and females, and I think it is an extraordinary claim to say that homo sapiens is completely free of this heritage.
Actually, men do have higher libidos because we have 20X more tesosterone. It’s not just “socialization.”
When women are doped with testosterone, all of a sudden their libidos skyrocket too.
It’s simple biology here folks (I know, the arch enemy of feminism).
I’m saying that it’s *not* real, but we think it is because men are encouraged to speak up about wanting sex, even if they’re relatively asexual, and women are discouraged from acknowledging their own desires.
But we’re much more complicated creatures. The category “sex” for humans comprises a lot of different activities, not just PIV. Yet when we refer to sex, we often assume that PIV and male orgasm are, barring medical incapability, mandatory, non-negotiable elements of any sexual encounter, in a way we don’t for other sorts of activity. Then when we observe that women are less likely to engage in an activity that may leave them pregnant but doesn’t guarantee they’ll get off than men are to engage in a practice that involves less physical risk and virtually guarantees them a good time, we decide that women just aren’t as interested in sex.
I’m female. I was raised feminist. I prefer to make the first move and nearly always do so (I proposed to both of my husbands). When men approach me my internal reaction tends to be “if I were interested in you I would already have let you know” although I try to be gentler and more polite in my external reaction.
If you are male and wish women would make the first move, why don’t you explore traditionally female strategies for inviting that? Why aren’t you discussing how to make yourselves attractive so that women will hit on you? I am sympathetic to the fact that most men I have known have rarely had the experience of feeling desired for themselves rather than for what they can do, but the discussion here seems to perpetuate that, by continuing to make it about what men do (or are discouraged from doing).
Tsunami: under the asynchonous ask/respond model that’s such a popular way of looking at dating, this doesn’t work, because those strategies rely on a populace of partners who are willing to do the asking. (Under this model, “traditionally female strategies” basically involve trying to make one as attractive as possible and then sitting around waiting to be approached.)
On the other hand, a woman who’s willing to buck the trend by asking a man out is at least assured of some sort of response, even if there’s disagreement as to how favorable that response would be.
Personally, I think the whole ask/respond model is bunk, because there’s all sorts of interaction and signaling and feedback going on; nobody, male or female, ever got anywhere just sitting on their ass waiting for the person of their dreams to ask them out.
It can still be real though. Even if we choose to ignore the effect of feminist messages (and we would be making this choice right after a heated debate about this very issue rolled over these blogs), the social pressures still don’t disprove the existence of instincts.
Of course we are! We are not just oogamous, we are placental mammals! The risk/reward ratio difference emerged when oogamy evolved, and was deepened by a quality constituting amount when pregnancy evolved. We humans inherit not just oogamous organisms’ instincts regulating the optimal behavior for males and females; we *primarily* inherit such instincts of placental mammals, and while we are much more complicated than protists, we are not as much more complicated than other placental mammals.
That’s exactly what happens, and the inference is correct if we refuse to tamper with meanings specifically to make it incorrect. Also, the “pregnancy risk / get off chance” equation doesn’t take a conscious mind to solve. Reptilian brains of early mammals do just fine, and humans still have these structures in their heads.
Stupid me. OF COURSE no browser actually renders the “cite” attribute of blockquote, so my cites above are unattributed and my last comment is one bloody unintelligible mess. I will try again below, sorry.
Preview functionality, pretty pretty please?
jfpbookworm
It can still be real though. Even if we choose to ignore the effect of feminist messages (and we would be making this choice right after a heated debate about this very issue rolled over these blogs), the social pressures still don’t disprove the existence of instincts.
BASTA!:
This risk/reward ratio difference has been there since some algae or protists evolved oogamy.
jfpbookworm:
Of course we are! We are not just oogamous, we are placental mammals! The risk/reward ratio difference emerged when oogamy evolved, and was deepened by a quality constituting amount when pregnancy evolved. We humans inherit not just oogamous organisms’ instincts regulating the optimal behavior for males and females; we *primarily* inherit such instincts of placental mammals, and while we are much more complicated than protists, we are not as much more complicated than other placental mammals.
jfpbookworm:
What’s the purpose of tampering with the meaning of the word “sex” here? When I express my conviction that women indeed want sex less, I mean by “sex” what the word usually means, isn’t that obvious? When you respond by saying that “sex” means something different to you, or that it should mean something different to me, you are basically changing the subject. I am only expected to defend _my_ views, not the meaning that a particular representation of my views acquires in someone’s nonstandard idiolect.
jfpbookworm:
That’s exactly what happens, and the inference is correct if we refuse to tamper with meanings specifically to make it incorrect. Also, the “pregnancy risk / get off chance” equation doesn’t take a conscious mind to solve. Reptilian brains of early mammals do just fine, and humans still have these structures in their heads.
bookworm
So you’re saying that a man should have a prior acquaintance with any woman to whom he proposes a sexual or romantic relationship? And you would therefore consider computer-dating as unacceptable? No problem if that’s the case, I’m just interested to know.
As to the woman’s ability to disengage from the situation if she so desires – I SHOULD THINK SO TOO!! I hope we are all agreed that locking a girl up in the attic is an unacceptable expression of romantic interest.
The problem is, bookworm (you don’t mind my calling you that, do you? I find “jfp” such a stuffy form of address) that you won’t offend against feminism as long as you stick to enumerating unacceptable sexual initiatives. On the other hand, ratifying particular forms of male sexual enterprise as definitely acceptable is problematic – especially for members of our sex.
As I said, it’s not up to men – including feminist men – to say what an acceptable sexual/romantic approach to women might be. In so far as we take feminism’s claims to speak on behalf of women seriously, we must wait for feminist women to define this or that form of sexual initiative as valid.
You’re really stuck between Scylla and Charybdis, I’m afraid.
Regarding sex drives and the definition of sex: It’s probably true that women are, on average, horny less frequently than men. I accept that the reasons for this may be partly biological. However, there are *many* cultural factors at play. I agree with jfpbookworm that the definition of sex as intercourse-to-male-orgasm is one of them. It’s a problem because the concept “sex” has a lot of associations, such as
(1) the best way to satisfy your sex drive is to have sex
(2) sex should be a part of romantic relationships
(3) having sex with people other than your partner is cheating
(4) sex is fun, but can carry a risk of STDs
If you use the intercourse-to-male-orgasm model of sex, then (1) is just false for a lot of people, including lesbians, gay men, and lots of straight people for whom intercourse is just not the best sexual experience out there. It just ignores whole swathes of BDSM experience, where for many people, being (consensually) beaten is more intense and fulfilling then either having a penis go in their vagina, or sticking their penis in a vagina. Similarly for (2): PIV intercourse doesn’t have to be part of every sexual or romantic relationship, and stipulating that it is the only kind of sex makes it non-negotiable. (3) can lead to plenty of confusion in cases where, say, a woman leaves a man for another woman, and the man is confused because the two women aren’t having “real” sex. (I have seen this happen. It makes me flinch.) (4) can lead to people ignoring the risk of STDs from activities like oral and anal sex.
Nobody is saying that PIV intercourse isn’t sex, but it is very limiting to think of sex as the only possibility. As a woman with a high sex drive who isn’t particularly turned on by intercourse, I feel strongly about this. If I really believed that intercourse were the only kind of sex, I wouldn’t have bothered with men, and one less of your competitors would be tied up with a hot girlfriend, and you’d be complaining *even louder* about how hard it is to get a date. Using an androcentric model of sex benefits nobody. It alienates women from sex and is a severe case of guys shooting themselves in the foot.
Also, if you read the history of ideas, conceptual change is ubiquitous. Scientific concepts like “mass” and “electron” have changed to accommodate new theories like relativity and quantum mechanics. The concept of “property” has expanded to include intellectual property. The concept of “citizen” has expanded to include women and men who don’t own land. People often need to often change their concepts because the old concepts aren’t enabling them to navigate the world successfully. I think we’re do for a “sex” change (couldn’t resist).
*steps off soapbox*
“to think of sex as the only possibility”? I meant intercourse, not sex. Even I do it when I’m typing too fast.
[quote comment="9885"]Regarding sex drives and the definition of sex: It’s probably true that women are, on average, horny less frequently than men. I accept that the reasons for this may be partly biological.[/quote]
Thanks.
[quote comment="9885"]However, there are *many* cultural factors at play. I agree with jfpbookworm that the definition of sex as intercourse-to-male-orgasm is one of them.[/quote]
Intercourse-to-male-orgasm is bookworm’s straw man, and intercourse-to-orgasm-if-possible is the common definition.
[quote comment="9885"]It’s a problem because the concept “sex” has a lot of associations, such as
(1) the best way to satisfy your sex drive is to have sex
(2) sex should be a part of romantic relationships
(3) having sex with people other than your partner is cheating
(4) sex is fun, but can carry a risk of STDs
If you use the intercourse-to-male-orgasm model of sex,
[/quote]
I don’t, see above.
[quote comment="9885"]then (1) is just false for a lot of people, including lesbians, gay men, and lots of straight people for whom intercourse is just not the best sexual experience out there.[/quote]
Is two lesbians making out not an intercourse? Is two gay men making out not an intercourse? (Does “intercourse” have a narrower meaning in English than its dictionary equivalent in my language)? Don’t lesbians/gays care about orgasms?
[quote comment="9885"]It just ignores whole swathes of BDSM experience,[/quote]
Are there enough BDSM people to speak of “whole swathes” of experience? And isn’t the whole thread about those whom heterosexual dynamics DOES affect?
[quote comment="9885"]Similarly for (2): PIV intercourse doesn’t have to be part of every sexual or romantic relationship,[/quote]
But some kind of intercourse has to be.
[quote comment="9885"]Using an androcentric model of sex benefits nobody.[/quote]
The androcentric model was actually bookworm’s straw man. As to the heterocentricity, well, the “what sex means to me” is heterocentric to heterosexuals, and heterosexual men are the only ones to whom the question matters whether women want sex (so defined) relatively less than men or not, or whether any perceived difference in sex-wanting is natural or cultural, or whether that latter distinction is even important.
[quote]I think we’re do for a “sex” change (couldn’t resist).[/quote]
I can appreciate a good pun even from someone who otherwise misses the point completely (except for where they agree with me)
BASTA!, I think the word “intercourse” now means PIV sex exclusively, despite its origins as a more broad term meaning any sort of interaction. (Jane Austen uses the word in the broad sense, which makes my inner twelve-year-old snicker.) My comment will make a lot more sense if you read it in that light.
I have encountered plenty of men who express bafflement when I talk about things like cunnilingus, mutual masturbation, solo masturbation, and BDSM as though they were sex. I have had male partners freak out when I suggested that PIV intercourse wasn’t doing it for me, and we needed to explore other kinds of sex. So even if you don’t have a narrow definition of sex (in which case good for you!), enough people do that it constitutes a problem, at least for some people some of the time.
I also understand that things are much better now than they were in, say, the 50s.
Also, I think ignoring gays, lesbians, and BDSMers is problematic insofar as it blinds vanilla heterosexuals to possibilities they might want to enact their own lives. So much of heterosexual dating culture is neither helpful nor necessary.
[quote comment="9863"]When it really comes down to it, though I listen to other people’s input on the matter, I’m the one in control of my actions, not them. The idea is to do what’s right, not what’s merely acceptable or what gets me laid.[/quote]
Unfortunately that concept is not often shared in the reverse, and that is part of the issue at hand. As jw noted, the issue is more complex than just male behavior being bad. Specifically, the behavior in question has been directly influenced by women in an attempt to appeal to them. To fail to acknowledge women’s roles essentially implies women’s behavior is wholly acceptable. I do not think that is the case and I think that is part of the reason why there is such a disconnect in understanding how males feel when rejected after attempting to follow the new rules (vague though they may be).
While I doubt it was intentional, the phrase “the right thing to do” sounds like unnecessary code for “don’t rape women.” On a separate note, if others get to define what the “right thing” is, then it is likely that the “right thing” will not includes defining as they would view their behavior as “the right thing.”
Personally, I think the problem is that the males are attempting to define their sexuality in terms of what women want rather than what works for them as men. This quite different than what one sees among gay men who typically define their sexuality based on what works for them personally, and they then allow potential partners to decide if they are compatible.
[quote comment="9885"]Regarding sex drives and the definition of sex: It’s probably true that women are, on average, horny less frequently than men. I accept that the reasons for this may be partly biological.[/quote]
This stuck out for me, not because of what you wrote, but how you wrote it. You don’t seem to be fond of using qualifiers in your responses; is your use of them significant here, or am I reading too much into this?
Personally, I’m skeptical on the issue for several reasons. One is direct observation: I’ve heard women complain about guys not wanting to have sex (PIV or other) far more, and far more viciously, than I’ve heard the reverse… but I admit that the people I know may not be representative. Another is that older theories regarding female sex drive and orgasm (70′s and 80′s, mostly, but still influential) have assumed that non-human primate females only mate during estrus and do not experience orgasm; this is one of the fundamental underpinnings of pair bond theories of female orgasm and sexual desire in humans, but it turns out that neither is borne out by the evidence. Then there are issues involved in self-reporting, which consistently show that men will over-report while women will under-report, and the low percentage of women who consistently or even regularly experience orgasm during PIV intercourse (further complicated by the fact that studies on this rarely distinguish between PIV alone and PIV in combination with manual stimulation, much less factor in sexual positions used and the resulting degree of clitoral stimulation likely to occur) even though men and women experience orgasm after the same amount of time, and with the same frequency, with masturbation.
It may be true that women want sex, defined as PIV-to-orgasm-if-possible (to use BASTA!’s phrasing), less than men, but that simply may be a result of the fact that it often does not result in orgasm for women. (IIRC, at best, the number of women who experience orgasm with PIV intercourse all or most of the time is 55%. If needed, I can provide references for the numbers.) This would suggest that women might be less interested in a particular act, but any extension of this to assert a differential in sex drive overall would be questionable.
That’s not to say that no such differential exists, just that the evidence we have is problematic in identifying it and proving its existence.
jfpbookworm: Yes, talking about both males and females at the same time COULD degenerate into chaos, however, talking about males only ensures contempt for males which ensures bad thinking and bad policy. Our only rational way out of the thing is to take the risk and talk about the system as it is, fully including all parts.
——————–
I see a lot of ‘males are more horny.’ You do KNOW that this only applies to the majority and even then, only when the majority are relatively young? There are and always have been a large minority of very horny women, a large minority of uninterested men and most males will lose interest as they age faster than most females. When studied in their sixties, the number of times a person says no to sex is almost equal between the sexes. Even when studied in college, roughly the same number of people have said no to sex, at least once, at about 95%.
I don’t much like these flat generalizations as they fail to catch several very important nuances. When talking about sexuality, nuances are important.
———————-
Byrdeye: Testosterone may increase libido, it may also decrease libido by encouraging monomania (an example being the workaholic). It is the most misunderstood hormone of them all. Flat statements on testosterone are a tough thing to make as how it effects the body is not guaranteed.
———————-
Tsunami: Most of the female strategies for attracting a male involve body language cues. A hair flip from a male to a female means “I’m more interested in me than you.” It does NOT mean the female to male “Please continue approaching me.”
We’re in a social and biological situation in which the female may use the male cues as they had no defined meaning and now have a gender neutral meaning; but a male MAY NOT use the female cues as the female cues already have meanings when used by a male! Well understood meanings too. A female may use either cue set, a male must use only the male cue set designed to reply to a female cue. He has no first-move cue set.
So, how does a male use the traditional female method of attraction? All effort on that path would send signals that he is NOT INTERESTED in the female he wants to attract: That is what those female cues coming from a male to a female are supposed to mean.
Tough one, eh?
“This would suggest that women might be less interested in a particular act, but any extension of this to assert a differential in sex drive overall would be questionable.”
In a fact, there is a ovehelming evindence, that women have milder sex drive than men.
Baumeister, Roy F. & Catanese, Kathleen & Vohs, Kathleen (2001). Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (3), 242 – 73.
Oliver, Mary Beth & Hyde, Janet Shibley (1993). Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29 – 51.
Sex drive refers to the motivation to engage in sexual activity. If person A has stronger sex drive than person B, this would mean that person A wants sex more often, more urgently, in more varieties, with more partners, under more circumstances, and the like. (Baumeister & Tice 2001, 99). Sexual drive is a hypotetical construction, which is measured in studies by sexual attitudes, behaviour and desire. (Baumeister 2000).
Danimal wrote once “If you’re really brave, buy a box of delicious doughnuts and offer them to some women. See how many women eagerly take a doughnut. Then offer your body to the same women. Notice the drop in eagerness.”
So you can also do a sama kind of test to find out if men have stronger drive. First offer you body to men to use for sexual purposes. Then, let an average man offer his body for women to use for sexual purposes. Then compare the resurts, which offer is accepted more eagerly and you will find which sex wants sex more.
Infra (quoting me):
No, you’re very perceptive. I’m not an expert on the topic, but I have the vague understanding that it’s hard to sort out biology from culture, for the kinds of reasons you bring up. I would also question the usefulness of investigating biological differences in sex drive, since so many of the cultural factors could be changed to everyone’s benefit.
One aspect of The Ethical Slut that I didn’t mention is the idea that sex is not a scarce commodity that exists only in fixed amounts. I’ve always read that as part of the pro-polyamory message, but now I’m wondering if it has applications to the mainstream heterosexual dating scene.
“One aspect of The Ethical Slut that I didn’t mention is the idea that sex is not a scarce commodity that exists only in fixed amounts.”
If sex weren’t scarce for men, the men would live – as Kinsey put it – in the world of continuing orgy. So the problem with books like that is, that they don’t give solution for the scarsity of women.
[quote comment="9904"]In a fact, there is a ovehelming evindence, that women have milder sex drive than men.
Baumeister, Roy F. & Catanese, Kathleen & Vohs, Kathleen (2001). Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (3), 242 – 73.
Oliver, Mary Beth & Hyde, Janet Shibley (1993). Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29 – 51.[/quote]
I’ve read both, among others. Some other studies, including one more recently published and focusing on protocol effects on self-reporting is available here (“Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality,” Alexander and Fisher, 2003, Journal of Sex Research) point out factors that may be skewing the data. Additionally, one of the things that has been brought up for critique by feminist sexologists, and something that I feel has substantial merit, is that studies such as Baumeister, et. al. use definitions of sexual desire that reflect tendencies that are usually associated with male gender roles (initiation of sexual behavior, willingness to sacrifice to gain sexual partners) and seem to be related to free testosterone. This is problematic in that social roles do affect these behaviors (something conceded in Baumeister 2001 but minimized), signals of physiological arousal are different (vasocongestion being a bigger factor with men than women) and increases in sex drive with women tend to increase for both sexes, whereas for men it usually increases with one only (see Lippa, 2006); all of this does suggest the limitations of an androcentric model. Also, the data in many of these studies comes dominantly from self-reporting, in relation to which the study I cited is valuable.
Further, that study notes that other recent studies have found that the sex differences found in other studies are not necessarily holding true at this point, at least to the same degree or in certain circumstances. See Browning, et. al., “Power, Gender and Sexual Behavior;” Brown & Sinclair, “Estimating Number of Lifetime Sexual Partners: Men and Women Do It Differently;” page 10 of the link has additional references.
Henry: I’ve posted a reply, but it looks like it got caught by the spam filter due to the number of links. I’ll post another one if it doesn’t get approved.
Obviously the system of requiring formal introductions before speaking with a member of the opposite sex isn’t workable for a society structured the way that ours is. What I’m saying by “existing relationship” isn’t just *any* relationship – what I meant was that if someone *has* to interact with me in some way that’s not directly about spending time with me (coworkers, folks in retail, activity groups), then I need to be more careful, because I can’t assume that their continued interaction with me is a sign that flirtation is welcome. And with some of those sorts of interactions (employer/employee, teacher/student, etc.) the power differential and potential for abuse are too great, so relationships with those people are best avoided.
I would hope nobody would dispute that. Where it gets thornier are the situations where someone is not physically restrained, or where I’m not the one who’s preventing her from leaving. For instance, if I were to chat up someone on an airplane, I’m not actually restraining them, but they’re still a captive audience. If I decide I like someone in the supermarket, they are technically capable of leaving, but it’s not reasonable to expect that of them. It again comes down to what you can infer from their continued presence.
Computer dating is one of the freest options, actually, and I recommend it to everyone, precisely because
I agree with the first part, but not with the second. I think that articulating positive approaches is absolutely necessary, because teaching men what not to do, but not what they can do, is ineffective. (Kind of like how we teach women how to say “no,” but not how to say “yes.”)
Now that I think of it, this may be another form of the ask/response paradigm, which just isn’t accurate. *Both* men’s and women’s voices need to be heard on this matter. I think men are better positioned than women to articulate positive approaches, and women are better positioned than men to articulate what approaches are problematic. It’s a dialogue.
I think the problem is that we have a tendency take what should be a dialogue about how to make this situation better for everybody involved, and turn it into a adversarial negotiation or “battle of the sexes.” (Cue the cries from both sides of “but they did it first!” and “I’ll stop when you stop.”)
Aw, crap.
…precisely because it avoids that “captive audience” problem.
Infra, thanks for the links and informative reply.
I don’t think studies about number of sex partners is relevant, if we are speaking of sexual desire. Here is some studies:
“Certain gender differences are similar in all the age groups in Finland. Sex is more important for men’s happiness than for women’s happiness. (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula 2001, 405). Regardless of their relationship status, boys are more willing to take part of the intercourse. Boys have more difficulties to carry out their desire to intercourse, because girls resist their suggestions. Majority of boys have wanted a lot their first intercourse, but majority of girls have wanted it only to certain extent. For boys pleasantness of sex correlates with higher number of partners, but with girls that kind of change in not observed. (Kontula 1991, 118 – 123.) In the USA 40 % of all men and 16 of all women wanted more intercourses. The greatest cause of dissatisfaction for men was the lack of sex. When men were asked what they would like to change their sex life, the most usual answer was “no changes, just more”. Only 11 % of men were satisfied with the amount of sex they had. (Hite 1981, 512.)
No modern cultures in which women want sex more than men have actually been identified. Specifically, interest in casual sex seems to be one of the biggest differences between men and women. (Baumeister & Tice 2001, 97.)
Two facts thus stand out from our consideration of the male sex drive, if we take the female as the norm. Men want a great deal of sex. And they aren’t likely to get it. The crux of the problem, for the average man, is that he wants sex with many women, but almost none of those women want him. Again, this applies in both variety and frequency. He wants to have sex with many women – but women don’t desire nearly as many partners, and so far fewer women will want to sleep with him than he desires. He is probably going to have to settle down with one sex partner, because that is the way most women prefer to organize sex. Men like the idea of going to bed with someone just for fun, including someone they have just met and have no intention of pursuing a long term relationship. From these men’s point of view, sex is enjoyable, and sex with new partners is extra-enjoyable, so why shouldn’t people go to bed with someone just for fun, including someone they have just met and have no intention of pursuing a long-term relationship with. Sexual frustration is thus almost inevitable for the majority of men – and not just occasionally either. Given the mismatch, between men’s and women’s desires, most men are doomed to experience chronic sexual frustration. Regardless of whether the basis for the difference lies in biology or in socialization, the difference itself is clear. (Baumeister & Tice 2001, 182 – 191.)
When considering a sexual partner, particularly a short-term sexual partner, men were willing to settle for less intelligence than they desired in a date. These results were consistent across a number of dimensions – men were always willing to settle for less than women in a sexual partner. For a one-night stand, women demanded exceptionally attractive partners and men willing to settle for somewhat less attractiveness. (Kenrick & Trost & Sheets 1996, 43 – 44.)
Okay, I’ll bite – what part of women’s behavior do you think is *not* acceptable?
It’s more than “don’t rape women” – it’s “treat other people with respect”; in this case, respecting their right to sexual agency. And while I realize that the idea of what’s right is going to be idiosyncratic, I can’t be a moral relativist on this one. If someone’s idea of what’s right doesn’t include respecting others, than that’s simply not as good a moral code as one that does.
That really depends on what you mean by “what works.” I don’t think “it gets me laid” is a sufficient justification for unethical behavior, especially when it blurs the idea of consent. If, instead, you mean “what sort of approaches men are individually comfortable with,” I’d agree, provided that baseline of respecting other people’s autonomy is met.
TS, haven’t you learned anything from feminism by now? Any act of heterosexual contact, except for those in which the man is tied-up on the bed, is some kind of rape.
Unfortunately, I’m not into that kind of thing.
We did have it, but it was a Godawfully buggy plug-in which I didn’t bother to fix after I accidently buggered it up completely.
There’s another one which is actually quite nice, but I couldn’t get it to work. I may try again.
Henry:
Thanks for the references. It might be a while before I can review and comment on the excerpts you provided (I’d like to read them in context, and I might have to get them through interlibrary loan) but just to make sure that I’m consulting the right sources, I’m assuming that the Baumeister & Tice quotes are from The Social Dimension of Sex (I couldn’t find an apparently applicable 2001 paper from both authors in Baumeister’s list of publications) and the Kenrick & Trost & Sheets paper is “Power, harassment, and trophy mates: The feminist advantages of an evolutionary perspective.” Please correct me if I’ve identified the wrong ones.
I do wonder what implications it has for the larger discussion going on here, though, if we assume that these findings are accurate and that a stronger sex drive on the part of males is biological, or at best only partially amenable to social influence. That would not seem to bode well for encouraging women to take the initiative more often, etc.
Daran:
You may want to consider using the one I have running at my place: Live Comment Preview. Depending on your server config you might need to change one line of the PHP code in order to get the JavaScript to load correctly, but it’s a one-character change.
[quote comment="9918"]Okay, I’ll bite – what part of women’s behavior do you think is *not* acceptable?[/quote]
One would assume the lack of communication and in many instances conflicting communication would be considered unacceptable. One would assume that the instances in which women use males whom they know are attracted to them as friends with financial and emotional benefits would also be unacceptable. One would assume that women who may lead shy men on, allowing those males to think the women might reciprocate, would likewise be unacceptable.
In short, there are actions women commit based on the fact that they are being approached rather than approaching males that allow them to take advantage of those males. Such has been discussed on various threads and one would assume that violating a male’s agency in that manner would be deemed unacceptable.
[quote]It’s more than “don’t rape women” – it’s “treat other people with respect”; in this case, respecting their right to sexual agency. And while I realize that the idea of what’s right is going to be idiosyncratic, I can’t be a moral relativist on this one. If someone’s idea of what’s right doesn’t include respecting others, than that’s simply not as good a moral code as one that does.[/quote]
Then I think it is necessary to define “the right thing” in terms broader than a person’s sexual agency, particularly since these interactions include more than just sex. That would at least in part suggest that women are also bound to the same standards.
[quote]That really depends on what you mean by “what works.” I don’t think “it gets me laid” is a sufficient justification for unethical behavior, especially when it blurs the idea of consent. If, instead, you mean “what sort of approaches men are individually comfortable with,” I’d agree, provided that baseline of respecting other people’s autonomy is met.[/quote]
As I stated, it is specifically the way in which males choose to define their sexuality on a personal level, not based on how women think males should define themselves. I do not think people should define themselves based on what other people want them to be. That is part of the reason for the issue at hand.
In no way does an effiminate gay man challenge your autonomy. That is simply how he chooses to express his sexuality. So there is logically no reason to assume that straight males defining their sexuality based on what works for them would challenge women’s autonomy (other than negative concepts about male sexuality).
Aych
Actually the radfems regard that as a form of patriarchal domination too. Don’t ask me to explain how – I get dizzy after the third hair-pin bend. Just take on trust that the reasoning is sound.
Seems the more intelligent and “empathetic” people are, the more they neuroticize…and de-eroticize sex. No wonder feminist nerds don’t get laid as much as macho chauvinist studs. They are so worried about offending women and catering to all their mental chatter that they lose sight of their own manhood and its power to override all that white noise like a Humvee.
Look at HIP-HOP. It’s the most macho, openly misogynistic subculture in the Black culture. And yet the one that sexually appeals the MOST to women all over the world!!! When 50 Cent tours Iceland and the EU…his crew gets an assembly line of “ho’s” and “byches” jumping their kawks!
Why? Well, what attracts women to strong, dominant a-holes of either gender…in general?
Look, you sure don’t find the same mobbing anti-porn feminist doormats like Robert Jensen!
Because he is trying to mold his kawk to formfit women’s kawksockets…instead of letting them mold their kawksockets to formfit his kawk (which is what’s natural)!
Thing is, there’s an obvious and workable solution to most of these – when someone tries to pull shit like that, don’t play along. There are enough women out there who don’t play these kinds of mind games that you don’t need to associate with anyone who insists on them.
You have to recognise it first.
OK, I installed it, but it’s not working for me with either Konqueror or Mozilla. What’s the character I need to change?
[quote comment="9931"]OK, I installed it, but it’s not working for me with either Konqueror or Mozilla. What’s the character I need to change?[/quote]
It looks like the lcp_add_js function isn’t working, because the script element isn’t being added in the head… but the preview div is being added. Looks like it’s not able to call the wp_head add_action properly for some reason. It might be because lcp_add_js is returning a dummy variable; maybe removing that from the function will fix it (the dev docs note that it shouldn’t return anything). As a quick fix, you could always add a script element to the head with a src of “path-to/live-comment-preview.php?commentPreview.js” and that should do the trick.
The character change has to do with properly constructing the src attribute in the script element, but it’s part of that function. Replace the “/” with a “?” in line 185 between live-comment-preview.php and commentPreview.js. The lcp_add_js function starts on line 184.
jfpbookworm: [quote]Thing is, there’s an obvious and workable solution to most of these – when someone tries to pull shit like that, don’t play along. There are enough women out there who don’t play these kinds of mind games that you don’t need to associate with anyone who insists on them.[/quote]
[quote comment="9929"]You have to recognise it first.[/quote]
Exactly. One should also note the above logic should apply in the reverse, therein making it unnecessary for shy males to alter behavior as there are enough males do not engage in abusive behavior.
[quote comment="9925"]Why? Well, what attracts women to strong, dominant a-holes of either gender…in general?[/quote]
Co-opting someone’s story of violent abuse for your own purposes… how classy.
I’ve had the same inexplicable attraction to people who have abused me, too. Maybe it’s something attractive to both sexes? I’m sure it’s — wait, hey, I’ve known other people who’ve had that happen, too. Gay, straight, young, old, male, female, trans.
Gosh. Maybe it’s something to do with, you know, the psychology of abuse? Instead of, you know, attraction?
[quote comment="9883"]As I said, it’s not up to men – including feminist men – to say what an acceptable sexual/romantic approach to women might be. In so far as we take feminism’s claims to speak on behalf of women seriously, we must wait for feminist women to define this or that form of sexual initiative as valid.[/quote]
But why should we take this claim seriously? Feminists don’t speak on behalf of women—they speak on behalf of feminists.
The only obligation we, as men, have to women is to treat them with decency and respect, and feminists aren’t uniquely qualified to tell us how to do that. The upshot is that feminists have nothing to offer us. Men don’t need to wait for feminists to tell us how to treat women–we just need to stop listening to feminists and use our own common sense.
Infra – so you confess that you have also been attracted by abuse too? As well as many other types of people you’ve known?
See a pattern here yet?
That maybe ABUSE CAN BE ATTRACTIVE? As in abuse can psychologically cause attraction?
Not that the 2 are separate – but in fact very strongly linked???
And who knows…maybe even “RESPECTING” women is actually REPULSIVE to them?
[quote comment="9938"]Infra – so you confess that you have also been attracted by abuse too? As well as many other types of people you’ve known?
See a pattern here yet?
That maybe ABUSE CAN BE ATTRACTIVE? As in abuse can psychologically cause attraction?[/quote]
Actually, yes, I do see a pattern here. It’s the same one that usually repeats with abused people becoming abusers, when they confuse the psychology of abuse with positive, healthy attraction, and fail to distinguish between the two.
I’m not sure what the logic in reverse is. “Shy” and “abusive” really have nothing to do with each other.
Uh, healthy women don’t exist in Generation XXX, circa 2007, in the Western hemisphere, anymore.
That’s why abusive bad boys have all the success with women now…and who is anyone to argue with success?
Women force men to do whatever works, “healthy” or not, by whom they choose to fux. And choose NOT to. Remember, women VOTE with their puzzies. If they really wanted nice guys who want “meaningful” intimacy – they’d all be beating down Robert Jensen’s door. LMAO! So, spare me the all idealistic “healthy” BS that only keeps good nice guys at home whacking off to bad boys fuxing abuse-loving “unhealthy” women in porn on the net.
Rule #1 of SC: Women are masters of self-deception. So follow their actions, not their words.
Byrdeye – I agree with many of your conclusions, but you seem to be coming from a conservative point of view, ie. that somehow modern society (ie liberalism, feminism, consumerism, mtv, hollywood, music, whatever) has “corrupted” women, making them do all of these bad things, and somehow, if we were to go back to the “good ole days” of traditionalism (family, marriage, etc) then everything would go back to “normal”. If this is where you’re coming from – I disagree.
Freedom (more than any specific ideology or movement) has simply allowed the true nature of women to come to the surface, exposing what has always gone on throughout human history, what the SC calls “Secret Society”. PUA’s past and present score easily in even the most conservative, authoritarian settings (including the “scary” ones, eg. the middle east, the bible belt in the US, etc). This is because women are “waiting” for such men (The Lover) to come in and “save them” from The Providers (what feminists call “the patriarchy”).
jackd77 – Well, I disagree slightly. Women don’t want just a provider for resources or just a stud for genes – she ideally wants both. So, just wanting a stud is not anymore “her true nature” than just wanting a provider. Either one alone is only half the equation.
A woman with just a stud is also “waiting” for a provider to “save” her.
The problem with our society now is that it does over-glamorize the stud while forcing all of society to become a surrogate providers for these stud-lovinng breeders. Which is unnatural and unbalanced.
What I personally propose is to remove all artificial manipulation and let women choose naturally based upon her untampered alternatives. If she wants to pick a broke stud…fine. But don’t force taxpayers to subsidize them with any welfare or extra social services then.
The real problem here started with LBJ’s “Great Society” welfare programs of the 60s that turned the State (and responsible taxpayers) into every bastard kid’s automatic step-dad. Well, who needs a local provider when you got Uncle Sam filling that role?
Oh, please. Like so much other “feminism critique” on this site, this concern applies only to radical feminists. With “shy, socially unskilled, and sexually inexperienced men,” they have the same shot with feminists of the non-radfem variety as they do with any other women. In fact, a better one. Feminists are going to be more likely to signal interest to help out, and to be more openminded about traditional gender roles.
Moreover, feminists in general don’t want to play Gloria Steinem in bed or even in the context of the original pick-up or intro. Most men, even shy ones, know that if they fundamentally believe in feminist principles, they can be themselves and can be irreverent and have fun with the situation without having to analyze every word or gesture. While women who aren’t feminists might be suspect of an approach that isn’t me Tarzan, you Jane, a feminist will embrace a more nuanced approach, and if it has Tarzan elements, that’s usually OK too if the guy can sell it. If he can’t, feminism isn’t a factor period – his stuff just isn’t selling.
In fact, most guys who really are comfortable with themselves and comfortable with women being their equals wouldn’t worry about being misperceived by women whose opinions mattered to them. They would not write some kind of elaborate analysis of why feminism prevents them from being laid, but would realize that possibly there’s another explanation.
On the other hand, for the guys who are lamenting glamorizing of the stud, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t the female equivalent of the stud glamorized? In a social setting in which nothing but appearance is evident, of course the stud will have an advantage: with all women.
The issue is more likely that feminists just don’t like misogynists, whether they’re shy or not. Many of the above comments, especially involving women wanting to be saved or being “breeders,” reflect the kind of thinking that most feminists rightfully avoid.
“Because of the kind of non-masculine personality traits and behavior they develop with, some males tend to have difficulties in heterosexual interaction (e.g. being too shy, too unassertive, too self-conscious, or not masculine enough to attract females), and they tend to identify more with women and be less invested in masculinity, which makes them more sympathetic to feminist views. … If these men are creative and intelligent, then they can read sexism into just about any way of manifesting sexuality around women; feminism provides no means for men to put on the brakes of self-criticism for sexism.”
This doesn’t make sense. Being non-masculine doesn’t necessarily mean a guy is more sympathetic to feminist views. My husband, who has pretty much all attributes associated with “masculine,” is extremely sympathetic to feminist views, and I’ve met many unassertive, not typically masculine men who are not particularly attuned or sympathetic to these views. Sympathy doesn’t entail paranoia. My husband is comfortable being the stud, he was comfortable being the dominant provider, and now he’s comfortable NOT being in that role. He wouldn’t consider connecting feminism with his sex life.
I think there’s a self-selecting aspect to all this. Guys like Byrdeye who complain about women wanting to be saved or bought aren’t going to attract women who are rainmakers. So they perpetuate their own beliefs. To my mind, all this agonizing about how feminism is emasculating is just one more justification for poor performance, with the finger pointing in yet another direction besides the obvious one. Not buying it, sorry.
Oh, please. Like so much other “feminism critique” on this site, this concern applies only to radical feminists.
Im going to argue this point because the rest is just shaming language and ad hom.
Radical feminists are the loudest voice. The ideas and lecturing that can exacerbate shyness in men is taught in schools and universities. Being irreverent and ignoring female opinion on the subject because you believe in equality can potentially get you fired or expelled from school. Since there is no guidance as to what is acceptable. only what is not.
I personally have been called a bastard and been told to leave places and never come back because iv been irreverent and a woman has taken offence. Even tho the irreverence is considered acceptable at other places and by other women.
[quote comment="9953"]Oh, please. Like so much other “feminism critique” on this site, this concern applies only to radical feminists. With “shy, socially unskilled, and sexually inexperienced men,” they have the same shot with feminists of the non-radfem variety as they do with any other women. In fact, a better one. Feminists are going to be more likely to signal interest to help out, and to be more openminded about traditional gender roles.[/quote]
At no point has anyone asked or demanded that feminists help males. Quite to the contrary, what has been stated is that feminism and feminists exacerbate the situation by giving misleading, inaccurate, unhelpful advice.
[quote]Most men, even shy ones, know that if they fundamentally believe in feminist principles, they can be themselves and can be irreverent and have fun with the situation without having to analyze every word or gesture.[/quote]
It would appear that is not the case. Please re-read the original post in this thread and the links provided.
Or perhaps the issue is more likely that males, whether shy or not, do not like people dismissing their needs and concerns, especially those people who in engage in shaming tactics or the use of strawmen, therein demonstrating the kind of thinking that most men rightfully object to. Hence the present discussion.
TS, please don’t impugn my reading comprehension. I read and disagree with the premise that “feminism can impair this ability [to find sex and relationships with women] and result in sexual repression.” Laying this at feminism’s feet is unfair. If we’re not talking about radfem, feminism in my book is simply the belief in the equality of women. Nothing in that impairs men’s romantic/sexual ability. The behaviors and PC atmosphere that are referred to in the links are not attributable to feminism itself.
I have no desire to dismiss the concerns of men or to shame them. I feel, however, that starting from a premise that the belief that women are equal is harmful in some way to men leads me to feel there’s a lot more going on here than just men having concerns.
I know women who have feminist beliefs, and women who don’t. My fairly broad experience in the single life seems to indicate that the former group, and their beliefs, provide a much more nuanced and flexible environment for men who aren’t Tarzan alpha types.
Without feminism, there would be a uniformity of view of men as providers, strong, big, all the things that the polarized pre-feminism view of male/female suggests men have to be. Feminism allows other options and roles.
So that, not my inability to “read the original post,” is what suggests to me that my thinking isn’t “the kind of thinking that most men rightfully object to.” Hence this response.
Welcome, octagalore. Thanks for your honest thoughts.
octagalore said:
I agree with you that feminist women may be more likely to initiate than non-feminist women (in fact, I’ve had a blast being hit on by feminist women). That is not the complaint, however. What I argued in this post is that feminist messages can impair the ability of some men to initiate sexually and romantically with women.
Is this a critique that applies only to radical feminists? Well, maybe yes, maybe no, but I disagree with your implication that it is unfair. While radical feminists might have created the discourses around objectification, sexual harassment, male chauvinist pigs, etc., that can impair the ability of some straight men to interact with women, radical feminists are hardly the only feminists to employ such discourse.
I don’t think there is a always a stark dichotomy between radical and moderate feminists. Moderate feminists regularly employ terms and concepts invented by radical feminists. Furthermore, I would argue that moderate feminists have not done a very good job of separating themselves from radical feminists and condemning them; generally, moderate feminists are silent in regards to radical feminists, and when they do criticize radical feminists, it is usually because (a) radical feminists have tried to restrict women, or (b) feminism is challenged, and the criticism is deflected onto the radicals.
If you feel misrepresented by radical feminism, that’s great. I’m sorry that you feel it’s unfair that you are lumped in with them as a feminist, but moderate feminists and radical feminists are lumped together for a reason: the distinction between moderate and radical seems like a difference along a continuum, rather than difference in category. Your style of feminism might not have the problems we are critiquing, but it is not your style of feminism that we have primarily come into contact with.
Yup, this is true (and it was no thanks to feminism that I figured it out). But don’t you think that a lot of feminists would have a problem with you saying this? Or would those automatically be radical feminists?
You’re a woman. So how the hell would you know?
I don’t want to sound antagonistic here, but it’s somewhat arrogant to make pronouncements about the experience of large segments of the opposite sex without any evidence. That’s why TS advised you to re-read the original post and the discussion, where we see men talking about experiences that aren’t what you say their experience is. Now, I agree with you that most men don’t analyze every word or gesture they make. But I think that’s mainly because they haven’t had any large exposure to feminist ideas, or haven’t thought seriously about them.
What if his stuff isn’t selling because he is extremely anxious and self-conscious due to trying to act in a way that would be acceptable from a feminist perspective? What if his stuff isn’t selling because he has internalized a negative view of his own sexuality that feminism is partly responsible for? Then feminism is a factor.
What if a guy isn’t comfortable with himself because he views his sexuality through a feminist lens that focuses on all the bad male sexuality can do to women, but none of the good?
Haven’t many feminists argued that she would be seen as a slut?
Please don’t assume that such comments reflect the views of everyone here. I think the notion that misogyny is the main reason these men are getting rejected is B.S. When a shy or unassertive man becomes sexually repressed as a consequence of trying to following feminist dictates, the reason he is rejected is not because his problem is a misogyny. However, he might turn misogynistic after getting rejected a lot.
You’re correct. That’s not the claim, however. The claim is that there might be a correlation between lack of masculinity, and sympathy to feminist views. That doesn’t mean that all pro-feminist men are non-masculine, or that all non-masculine men are pro-feminist.
Your husband is comfortable with being the stud and the dominant provider, but is feminism comfortable with him being those things? Wouldn’t he be “oppressing” you? If he wouldn’t consider connecting feminism with his sex life, wouldn’t a lot feminists have a problem with that? Maybe those are just the “radical” feminists, but I think that’s a cop-out. Perhaps your husband sees no contradiction between his behavior and feminism because he hasn’t followed feminist ideas to their logical conclusions (which is probably a good thing for him!). Other men, who do follow feminist ideas to their logical conclusions, might experience more sexual and romantic impairment when acting on them.
What if they are right? In that case, you would be blaming the victim. Also, what about men who no longer have so much “poor performance” with women, partially as a consequence of abandoning some feminist dictates of how they behave?
Nobody is saying all feminist ideas are harmful to men. We are saying that particular ideas and discourses are harmful, such as objectification, sexual harassment, avoiding “pressuring” women, and avoiding being a “male chaunivist pig.” Now, I agree that feminists are addressing real problems, but the way that they are addressing them can be harmful to some men. Nobody has argued that the idea that men and women are equal is harmful to men, and the fact that you think we hold that premise suggests that you aren’t really hearing us.
In this area, I agree with you. Feminism does allow the promise of other roles and options for men, at least in theory (though this may not always work so well in practice).
“feminism in my book is simply the belief in the equality of women”
see how are we meant to know this? Every feminist has a different meaning for it.
And just to clarify, since this is persistantly misunderstood by feminists, Hugh is not saying that it is harmful to men to not objectify, sexually harass, or pressure women. What is harmful to some men are the discourses enjoining men from these things, coupled with feminism’s persistant failure to articulate with specificity what male behaviours are acceptible.
Infra: “I’m assuming that the Baumeister & Tice quotes are from The Social Dimension of Sex (I couldn’t find an apparently applicable 2001 paper from both authors in Baumeister’s list of publications) and the Kenrick & Trost & Sheets paper is “Power, harassment, and trophy mates: The feminist advantages of an evolutionary perspective.” Please correct me if I’ve identified the wrong ones.”
Yes, the Baumeister book is the best in my opinion about sexuality, and there is a chapter “The tragedy of male sex drive” with interesting thougts. And the other is from the Sex, Power, Conflict, edited by Buss, comparing evolutionary and feminist percpectives, also an classy book.
octogalore: I dated a lot before remarrying. Some of those women were feminists of fairly high name-value.
What you are speaking about here simply doesn’t hold true in the real world. Feminists have just as many dating-sex hangups as the rest of the world, plus they have serious misandry problems built into their thinking. There’s just no way to ‘have fun with it,’ at least not in any parts of the real world that I’ve experienced.
I’d say that thing I most resent in the feminist date was her assumptions about me. All of the women I dated who had feminist credentials had this idea in their heads that I was some sort of under-human with intents to dominate her. This universally lead to them not being able to read even the most basic of my verbal & non-verbal cues.
Like any other male survivor I need reassurance in dating situations. Not one feminist could pick up on that basic cue, not even one. On the other hand, the non-feminist women with dominant personalities could indeed pick up that something was needed, but could not identify the need. Only the non-dominant & non-feminist women could accurately pick up on the cues.
The problem we face here is one of information pollution. The feminist and to some extent non-feminist dominant women have ideas about men running full-time through their heads and most of those ideas are just plain wrong. How then can they date with any reasonable chance of success?
As long as feminism remains a source of seriously distorted bad-information about males we will have a society undergoing needless stressors and rampant miscommunication. Those stressors and bad-information will lead to problems which do not need to exist.
[quote comment="9960"]TS, please don’t impugn my reading comprehension. I read and disagree with the premise that “feminism can impair this ability [to find sex and relationships with women] and result in sexual repression.”[/quote]
My statement refers to your position that “Most men, even shy ones, know that if they fundamentally believe in feminist principles, they can be themselves and can be irreverent and have fun with the situation without having to analyze every word or gesture.” Based on the threads and the comments it is evident that most men, even shy ones, do not know what you suggest and it appears to actually be quite to the contrary.
[quote]Laying this at feminism’s feet is unfair.[/quote]
Which no one has done, so the strawman argument is unnecessary.
[quote]If we’re not talking about radfem, feminism in my book is simply the belief in the equality of women. Nothing in that impairs men’s romantic/sexual ability. The behaviors and PC atmosphere that are referred to in the links are not attributable to feminism itself.[/quote]
Perhaps not from your position, particularly since you are a feminist. However, from the average person’s position it can impair men’s romantic/sexual ability. In this instance, perhaps it is your support of feminism makes it difficult to see the situation from another person’s point of view.
[quote comment="9960"]I know women who have feminist beliefs, and women who don’t. My fairly broad experience in the single life seems to indicate that the former group, and their beliefs, provide a much more nuanced and flexible environment for men who aren’t Tarzan alpha types.
Without feminism, there would be a uniformity of view of men as providers, strong, big, all the things that the polarized pre-feminism view of male/female suggests men have to be. Feminism allows other options and roles.[/quote]
I would agree with the majority of this, with just a couple of differences. The first is that my impression has been that feminism has been part cause and part catalyst for these changes; that some women may not agree with aspects of feminist theory, radical or otherwise, but have had similar desires for change — desires that changes in the social environment produced by feminism have allowed them to actualize. But this is a subtle distinction, I admit, and probably a bit pedantic.
The second is with the use of the term feminism; being non-monolithic, this is always a problematic issue, but this is why I see it being a particular problem here:
I think that a large problem is that, while feminism, to a number of feminists, means the equality of women full stop, taking into account the larger context, the reasoning is often more along the lines of, for example, the definition given at Finally: that gender roles, on balance, primarily harm women, and that this needs to be addressed/corrected. One expression of this is that feminism is therefore about the equality of women, full stop, but this is by no means the only reasonable interpretation (not to go into any kind of argument about reasonable and unreasonable options) of what this means, what gender roles are, how they harm, or how they need to be addressed or corrected.
(Note that the above is an observation based on discussing the matter with feminists of various theoretical persuasions, and on reading discussions at AP’s, Belle’s, Ren’s, Cassandra’s, etc. I’m trying to avoid applying my own definitions here, but if I’m failing to do so in some way, please let me know where you think that is occurring.)
This leads to a substantial amount of confusion, I think, about what it means to be a feminist, pro-feminist or ally; or even what it means to be respectful of feminist positions even if one does not identify with or agree with feminism as a person encounters it. (This, leaving aside Daran’s point about the way in which particular subjects are discussed or portrayed.) Sometimes a man may be inclined to submit to harsh interpretations, or even abusive behavior, in order to make sure that his conduct is as inclusive as possible; in other cases he may decide to accept certain interpretations of feminist theory but not others, and as a result may be considered as rejecting fundamental tenets, such as equality, because he has rejected some expressions that result from the same basic ideas.
Essentially, he is trying to keep his footing on shifting ground, and this confusion can (and often does) extend to interpersonal and intimate interactions, as well as issues related to self-esteem.
I’m not insisting that you concede this point as valid, but if you do, I think that you might have a better understanding of the types of effects being discussed.
Hugh – possibly there are a lot of semantics-based disagreements going on. If you redefined your About post discussion about how you find that “what some feminists are saying doesn’t stand up to scrutiny” rather than “feminism doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” and also modified places in the current discussion which attribute male social problems to ‘feminism” to “the beliefs and actions of some feminist,” it would probably resolve 90% or so of my issues with all this.
Because although it’s true that there’s no one definition of Feminism, at its core it really is about equal rights and opportunities for women. Even though this can be analyzed, discussed, twisted, etc., a number of ways, the fact remains that attributing some problem or other to “feminism” will always strike a bad chord with me and with many other feminists, who don’t see ourselves reflected in your discussion.
You say I’m making assumptions about male experience which I can’t understand not being male, and of course I don’t pretend to have as much knowledge as a man does about his own thinking. However, having dated quite a number of men who were fairly open about their thinking and being sensitive to when someone appears to be acting spontaneously and when someone feels restrained, I think you’re correct to agree with me that most men do not seem to overanalyze their behavior. However I don’t agree with you that those are men who haven’t had exposure to feminist principles.
You also state that I may be unique among feminists in that I don’t bring Steinem, hooks, etc into bed or into a social pick-up environment. Well, possibly, but in my experience that isn’t the case. As you’ve pointed out, I am female, and having been in a number of social environments with a fairly wide sample of feminists in different cities, countries and demographics, I haven’t seen a lot of women who overanalyze in, say, a bar, or at a dance club, or a restaurant, or other first-meeting environments. I don’t doubt that some of you have had other experiences, but I don’t think they’re because of the women’s feminist beliefs.
You ask if feminism is comfortable with my husband being the stud and dominant provider. You missed my point, which was that he is not currently the dominant provider, but he hasn’t connected feminism with any kind of insistence on role. In fact, it’s because he’s with a feminist that being significantly out-earned isn’t a problem for him (admittedly, for cultural reasons, it does have its issues).
Let’s say I were not a feminist. I would resent that I’m now in the role of supporting our lifestyle. I would put more pressure on him to do something he doesn’t want to do professionally to earn more so that I could back off. In our case, there’s a specific step he could take to do this that would and has made him unhappy, and it’s my taking on various stresses that female non-feminists wouldn’t assume that has made this unnecessary. I am not taking any bows (or curtseys) here, I don’t think I’m particularly valiant.
Before I’m accused of inventing this, I’ve been told I should have these reactions by friends of mine who don’t ID as feminists. One friend, an attorney who dropped out as soon as she got her MRS, who tells me she doesn’t understand why I want to keep working, says she’d insist on my husband upping his intensity level so that I could take my female dues and start coming to Pilates with her.
When you say feminism does allow for other roles for men in theory, maybe not in practice: I do see it happening more and more in practice. The bottom line is, without feminism, it wouldn’t happen at all.
[...] When You Have Feminist Guilt, You Don’t Need Catholic Guilt — In a discussion over at Alas, a Blog about the effect of feminism on men’s ability to find sex and relationships with women, I argued that for some men (particularly shy, socially unskilled, and sexually inexperienced men), feminism can impair this ability and result in sexual repression. This argument is unsurprisingly met with skepticism on Alas. In the discussion, Richard Jeffrey Newman asked me some good questions. Posted in Misandry, Men’s Issues, False Accusations, Female Violence, Anti-Male Inanity, Rape and abuse, Circumcision, Crime, Politics, Fathers, Domestic Violence, Child abuse, News. [...]
[quote comment="9986"]Hugh – possibly there are a lot of semantics-based disagreements going on. If you redefined your About post discussion about how you find that “what some feminists are saying doesn’t stand up to scrutiny” rather than “feminism doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” and also modified places in the current discussion which attribute male social problems to ‘feminism” to “the beliefs and actions of some feminist,” it would probably resolve 90% or so of my issues with all this.[/quote]
I realize that this was directed to Hugh; I hope you don’t mind if I respond to it.
I was going to post this as a suggestion to the blog owners yesterday, in a different thread… would it be an acceptable compromise to state that “feminism,” when used as a general term here, should be taken as representing feminism as we’ve encountered it in our daily lives, and as represented by particularly influential feminist theories, blogs and forums, specifying when exceptions or specific authors/positions are meant? Those seem to be the two meanings that are intended in many of the posts and comments.
What the various strains of feminism mean in theory is irrelevant. In reality, the strains have blended together and been applied by western women and society, giving us the result we experience and observe in culture, the legal system, politics .. applied feminism .. this is all that is relevant.
Applied feminism plays on the natural female “princess complex” ie feeling entitled to “having it all” .. all of the rights and choices but none of the responsibilties and costs .. which are to be borne by men.
Feminist gender roles: “I’ll be whatever I want, and you’ll be whatever I want.
Feminist financial arrangements: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine.”
Feminism was never about “equality” – it was about allowing women to have their cake and eat it to. The joke is on us – those men who actually cared what women thought and supported their cause. Of course now they give all of the sex to their alpha male macho bad boys who never gave a crap (and still don’t). The SC is the turning point for men. Men of all races, classes, and backgrounds are starting to wake up and soon the clock will strike midnight for cinderella.
Damn jackd77 – you are a clarion call to clarity in the mental chatter here. I agree with you 110%.
You need to start a blog so I can link it.
[quote comment="9993"]What the various strains of feminism mean in theory is irrelevant. In reality, the strains have blended together and been applied by western women and society, giving us the result we experience and observe in culture, the legal system, politics .. applied feminism .. this is all that is relevant.[/quote]
Well, this is what I mean by the feminism that we have experienced. How it is applied in practice, or how it may be presented to us socially, tends to define feminism for us for good or ill, and one of the things that is not often acknowledged, in my experience, is that the ill effects, when they occur, can be substantial.
But I strongly disagree that this makes the varieties of feminist theory irrelevant. They’re highly relevant to people who identify as feminists, and there’s no reason why they should be forced to abandon that term because of its practical expression by others — especially those from whom they differ, or against whose ideas they may be strongly opposed. If they choose or reject the term, that’s a matter of choice; and that is not a choice we have any right to dictate, any more than they have a right to demand that we identify as feminists to prove that we embrace the notion of equality.
[quote]Applied feminism plays on the natural female “princess complex” ie feeling entitled to “having it all” .. all of the rights and choices but none of the responsibilties and costs .. which are to be borne by men.
Feminist gender roles: “I’ll be whatever I want, and you’ll be whatever I want.
Feminist financial arrangements: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine.”
Feminism was never about “equality” – it was about allowing women to have their cake and eat it to.[/quote]
I’ve known women for whom these descriptions are accurate, and some of them identified as mainstream, or even moderate, feminists. But there’s a difference between saying that and saying that these women were that way because they were feminists. A better explanation, I think, is that they were exploiting the term and its language in order to further their own goals.
It may be accurate to ask whether or not feminists can do anything to prevent this, or should; it may be accurate to ask whether or not certain varieties of feminism are more subject to this kind of abuse than others. (This is similar to how we can ask these questions about religious doctrines, or political platforms, etc.) Radical feminist explorations of ethics is one example of something that could be examined this way, given that some radfems reject the notion of an exteriorly-imposed morality as patriarchal, focusing on good and evil being defined by consensus or its applicability to liberation. Personally, I’ve met abuse at the hands of women who have used that logic to justify it.
But what Nietzsche wrote about looking long into the abyss applies here, don’t you think?
[quote]The joke is on us – those men who actually cared what women thought and supported their cause. Of course now they give all of the sex to their alpha male macho bad boys who never gave a crap (and still don’t).
The SC is the turning point for men. Men of all races, classes, and backgrounds are starting to wake up and soon the clock will strike midnight for cinderella.[/quote]
I know the sentiment; as I’ve said before, I would not be surprised if it turned out that a lot of the resistance and antipathy toward feminism was rooted in abuse and manipulation in its name. The very idea of female abusers, sexual or otherwise, doesn’t get a lot of evident attention from feminists, even when the victims are women; that female abusers who use feminism as a justification get little recognition is thus far from surprising. Regrettable, at the very least. But not surprising.
Yet by blaming feminism for this we are doing the same thing that we are often criticizing: blaming the whole for the actions of a few, condemning them all as a result. We become what has injured us. Again, I think that Nietzsche is relevant here — we take on a slave morality, to use his terms.
I agree that the SC can help us recover from some of this damage, and that it can help us define new roles in a changed and changing system. But I also see it as being employed for the purpose of revenge and, while it is necessary to go through the process of acknowledging our anger, we run the risk of using it to remain there. I see that as doing little good for us or anyone else. It’s a tendency that we need to guard against.
But these are my views and I don’t pretend to dictate any course of action for you or anyone else. I would only hope that you find some merit in them.
Look, the best way to define applied feminism it to look at it like a bell curve. Sure, there may be a diversity of views…but ultimately there is an average consensus and peak – that is just as jackd77 described.
Completely focused on cake-eating without any regard for the welfare of or fair rights of others – particularly men & children.
The sad thing is how much “nice guy” beta males support these feminists – when THEY are the ones who get hurt MOST by it. Fortunately, I believe PUAs and MRAs are gathering so much steam that we are slowly reaching a tipping point here. There will be hell for payback. A whole generation of marginalized, frustrated and justifiably angry men will swing the pendulum the other way from naive AFC doormatism. Mark my words.
Byrd:
There is another option, even if we agree, for the purposes of argument, that the bell curve view you’re asserting is accurate: engage in constructive dialogue and productive action with those feminists outside of the majority.
I have found two groups of people to be instrumental in helping me become the best of what I potentially can be, and those are men who have worked to build a new, humane definition of masculinity — in the SC, this would be men like Zan and Bishop — and a collection of women best described as dissident, ex-pat, independent and “feminism’s not a monolith” feminists.
Call me provincial, but I see this kind of cooperative exchange as a better option than a gender war.
Brandon Berg
Actually I, personally, don’t take seriously the claims of the likes of Pheeno and the like to speak on behalf of womankind. But I was assuming that jfpbookworm was proceeding from a more conventionally feminist conception of the matter than I do, and I was trying to point out how difficult his intentions would be to realize by his own lights.
He doesn’t want female feminists to tone down the condemnation of male sexual initiative, rather he wants male feminists to “step up” and show their less enlightened brethren that there is a way to approach women sexually which is also consonant with feminism. Like I said, though, he will soon get into hot water with his sisters in the movement if he takes it upon himself to affirm that this or that sexual initiative is definitely ok. If female feminists are careful not to ratify particular forms of sexual enterprise as unexceptionable, then male feminists have no business making a unilateral decision to the effect that it is (for instance) definitely wrong to make sexual/romantic advances to a girl on an aeroplane, but definitely right to make sexual/romantic advances to a girl with whom one works and whom one meets in a coffee-bar.
Can you imagine the reaction on Alas, say, to an interjection along these lines: “I’m sorry that Angryfem felt threatened by that guy’s sexual advances, but as a feminist man I am entitled to say that she really had no cause to.” The roof would fall in, wouldn’t it?
That’s the dilemma I was bringing to jfpbookworm’s attention.
I usually, by the way, make a point of arguing with conventional feminists on their home ground – there’s little point, I find, in trying to debate from premises which aren’t accepted by one’s interlocutor. That’s created confusion about my positions before now…
Strike “and the like” from that first sentence. And bring back the pre-view option. Sheesh.
Very interesting thread. In fact, one of the most interesting threads I’ve read about feminism and its unintended social effects in a long time. I haven’t read all of the thread yet, but I will tomorrow. I will likely have to say more then.
For the moment, I would like to comment on a few things that jumped at me while browsing through the comments. I hope that I’m not tearing them entirely out of context this way -
- JFPbookworm
- Tom Nolan
- Octogalore
I think these four quotes are sufficient to explain why a) “a court of feminism” and b) any kind of interaction that is not based on mutually accessible and veryfiable standards (aka everything informed by some kind of group based standpoint ideology) can never serve as appropriate social standards for interaction. This is, in the end, one of the most complicated practical applications of the categorical imperative. Everyone is different, everyone has different standards of appropriate, and yet we have to find a way to accomodate these differences and individual preferences with a common social standard – one that is intersubjectively accessible and emotionally understandable to everyone “in the game.”
It seems to me that many strands of feminism (possibly not the postmodern ones that logically can’t rely on standpoint epistemology), certainly the ones that are screaming the loudest, are intellectually uniquely ill-equipped to handle this challenge.
Octogalore,
Not a lot, but I remember being called sexist once by a feminist flatmate for saying “you’re so lovely” to a girl I really liked “lovely.” I mean “lovely”, for crying out loud. I was commenting her personality, not her cleavage.
That said, my exposure to this kind of bollocks-overreaching, socially harmful feminism is rather recent, and while I believe it has caused me to be more careful when it comes to calling lovely girls lovely, I doubt that radical feminism is mostly responsible for givin men a bad feeling about their own sexuality. There’s a much older and definitely UN-feminist idea that women don’t like sex while men do all the time and that some kind of value exchange must take place so women will agree to go through with it – remember the mother of the Korean girl Lane in Gilmore Girls? Maybe RadFems are part of the “control female sexuality and desire” kind of thing but I think it is deeply conservative. Oswald Spengler kind of conservative.
I think it is important to point out that some parts of feminism have the unintended consequence of contributing (for their own reasons) to something that I believe must be squarely opposed to their own beliefs.
Finally, when people are communicating, things will not always be clear. Some things will be misconstrued. This is true for diplomacy where people pay the utmost attention to what they say and how they say it, and it is certainly even more true for any informal environment. Thus, some people will be hurt. Sometimes men, sometimes women. Everyone should work towards a standard where people can communicate without this risk. But then, sexual tension is usually not something that goes together with contractual clarity. The ambiguity, and the process of letting go, of trusting someone, necessarily is risky.
Want to be sure you won’t get hurt? Then don’t play.
Excellent reply, tobias. I’d like to give it some time for thoughts on a response to simmer, but in the mean time… may I be the first to congratulate you on bringing Kant into the discussion in a thoroughly relevant way?
If you could clarify one thing, though:
[quote]Maybe RadFems are part of the “control female sexuality and desire” kind of thing but I think it is deeply conservative. Oswald Spengler kind of conservative.[/quote]
I’d agree with what you wrote about the origins of this attitude being external to feminism, although I suspect that a feedback relationship exists between the two to some degree. I’m just not sure that I’m catching your meaning regarding the way that radical feminism relates.
Also, with the second sentence: do you mean a Spengler -> Yockey kind of conservative?
[quote comment="9995"]Yet by blaming feminism for this we are doing the same thing that we are often criticizing: blaming the whole for the actions of a few, condemning them all as a result. We become what has injured us. Again, I think that Nietzsche is relevant here — we take on a slave morality, to use his terms.[/quote]
I understand what you mean, however I disagree that one should not look at the whole when problems are caused by the part (though I personally do not believe the part is in fact the minority it is claimed to be). For instance, one would not suggest ignoring the whole of the police community when one finds evidence of officers abusing their power or harming citizens. One would not suggest ignoring the whole of the Catholic church when one finds evidence of clergy members abusing children. One would not suggest ignoring the whole of a presidential administration when one finds its members abusing their power.
The same logic applies in with feminism or any other ideology. I think it applies more so in those instances as the power comes directly from the supporters. The views one sees of feminism occur because dissenting voices are unheard. It may be that they are silenced, but if the loudest voices are a minority and wholly disagreed with, then the only logical conclusion one can reach is that the dissenting voices (being the majority) either do not feel the need to speak up or they do not truly disagree with those views.
While I do not necessarily agree with the positions jackd77 and Byrdeye mentioned, I also do not think it is necessary to turn a blind eye to certain aspects of an ideology because supporters of that ideology may be offended by one’s questioning. That is part of the reason why one sees the situation one does today.
This does not mean that a given ideology is wholly bad or that anyone supporting that ideology should stop supporting it. However, it does mean that one should not ignore that an ideology is not define by what is stated to be its goal, but what is shown to be its goal.
TS:
I should have been clearer there. As I wrote earlier in the reply, I think that there are questions that can and should be asked about feminism as a whole and particular varieties of feminist theory in particular. Among those are issues of cause and prevention. (Personally, I think that there are some grounds for saying that radical feminism in particular has elements that open it up to misuse, something I wrote about at my place previously.)
Where I think it becomes counterproductive is when our desire to blame becomes indiscriminate and fails to consider these questions before assigning it. As Hugh noted in Ren’s zombie hackles thread, this is something that we often criticize a vocal feminist minority, or perhaps more, for doing; I see little value in embracing this form of argument ourselves.
Infra,
Well, I mean the belief that the liberation of the power female sexuality will end the world as we know it, that it needs to be socially contained and released only in tightly controlled doses. This, of course, is a common pre-modern cultural theme that can be widely observed even today some cultures. It is, of course, just as sexist towards men as it is towards women. And it often goes together with extremely hierarchical, partly totalitarian, social and political concepts – from the “conservative” point of view the desired outcome is usually some kind of militaristic sublimation of the male sexual energy, in my opinion.
I think the feedback mechanism you referring to is that, in my opinion, particularly RadFems seem to secretly – in a way – buy that kind of thinking. On the one hand, because they believe that “men are rapists by nature” if not socially checked just as the Mullahs do, although their perspective is necessarily different. On the other hand, because they are in fact afraid that there might be indeed something like “female sexual power” that exists independently from socialisation and thus necessarily constitutes a non-institutional soft power outside of the social institutional setup.
Now, if you come from a group-rights perspective (especially if rooted in a Marxist class perspective of historical development) like they (often) do, that’s a truly scary thought as it could mean that there could be real equality between the classes inspite of an institutional bias towards the group that does not posses the informal power of the other. In other words, some positive discrimination for men could then be seen as holistic equalizer between the sexes.
So, if you’re thinking along these lines, de-emphasizing female sexuality and simultaneously “radicalising” male sexuality becomes a natural strategy, in my opinion.
On the other hand, this MUST be deeply against their own beliefs as limiting female sexuality, if only by smearing the opposite sex most women are desiring to be sexual with, cannot be truly feminist.
They’re ideologically stuck between a rock and a hard place.
tobias:
I see your point. It would seem to require a form of agoge and its special groups, in a manner of speaking. My inclination is to think that these pressures, and the male response to it, would both be pivotal elements in shaping the regimen.
Well, yes, but with the proviso that we think the burden of proof lies with feminists if they wish to argue that feminism outside of our experience is different in any substantive way from the feminism we have experienced.
Yes there are exceptions, so when we attribute a characteristic to feminism or feminists we are not saying that it applies to every single feminist.
I don’t feel inclined to modify the “About Page”, but there may be room for another page specifically addressing these points.
Daran, I think the time has come… *cue drumroll*
…for a FAQ!
It seems strange to me that you should ask us to redefine our own position to the point of eviscerating it. “What some FOOs are saying doesn’t stand up to scrutiny” is a truism whatever school of thought FOO refers to. If you don’t agree with us that feminism is broadly unsound, then you are welcome to make a broad defence of it.
Similarly, I understand Hugh’s criticism in the instant post to refer to the collective voice of feminism, which is of course the aggregate of what some feminists say and what other feminists don’t say.
I don’t agree that this is at core what feminism is, but let’s save that discussion for a post I will be making shortly on this precise issue.
There are two possible reasons for that. Firstly we might not see you as you see yourself. Secondly we might not regard you as representative of feminism.
There’s a selection effect here. You’re making a judgement about “most men” based upon your experience of men you have dated. But those men, besides probably being too small a sample, are not representative of men in general. Men who date feminists probably feel less inhibited by feminism than men who date but who don’t date feminists who in turn are perhaps less inhibited by feminism than men who don’t date at all.
It’s not for me to gainsay what you say about yourself, but it does seem strange to me that you would say that “if you weren’t a feminist” you would do these things. If, for example, you got so sick of the behaviour of feminists generally that you decided to declare yourself expatriot, would your behaviour and attitude toward your partner change?
It seems to me as though you are equating “non-feminist” with “enforces traditional gender roles” and “feminist” with “opposes their enforcementt”. I don’t agree with either proposition. In particular, I oppose the enforcement of traditional gender roles (though not necessarily the roles themselves). I would also argue that feminism enforces the “men are violent” gender-role by the way it typically frames the issue as “male violence”
Since I would not be accepted as a feminist by many feminists, even if I declared myself to be one, I represent a counterexample to the first proposition, and feminists who engage in the “male violence” discourse represent a counterexample to the second.
It doesn’t follow that you will have these reactions if you didn’t ID as a feminist
The Entitlement, the Privilege! It also sounds like she thinks you (or perhaps women in general) have a lot of power in their marriages.
That’s another claim that I would question. It’s certainly true that the rise of feminism has coincided with a broad relaxation of gender roles. It’s not clear to me that the former is the cause (or the only cause) of the latter. Other causal factors include two world wars which put women into traditionally male work, the development of contraception which removed or at least mitigated some of the reasons for female sexual caution, and the general levels of post-war affluence.
Notwithstanding it’s partial importance, I believe that feminism as a political movement is to a significant extent a consequence a consequence of economic – and consequent social – changes rather than the origin thereof.
The advantages of sex-based division of work are becoming progressively less important as an economy moves out of subsistence or predominantly agrarian economics. The industrialisation has thus been the great gender-equaliser in the West, and it remains to be the great gender-equaliser where it is occurring today.
shrug. you know, i um feel your pain–it’s not like there’s a handbook for lesbian courtin’ given out either–but the more i read, the more i think that what’s being criticized as “feminism” is actually leftover crap that predates feminism, is in fact rooted in the very gender roles that feminism, if it were y’know perfect and perfectly envisioned and modelled by 100% totally enlightened, self-aware people, it would’ve eradicated by now.
i can’t imagine what went wrong.
but, yeah. i spent the morning watching old Warner Brothers cartoons on Youtube–40′s, 50′s. Classic gag: man pursues, woman -runs away.- Does Not Want. “You cad! You fiend! You brute!” “Masher!” It ain’t feminism that invented that.
Also, I think ignoring gays, lesbians, and BDSMers is problematic insofar as it blinds vanilla heterosexuals to possibilities they might want to enact their own lives. So much of heterosexual dating culture is neither helpful nor necessary.
i should say.
but moderate feminists and radical feminists
You know–”radical feminist” has a specific meaning; it’s not just “really, really X-Treeme feminist.”
belledame222 said:
I’m glad that you agree that the tendencies we describe are real, that they are crap, and that they are rooted in gender roles that predate feminism. Where I disagree with you is that these tendencies are merely holdovers, or external to feminism. Negative attitudes towards male sexuality are part of a long tradition in feminism, a tradition that is quite alive today and hardly “leftover.”
Look at the play the Vagina Monologues, for instance. In that play, every man is a rapist, abuser, or insensitive jerk. Except, of course, for Bob, who is hardly a poster boy for men (the woman says she doesn’t really like him, and he is only redeemed by making her feel good about her vagina). Yet nobody considers the Vagina Monologues to not be a feminist work (though a handful of feminists have criticized it). Nobody even considers Eve Ensler to be a particularly radical feminist. For a play that merely displays an attitude towards male sexuality that is “leftover” from before feminism, the Vagina Monologues does an impressive job of running every year at my college, inspiring editorials in the school paper, and rousing up the “Vagina Warriors” for “V-Week.”
(That being said, I am not against all the messages of the Vagina Monologues and of V-Week. I have no problem with trying to make women more comfortable with their sexuality, and opposing violence and sexual violence against women. I would just like to see an approach to those goals that doesn’t involve negative stereotyping of male sexuality.)
[quote comment="10097"]i spent the morning watching old Warner Brothers cartoons on Youtube–40′s, 50′s. Classic gag: man pursues, woman -runs away.- Does Not Want. “You cad! You fiend! You brute!” “Masher!” It ain’t feminism that invented that.[/quote]
Poultry-stealing neighbour defense: your hens were occasionally stolen before I moved in, therefore some other guy must be stealing your hens now, not me.
Of course feminism isn’t the inventor of the rejection discourse, but it is the primary doer of it these days. Feminism is the name of the harpy sitting on many a man’s shoulder and screeching “You cad! You fiend! You brute! You rapist! You abuser! You entitled oppressor!” right into his ear everytime he even ponders the idea of touching the hand of that girl across the table.
[...] I thought it best to discuss the issue separately.The issue at hand stems from a comment made by octogalore on Feminist Critics: Oh, please. Like so much other “feminism critique” on this site, this [...]
[...] I thought it best to discuss the issue separately.The issue at hand stems from a comment made by octogalore on Feminist Critics: Oh, please. Like so much other “feminism critique” on this site, this [...]
“harpy,” righty-o.
and no, Basta, it’s not an “occasional” thing, that attitude was PATENTED by the system you seem so desperate to go back to. Man pursues, woman flees. Or–oh, I see: you think that back in the good ol’ days, woman surrenders eventually. Rhett carries Scarlett up the stairs, she sings in the morning, that it?
dude:
..eh, what’s the use.
I think one problem here is that a lot of folks appear to see feminist objections to some common but problematic dating/sexual behaviors as arbitrary and capricious, or rooted in a desire to control men rather than curtail those behaviors.
That’s not to say that there aren’t arbitrary and capricious objections. If a woman says “I dislike being hit on by ugly people,” that’s not a sentiment I feel obligated to respect the way I’d respect something like “I dislike being hit on when I’m trying to do my grocery shopping.”
*sigh*
Hugh, a basic tenet of dialectics is that -every- “new” ideology is gonna have a fair helping of the one that predates it.
and you know, the Vagina Monologues is looked at as feminist because there are other things -besides- womens’ feeling really positive about -male- sexuality going on there, and indeed in feminism, you know?
jfpbookworm: yeah, that’s well put.
I mean, back to the Vagina Monologues: you know, it’s been a while since i read it, but as i recall, part of the reason a lot of the men were portrayed as abusers and rapists was because, you know, they WERE abusers and rapists.
she interviewed women, she put their shit on the stage. I’m not saying there wasn’t necessarily selection bias, or even that I’m particularly a fan of Ensler (it’s vulva. V-U-L-V-A), but–yeah. Generally speaking, if women are fearful of/repulsed by male sexuality, (or sexuality in general), it isn’t because they read too much Dworkin and not enough D.H. Lawrence, it’s because, one way or another, their sexually-related experience with men has -felt really awful.-
Yeah, that’s what really gets me, with some people.
What part of “it isn’t about you” isn’t clear?
Or is that actually the problem?
A big YES, and a small – but maybe – we’re not talking about individual experiences but public discourse, at least as I understand this thread. As far as the latter is concerned, reading too much Dworkin – and then screaming like she (and comparable public figures in other countries) did – is definitely part of the problem as described here, don’t you think?
well, problematic as i find Dworkin and her followers, she was screaming for a very good reason, and frankly so are the vast majority of the women who are drawn to her philosophies. Yeah, I have a problem with the way that particular “personal is political” can get translated into “this particular experience is universal to women, which is what unites us all in common suffering, which is our source of strength.”
that said, “personal is political” is still true in that public discourse is largely made up of individuals relating their experiences (direct or indirect).
…i mean, yes, I know a few women who have said explicitly that they feel like their mindset and emotional wellbeing was influenced, not for the better by being immersed in radical feminist thought/circles; i.e. they started seeing the world as more hostile and dangerous than before. (i don’t know anyone who’s said/experienced that about any other form of feminism, btw).
that said, again, most women are attracted to that school of feminism because a lot of it rings true to their experience. they HAVE been raped, they HAVE been sexually harassed, they HAVE experienced xyz as degrading or oppressive.
some women come for the general sentiments or a part of it as well as the solidarity and become disillusioned by the parts that -don’t- resonate for them personally, as well as the subsequent feeling of alienation, often a lot stronger if one was a part of very dogmatic/black & white-thinking circles. those are the ones who say things like (my example above), ime.
Well, I think I agree here as you’re using past tense
. And what IS (present tense) part of the problem is – as I see it – a largely UNINTENDED social consequences of this kind of public discourse.
how d’you mean? well–past tense; she’s dead. is what i meant by it.
Ones personal experiences are a poor foundation upon which to build a model of the world.
I don’t buy that excuse, not when the “fair helping” is of precisely what the new ideology claims to be opposed to.
Which folks, precisely, and what are they saying to make you think that?
As far as I can see, folks here (Tom, Hugh, and myself) are talking about the effect of feminist objections coupled with a lack of clarity from them over exactly what is objectionable, and what isn’t.
Why not? If you are able to ascertain that an approach from you would not be welcome to her, whatever the reason for this, aren’t you obliged to respect that?
Edited.
Belledame222:
A patent gives the patenter exclusive right to the invention. That isn’t the case with gender norms.
Why do you think BASTA! “seem[s] desparate to go back to ” an earlier system? I don’t see any such implication in the comment to which you are replying, nor do I get that impression from him(?) generally.
It’s a fallacy to assume that a person is a reactionary merely because they object to feminism or certain aspects of it, especially when those aspects are themselves reactionary or at least small-c conservative. I’m not saying you’re commiting this fallacy here. I just don’t see where you’re coming from.
I think we’re all familiar with the traditional script.
Belledame222:
I can’t tell for certain whether this is intended to be genuine sympathy or dismissive irony. It looks dismissive.
I’ve no doubt that there isn’t a handbook for lesbian courting (nor one for gay men). Nevertheless, some manage without it. And some don’t. The latter probably feel a pain which is very similar to ours. I don’t think there is anything to be gained from dismissing other people’s pain just because it isn’t ours.
I would say that it is rooted in the very gender roles that feminism, if it really did what it says on the tin, it would’ve eradicated by now.
The essence of much of our criticism of feminism is that it doesn’t do what it says on the tin.
Can’t you?
I’m obliged to “respect” it in the sense that I don’t hit on someone who doesn’t want to be hit on.
I’m not obliged to “respect” the general principle. When we’re all figuring out modes of heterosexual interaction that work for everyone, “only attractive people have the right to be sexual” does not get serious consideration from me. And when someone, man or woman, expresses that sentiment, I call them on it.
Somewhat of a side track, but…
A problem is, and not with the majority of men, but with some vocal men out there, take a great many MRA’s for instance, who often, like radical feminists are for women, are the loudest voices screaming for “mens interests”, and whether they represent the whole or not, they are the ones are the people everyone is hearing…and they are not doing much at all to foster respect or understanding. So when men, who suggest they have an interest in mens rights, or the negative effects of feminism on men, people immediately look at you like those MRA’s…just like often, all feminists are judged by the radicals.
I know alot of the men folk here have toured the Feminist Blogs…well, I toured a lot of MRA blogs, and this is what you hear a whole lot of…
all women are whores
all women are gold diggers
all women are cheaters and those kids probably aren’t yours
all women are bitches
all women only care about themselves
most women are shitty parents
all women are less intelligent than men
all women are inferior in almost all ways to men
women are good for fucking and breeding, cooking and cleaning, and that’s about it.
it’s fine to bang all the “sluts” you want, watch porn, all that, but never have a relationship with a woman like that.
find a pure submissive women to make your wife who will defer to your manly wisdom in all ways…that is if you decide to get married at all.
All western women are worthless, greedy, stupid whores.
Yeah, ALL that, ALL that is out there in spades. It is no less disrespectful and unequal than what you folks see on the feminist blogs that trash men. So men, do you want to be judged by that?
Do you?
Probably no more than some feminists or feminist leaning women want to be judged by radical feminists and many of their anti-man statements.
Ren (citing antifeminist attitudes to women)
Anybody coming up with crap like that on this site would be challenged to make a supporting argument by the bloggers themselves (including you, of course) – who would also be quick to disassociate themselves from such views. That’s what attracts to me to this site, in fact: that it aspires to intelligent criticism of feminism – a movement which really matters and really requires scrutiny – rather than to the infantile abuse of women.
It looks like a post masquerading as a comment.
Ren:
Do we want to be judged by it? The likely answer to that is a resounding “no.” But there is a difference in the situations: we usually disavow the MRA label outright. IME, one is more likely to see “I’m not an MRA” or “I don’t identify with MRAs” than one is to see “I’m not that kind of MRA” or “that’s not what MRA means to me.”
That said, some of us — myself included — acknowledge that we will be judged by their examples, anyway, until and unless we can establish to someone else’s satisfaction that we actually do not share their views.
jfpbookworm:
Me:
jfpbookworm:
It doesn’t appear to have been posited as a general principle by the hypothetical women. (And it’s your hypothesis, after all.)
But if someone was so ugly, so undesirable, that one could reasonably presume that any prospective partner would object to an approach, should they not then refrain?
Being German, I only heard of this MRA phenomenon through another feminist blog. If that is indeed what’s being said on those blogs, then, well, they made their own bed.
I think this might be a problem of perception, in a way. People will often only perceive what they are attuned to. Feminists will then hear screaming so-called MRAs while men who are sympathetic to feminist concerns, as the ones described in the post above are characterised, will mostly be attuned to hear screaming feminists.
Let’s hope there can be a middle ground. Let’s work on one. If not, we can at least be grateful that the battle of the sexes is a contact sport at times
That bit was sarcasm.
as per no lesbian handbook: well, y’know, in theory, going with your take on feminism and gender roles, the “gay rights tin” ought to have provided me with one. But I don’t blame the gay rights movement for it. Because, there are a lot of -other- kinds of pain that me and mine are subject to under a homophobic, heteronormative culture. Yeah, “I can’t get a date/I can’t relate to women” is an issue. I -do- feel your pain about that. I’m just annoyed by the notion that somehow this is what a large and multifacted political movement reduces to.
For me, the best vehicle for addressing that sort of pain has not been politics at all, but therapy.
your mileage may vary, of course.
and actually, I don’t have time to get into it right now, but as a matter of fact, if you want to talk about gender roles and socialization, I’d be more than happy to compare and contrast being a lesbian with being a straight man in the dating/pick-up realm; there are some similarities and some differences, I would say.
D’you think there’s a universally objective standard for “ugly,” then?
“sociopolitical movement,” I should say.
I think that most of the people who feel this way are lacking in self-esteem more than looks. But I emphatically *don’t* believe that there are any situations where the objectionableness of an approach is based on attractiveness. “Objecting” to someone’s appearance is never legitimate.
I think one of the problems here is that you seem to be equating rejection and objection. Quasimodo is going to be turned down a lot more often than Adonis, and people may excuse behavior from Adonis that they wouldn’t from Quasimodo. But Quasimodo isn’t being objectionable if he politely expresses attraction in an appropriate context, even if he gets turned down. And Adonis doesn’t escape culpability for mistreating people even if he’s attractive enough that people are willing to put up with it.
Expressing attraction is not any less acceptable when the attraction isn’t reciprocated; it’s just more unfortunate.
Hmm, it doesn’t, of course. But I’m a little surprised you would believe that claims of some unintended (harmful) effects of a large and multifaceted political movement (I can’t think of any movement without unintended effects) would limit the movement’s importance to that unintended effect?
Very interesting. Maybe you could elaborate a little?
I’m sure we could carve out a subset from those we would regard as ugly, whom we could legitimately consider universally ugly.
belledame said:
tobias said:
I would be interested also.
Broadly agreeing with Tom and Infra on this one.
Tom:
Or perhaps just ignored.
[quote comment="10226"]Yeah, ALL that, ALL that is out there in spades. It is no less disrespectful and unequal than what you folks see on the feminist blogs that trash men. So men, do you want to be judged by that?[/quote]
I will be judged by that anyway the moment I utter the phrase “male rape victim.” That is a given. What is not given is how I choose to respond to that perception. If I explain my position and do not play the “that’s not my men’s movement” game, then if people still hold me in contempt that issue lies with them and not me.
However, if I defend the men’s movement’s positions and only address the negative comments after many different people point out the hypocrisy of those views and still defend those views, then the issue lies entirely with me and it is fair to judge me accordingly.
[quote comment="10277"][quote comment="10226"]Yeah, ALL that, ALL that is out there in spades. It is no less disrespectful and unequal than what you folks see on the feminist blogs that trash men. So men, do you want to be judged by that?[/quote]
I will be judged by that anyway the moment I utter the phrase “male rape victim.” That is a given. What is not given is how I choose to respond to that perception. If I explain my position and do not play the “that’s not my men’s movement” game, then if people still hold me in contempt that issue lies with them and not me.
However, if I defend the men’s movement’s positions and only address the negative comments after many different people point out the hypocrisy of those views and still defend those views, then the issue lies entirely with me and it is fair to judge me accordingly.[/quote]
TS: Well, this statement alone shows part of the problem, as there are feminists and feminist leaning women who DO speak about male rape victims and point out that other feminists, law enforcement, and other people ignore them completely….and then get told they don’t care about male rape victims, or anything having to do with men at all…which is not true.
I know many feminists and other assorted women who have never made light of male rape and male rape victims….yet still get trashed by other feminists and men for the effort.
yeh, Ren’s right.
which is not to say that i haven’t also seen hateful shit denying the validity or seriousness of male rape/sexual assault victims (by MRA’s as well as feminists and just plain folks). but you know…well, no one likes being painted with a broad brush.
[quote comment="10282"]TS: Well, this statement alone shows part of the problem, as there are feminists and feminist leaning women who DO speak about male rape victims and point out that other feminists, law enforcement, and other people ignore them completely….and then get told they don’t care about male rape victims, or anything having to do with men at all…which is not true.
I know many feminists and other assorted women who have never made light of male rape and male rape victims….yet still get trashed by other feminists and men for the effort.[/quote]
Certainly that does occur. In most instances I think the reason for that is two-fold. One, just by virtue of associating oneself with feminism it makes one’s concern about male victims suspect. Two, the display of concern usually follows other people (typically male, sometimes male victims) being attacked for a prolonged period of time.
Both of these give the perception that the concern is less than genuine and probably some sort of feminist tactic. Unfortunately, there are instance where that does occur.
[...] See also: When You Have Feminist Guilt, You Don’t Need Catholic Guilt [...]
I agree with this article. As a sensitive and quite feminine male who likes women and often tends to identify with them more than other men, but is heterosexual, I think I have always been held back in being sexual with women for fear of being macho and sexist. I think it’s one reason I’m in my late 30s and have had no relationships. And what I always wanted more than sex was love and tenderness, which is what stereotypically women are supposed to want too (I remember being angry over a sex education leaflet at school that said “boys want sex and get mixed up on love, which they are not ready for, and girls want love, and get involved in sex, that they are not ready for”). I think there are a lot of mixed messages out there. Men are given the impression that admiring or complimenting a woman or expressing interest in her in any way can be harassment … . But on the other hand a lot of women still probably actually want a reasonably conventionally masculine and assertive man. In my case women pretty much always see me as friend material. I’ve had problems with sexuality and gender confusion as well that I think are all linked to this. I think I need to get over this and be more relaxed about being a male that’s sensitive and gentle but is also heterosexual.
[Comment edited to remove reference to rape. Please confine such comments to threads explicitly dedicated to that topic. —ballgame]
While I knew about the effect that shaming behavior and language had on my own sexuality before reading this, this goes well to explain my own sexual repression. What is ironic is that I compensated for this by watching pornography, but still never learned to express myself sexually amongst women without great discomfort. I do not “just want sex” and the idea of casual dating is a turnoff to me, but the fact that I was so unable to express myself sexually made the whole endeavor of getting to know someone pointless. Coupled with anxiety and depression, an emotionally incestuous mother, and a lack of both male role models, and relationship models in general, this was a powerful mix.
I gave up at 21 years old after a few anxiety-ridden dates. 9 years later, I still get shamed by Feminist friends for expressing sexuality, which I can tell is simply for being hetero male as my gay male and hetero female friends are free to express themselves in any way (laughing at male rape for example). At least I now recognize when this is occurring and no longer blame myself for feeling this way; I’m being expressly targeted for shame. I do continue to blame myself for not being able to get past it, however, and take charge of my life. At this point, I have a semblance of comfort in my own skin that may allow me to have a functional relationship in the near future, but I still recognize the limitations that my lack of experience has on picking someone suitable for myself to date.
Hi Anon, sad to read about your repression and shaming by your friends. I empathize with your need to not express yourself sexually or else be shamed by your peers, as I shared (and still kind of share) that fear of (in my case further) ostracism.
I found some ways in which it’s apparently safe for me to be sexual, and I move in circles where women think me kind of hot or awesome (karaoke and amateur theatre really worked for me), and I hope that you find those accepting circles for yourself, too.
Amanda Marcotte bashing an MIT professor for saying the same thing.
“MIT professor explains: The real oppression is having to learn to talk to women”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....-to-women/
[Since this is an older discussion thread that doesn't have an 'RP' version, I'm going to pop a little pre-disclaimer on this comment here. If there were an RP discussion thread to this particular post, I would move this comment to it. As it is, I'll just note that I think AlekNovy is making some points here that I empathize with, and he is making those points with a rather entertaining lack of nuance. However, that lack of nuance is problematic under the guidelines for discussions we aim to promote here (especially in NoH threads). —ballgame]
@400boyz
The most infuriating thing about this response is just how extreme it is. (the response on their side in general, not just this one specific marcotte article)
- I can understand not wanting to take responsibility for the side-effects of a campaign you have running (especially if you think you’re doing good work by doing it). It’s natural, it’s human to think none of your stuff has side-effects or unintended consequences.
- But these people think that spending DECADES demonizing EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE WAY of flirting or making a move on a woman has 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000% unintended consequences on men
- They think that spending DECADES exaggerating HOW HORRIBLE and EVIL it is to make EVEN THE SLIGHTEST social FAUX PAS (or causing EVEN THE SLIGHTEST moment of akwardness in an interaction with a woman) has 0.00000000000000000000000% chance of causing anyone fear of doing things wrong.
Now I if they said something like
“Yeah I get how if you have a predisposition towards some mental disorder it can be made worse by misinterpreting what we’re saying”, maybe we should explain it a little better.
(which is still taking much less of the blame than is objective, and its still taking no responsibility for being bad communicators)
But I’d be only 1000000000000000x less furious than what they do NOW. Right now they say that WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING for decades has 0.0000000000000000000000000% influence.
None, it’s entirely the individual’s fault because he didn’t understand what they meant or was paralyzed by the utter contradiction and harsh punishments promised to him.
They won’t even admit (for example “a miniscule-influence due to misunderstanding that’s not even their fault”.
They won’t even do this admitting 0.1% of blame instead of the 50% blame they actually deserve in my opinion.
Heck don’t call it blame, call it INFLUENCE, they won’t even admit 0.000000001% influence and its gas-lighting of the worst order.
NOTE: they don’t even say “Oh you misunderstood what we meant”. No, they SAY you are an evil wannabe-rapist or hate all women or are “mentally disordered” for daring to even SUGGEST that their contradictory rules MIGHT HAVE HAD any influence…
That CONTRADICTORY rules might have caused someone a cognitive dissonance based paralysis. (Which happens to humans when you give them contradictory rules and tell them they’ll be PUNISHED and shamed for breaking them, especially true of intelligent humans, which the professor is).
AND NO IT IS NOT A “MENTAL DISORDER” to fear punishment for breaking a rule (I am so freaking ANGRY at the people claiming the prof has a “mental disorder” because he feared punishments THEY THEMSELVES instilled fear of!!!)
.
.
.
Now…Even IF YOU ASSUMED they had the MOST perfectly good faith motives in the demonization they’ve done. (assume it was 10000000000% only intended to lower GENUINE sexual harrassment) and 1000% done in absolute good faith…
- Even if you assume there is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000% bad faith or bad intentions on their part.
- Humans are not perfect at communication and misunderstandings happen, where sometimes you have to clarify what you meant.
But anyone who’s gone through what the prof has gone through will tell you that if you ask for clarifications you are told to shut up and stop being such a rapist, and that it’s not their duty to educate you (or any of a hundred other ways of refusing to clarify).
Now are these feminists (with their denial of 0.0000% responsibility and influence) claiming to be perfect communicators? If they are, it’d be the only perfection claimed to exist in this universe (aside from the perfection being claimed to be had for gods in different religions).
Because literally (as has been discussed at length)
- they give 1000000 rules of what makes you a harasser where LITERALLY ***everything*** on planet earth is “potentially” harassment AND DEFINITELY creepy (with no objective specifics given of where the “potential” comes from and in which cases it is or isn’t creepy)
- and you’re told that creeping out a woman makes you as evil as a rapist, and as we know rape is the most absolutely evil thing on the planet
- and to ask clarification for when it is and is not creepy, makes you a wannabe rapist (asking for a clarification does).
(I won’t even go into all the cases you will be told to kill yourself or don’t deserve to live for asking. Let’s assume those people are “extremists” and not represenative”.
Though I spent my early 20s being told to kill myself by so many identifying as feminists, because I asked for a clarification)
And then to say that this COMMUNICATION STRATEGY THEY EMPLOY has 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000% influence on ANYONE developing a fear of flirting (or even merely increasing or triggering any pre-existing anxities)… is absolute gaslighting.
.
.
.
I am going to suggest that one of two things has to be true here:
1) These people are not acting in good faith with the demonization campaigns they’ve run for decades
or
2) They are simply lousy communicators who don’t admit responsibility for being misunderstood or not noticing the logical contradictions in their communication
I am going to say its a mix of the two.
Now if you ask them (go to the marcotte link or the comments), the answer is:
- Their motives are 1000% pure and pristine and its absolutely and entirelly all done in good faith AND
1) You are secretly a rapist and only misunderstand or are confused by their logically conflicted rules because you have a secret desire to rape women and are looking for an excuse to rape
or
2) You have a mental disorder and it is 1000000% your fault if you misunderstood what they meant (remember, they were acting in good faith and only genuinely demonizing actual sexual harassment). They had 0.0000000000% influence on you being paralyzed or triggered into anxiety. It’s just that you have both a mental disorder and a complex of blaming people for the development of your disorders.
“2) You have a mental disorder and it is 1000000% your fault if you misunderstood what they meant (remember, they were acting in good faith and only genuinely demonizing actual sexual harassment). They had 0.0000000000% influence on you being paralyzed or triggered into anxiety. It’s just that you have both a mental disorder and a complex of blaming people for the development of your disorders”
A woman who has a mental disorder is someone to be supported and you have to make an effort to understand her.
A man who has a mental disorder is someone who is to be invalidated!
The fact that having a mental disorder is an excuse for invalidation is very troubling.
When I deal with people I have empathy and understanding.
I do not take anything Amanda Marcotte says seriously, but I do take her influence seriously. She is, at best, the analog to Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, but I think in reality she is more like Pat Buchanan or David Duke. I don’t know why Slate provides her with a platform.
I found a VERY LONG blog post that I feel is spot on, so far, as far as the reactions to people like Scott Aaronson, and nerdy, shy men in general. I even saw a #waronnerds hashtag…
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/