There is a bad man out there. He is a Casanova, a sexually-addicted Don Juan who preys on unsuspecting women by putting on a facade of charm and empathy.
The Today Show tries very hard to convince us they have found this man, and that he is Paul Janka, a writer in New York who is known for being very popular with the ladies. They even brought on the show a couple big name “experts” to tell us how he is a sex addict and needs help.
Rather than revealing the evil ways of Paul Janka, who responded admirably to this inquisition, what this segment really reveals is some of the prejudices in our culture towards male sexuality. The view exemplified by the Today show is a traditional and Victorian conception of men as beasts, and women as innocent damsels in distress. Yet this view is presented as the default view by the mainstream media, which should scare us.
Minds made up
Watch the two segments on this page, and read the article here. I was amazed by the cynicism with which he was interviewed. The hosts and the psychologists had already made up their minds. They had decided that he hurts women. They had decided that he puts on an act. They had decided that he exhibits the tendencies of a sex addict and that he needs help.
In the voiceover during the segment showing his life, the narrator says that he is having a lot of fun, but “What he’s not having: feelings for the women he brings home.” Yet no evidence for this claim is provided in Janka’s words. At one point, the host asks him, “I’m sure you’ve caused a lot of hurt along the way.” How is she so sure? All Janka can say in response is that he believes that most of the women he has been with are fine with the way he has treated them. The female psychologist, when asked why Janka is so successful with women, says that “women see you as charming, empathetic, sophisticated, and it’s going to take them a little for them to figure out that it’s an act, and you don’t give them that time.”
What I saw when I watched the videos was a man who likes to have sex with a lot of women, yes, but who was hardly the creep that they were making him out to be. He has been in several monogamous relationships, of up to 2.5 years. He says he would eventually like to get married, and that he gets hurt and rejected, too, though he doesn’t blame others for it.
The psychologists, backed by friendly-sounding music, were quick to label Janka a sex addict. Yet that term is problematic, and isn’t acknowledged as a psychological disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders (unfortunately, neither is there an entry in the DSM for people who are obsessed with diagnosing others with mental disorders based on moralistic prejudices). As far as I can see, sexual addiction requires that sexual desire be compulsive. If Janka is capable of being monogamous for years on end, then clearly his sexual desires are not compulsive. A much more parsimonious conclusion is that Janka simply likes sex with many women and is picky about who has relationships with. Janka is not a sex addict; the psychologists are full of B.S. While it’s possible that there is a verifiable condition called sexual addiction, saying that Janka exhibits it reminds me of when the terms “nymphomaniac” and “frigid” were so easily misapplied to women who wanted too much, or too little sex, respectively. It’s the same sexist attitude.
Of course, it’s possible that Mr. Janka really does deserve the image of the callous Casanova that they are projecting onto him. We can’t know without more knowledge of how he actually treats women, or by talking to the women he has been with. Yet it’s much easier to assume that he deceives women, than to believe that many women may want uncommitted sex with an attractive man out of their own accord. The mere fact that a man sleeps with lots of women is no grounds to assume that he puts on an act with them, that he deceives them, or that he hurts them. The only reason that people on the show think that Janka does is because they are obsessed with this misandric image of the heartless, deceptive philanderer.
Taking advantage?
The male psychologist says that no matter how much guys like Janka try to justify themselves, women usually don’t enjoy the experience of casual sex, and instead feel taken advantage of. Certainly there are women who feel this way, yet there are also women who are just fine with having sex outside the context of a relationship. Once when having “the talk” with a past lover, I was quite surprised to find that she didn’t want to have a serious relationship either, since it defied what I’d been taught about women up until that point.
When women do feel hurt after sex that doesn’t turn into the relationship, who’s fault is this? We all know it can be the man’s fault, if he deceives the woman about his intentions. There is no evidence that Janka does this, however. He says that people are responsible for their own feelings, as long as he “presents the facts clearly.” Clearly, women can get themselves hurt by, to use Janka’s term, “concocting something in her head” that isn’t there. Yet just because a woman feels taken advantage of, it doesn’t necessarily mean that she was (especially when she is taught that mismatches in people’s expectations mean that she was taken advantage of).
Yet I think there is a third possibility that doesn’t require us to assume that whenever a woman gets hurt, she was being stupid, or that the man she slept with was being evil. That possibility is to say that it wasn’t the fault of either person involved. It isn’t anyone’s fault that people often have discordant ideas about how sex and relationships proceed. Men often think that women who spend hours chatting and cuddling must be attracted to them, and can be hurt if they discover otherwise and get rejected. Women often have sex with men believing that it will lead to a relationship, and are hurt when it doesn’t. These scenarios also happen with the sexes reversed. If you hurt me, then I’m a victim… so you must be the victimizer, right? Wrong. Just because someone got hurt, it doesn’t follow that someone is to blame, no matter how tempting it might be to demonize the other person, to beat yourself up, or to do both at the same time.
The true culprit here is society, when it fails in its duty to socialize its members. When you think about it, the problem is a really a lack of sex education. Sex education is often narrowly conceptualized as being just about the sex act its consequences, yet sex education should also cover the stages of courtship that lead to sex. People should be educated that there are many ways of structuring sex and relationships over one’s lifespan that can make people happy, and that even if an exclusive long-term relationship or marriage is your goal, there are multiple routes to that goal other than trying to shoehorn everyone you date into being Mr. or Ms. Right. People should be educated about which patterns of mating behavior are most typical of each sex, and how about how many people within each sex still deviate from those typical patterns. People should be educated about how to get what they want romantically, instead of encouraged to resent the opposite sex when they don’t.
The one true path
When women are instead taught that the one true path is for sex to lead to relationships, then it is no surprise that are surprised and hurt when they have experiences with men that deviate from this path. It is the moralizers on this show who are taking advantage of women’s relationship disaffections. In addition to demonizing men, they encourage relationally-oriented women to think that their way of going about romance is the only right way, which only pushes them into negative experiences with men and to feel resentful.
There is a heavily paternalistic tinge to the arguments of the hosts and the psychologists: they seem to think women need to be protected from having a good time with men who are desirable and discerning enough not to jump into a relationship with anyone they go to bed with, just because there is a chance that the women might get hurt. Women can make themselves sick by eating too much chocolate, too (not just women: you should see how fast my Christmas candy is disappearing). Are chocolate makers “taking advantage” of women?
In approaching anything romantic that is worthwhile, there is generally a chance of getting hurt. There might only be a small chance that a particular women who has sex with a man like Janka will end up in a relationship with him, but if the reward could be high enough, taking that risk might be perfectly rational. Women can get hurt by dating “players,” but some of them will get great sex, and a few of them will get boyfriends and even husbands.
Average Frustrated Chicks?
Pickup artists in the seduction community have an acronym for men who are unsuccessful with women, and who sit around whining about women or about themselves: “AFCs,” short for “Average Frustrated Chumps.” Pickup artists argue that the mainstream media conditions men to become AFCs, by promoting ideas about sex, relationships, and women that are false, misleading, or downright wishful thinking. If this segment on the Today Show is to be taken as an example, the mainstream media is encouraging women to become AFCs also: “Average Frustrated Chicks.” Instead of teaching women to be cynical towards men who have different goals and expectations than theirs, a more constructive approach would be to educate women about how to induce men to want relationships with them, just as pickup artists are figuring out how induce women to want to have sex with them. After all, Janka explains in his second interview how he spent a lot of time learning “what worked and what didn’t.”
[Update: As I was finishing up this post, I ran into some information that causes me to revise my opinion of Paul Janka. But I'll go ahead and post this, and say more on that later.]
I think it’s going to be hard for you to find too many feminists who will agree that what you’re describing is misandry. A number of them are convinved it’s something that doesn’t exist. (Such a thing requires you to be somewhat limited in the imagination department, but it is what it is.)
No, Hugh- you literally have to be out at the Solanas-fringe calling for full-scale genocide against men before any feminists will notice.
I was watching one of the Today Show segments about Jenka, and it doesn’t seem like the criticism is coming from feminists, so much as people who have some very traditional ideas about women, as well as therapists touting “sex addiction” bullshit.
Still, I did read excerpts from Jenka’s seduction advice here, and some of his advice includes ways of getting women liquored up while staying sober yourself. That, I think, crosses a certain line pushing the boundaries of consensual behavior and is more than a tad creepy.
In general, I have more than a little bit of skepticism about “seduction gurus”, who strike me as little more than another subset of seminar hucksters. The Tom Cruise character in Magnolia really nailed this type down. This isn’t to say that there aren’t men with very good seduction skills (I know one), but that has to do with basic traits that make them very charismatic. I have serious doubts that this can be taught to somebody who simply lacks this kind of personality.
“When women are instead taught that the one true path is for sex to lead to relationships, then it is no surprise that are surprised and hurt when they have experiences with men that deviate from this path.”
Women are not “taught” this anymore than men are “taught” to want to have sex with many women. It’s a rare exception (as you pointed out in your “talk”) when a woman does not equate sex with a relationship. And when a “relationship” ends whether the man “knew” there was one or not, the woman is hurt. She feels like an object. She feels cheap and used, dirty. There is no amount of education that will undo her feeling this way. You cannot teach feelings to change.
God knows, men are confused about this and want to somehow turn women into men, the same way women want to turn men into women. The key is always respect. If a woman feels a particular way, simply notice it, care about it, and respect it. There is no way in hell to explain it, nor should she have to justify or try. #1 is she has to respect the way she feels and not delude herself that because sex = relationship to her that it will be that to a man. How many times does she make that mistake? Over and over and over.
The same way men keep thinking they “should” be able to have “casual” sex with many women simply because they want to with no negative consequences whatsoever. The same way they just don’t understand why women don’t “get it” that sex does not equal a relationship. And around and around we go.
The bottom line is, women HAVE to protect themselves mentally and emotionally and that means denying physical access to her most vulnerable areas! After all, she is allowing a man to enter her body, heart, and soul whether she knows going into it or not, it happens.
It’s a known fact that broken relationships are cumulatively harder on women than men. Over time, the more breakups the more she loses touch with her sanity. It will literally drive her insane. Women bond much more. They have children after all! This does not have to be proved, I hope! So doesn’t it then make sense that bonding to a man occurs on the same deep level? Oxytocin anyone? As long as we have bodies, we have the realities of our chemistry. And often the bonding occurs the first time she has sex with a man. It seems the players and Don Juan’s know this, but “can’t” help themselves so women have to be aware.
In the old days men were taught to respect women and women were taught to respect themselves much more. Now we have the “sexual equality” fallacy. We are equal, but not SAME. In fact OPPOSITE, hence the attraction. A blending of the two needs to occur. I think what many of the Don Juan’s find out (hopefully), is that they’re literally fucking their lives away. What’s the point of having sex with so many women? A man should find a good woman and go deeply into her body, mind, and soul and quit dicking around thinking they’re going to find the perfect goddess. It’s a stupid fantasy life, and they never grow up or find their true value as men. Women need men to be men and not just juvenile philandering users. It takes a real man to love a real woman with all of her faults and frailties.
Let’s face it, shall we? I’m a little upset, as you might be able to tell. I have been hurt so many times that one more breakup will put me over the edge completely and I’m swearing off relationships probably for the rest of my life. I kid you not. I do not want to see this happen to other women. I would have been very happy with one good man. I am a woman who sticks by her man, loves, appreciates, forgives, is highly sexual, inspiring, funny, beautiful, intelligent, all of that. But I am a real woman, not a “goddess”. I am a man lover, not a man hater.
But I’ve screwed my life up as far as men go because I fell deeply in love with a Don Juan years ago and just finally ended it.
My apologies for the length of this post. Thanks for listening. Fire away.
salome: Welcome.
I don’t think this is nearly as clear as you make it out to be, salome. There is evidence that the reverse may be true, at least in some cases. This controversial recent article cites a study that shows that recently divorced men kill themselves nine times as often as recently divorced women. I would also argue (though I can’t cite any statistics) that women (as a group) tend to have a much richer network of emotionally intimate friendships than men do (as a group), which gives their lives more emotional resiliency than many men have.
For all the standard evo-psych reasons, I find it plausible that there may be some truth to the stereotype of women having a greater preference for monogamous, emotionally intimate sexual relationships than men (as a group) do (though I wouldn’t be shocked if it turned out that was just a myth.) The key phrase there is, “as a group”. There are lots of women who have no particular desire to confine their sexual pursuits to a committed relationship, and there are lots of men who really don’t find having sex with a string of acquaintances to be particularly fulfilling. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with either gender subset (though social stereotypes may work against them).
Sorry to hear about your current emotional duress.
Let’s play ‘spot the misandry’ shall we?
[quote comment="21428"]
The same way men keep thinking they “should” be able to have “casual” sex with many women simply because they want to with no negative consequences whatsoever. The same way they just don’t understand why women don’t “get it” that sex does not equal a relationship. And around and around we go.[/quote]
What turns guys off(IMHO) isn’t the issue of bonding, it’s more women who think like this:
“Okay, now I’ve GIVEN you sex, I want payment in the form of a permanent fiscal arrangement.” (How many women who screw unemployed/underemployed studs want a ‘relationship’ afterwards?)
Let’s imagine this in a friendship-type senario.
“I’ve spent an hour in your company, it’s now time for you to pay up.”
Would you really want someone like that as a friend? Someone who thinks of themselves as so much more valuable, precious and special then you? So much more, that you should have to pay for what should be a perfectly mutual act?
And if you can’t handle sex outside of a relationship, DON’T HAVE SEX OUTSIDE OF A RELATIONSHIP. Don’t have sex and then expect a relationship.
It doesn’t work.
[quote]It’s a known fact that broken relationships are cumulatively harder on women than men.[/quote]
This is why men’s suicide rates spike after a divorce or breakup. Women’s don’t.
[quote]Women bond much more. They have children after all! This does not have to be proved, I hope! So doesn’t it then make sense that bonding to a man occurs on the same deep level? Oxytocin anyone?[/quote]
Only women love! Men are incapable!
[quote]It’s a stupid fantasy life, and they never grow up or find their true value as men. Women need men to be men and not just juvenile philandering users. It takes a real man to love a real woman with all of her faults and frailties.[/quote]
And it takes a real woman to love a man with all his faults and frailties.
I think, in many cases, a lot of guys are capable of _EXACTLY_ what women expect of them.
You expect men to be cads. You say they are ‘genetically’ programmed to be cads. Why are you disappointed when they fulfill your expectations?
[quote]I’m a little upset, as you might be able to tell. I have been hurt so many times that one more breakup will put me over the edge completely and I’m swearing off relationships probably for the rest of my life. I kid you not. I do not want to see this happen to other women. I would have been very happy with one good man. I am a woman who sticks by her man, loves, appreciates, forgives, is highly sexual, inspiring, funny, beautiful, intelligent, all of that. But I am a real woman, not a “goddess”. I am a man lover, not a man hater.[/quote]
You love men? Really? Then why do you deny their humanity by believing they are incapable of the kind of love or bonding a woman is capable of?
Why would _anyone_ want to be in an intimate relationship with a person who thought they were inferior, emotionally and intimacy-wise?
Why bother with men at all? You can have relationships with women, if you feel men can only manage an inferior level of intimacy.
Typhon: you are far too reasonable a person! My God. Are you honestly expecting intellectual honesty from an individual who has already made it clear that only men are to be blamed for relationship failures?
Swear to Christ, “men are scum” is the sole organizing principle of gender politics.
Iamcuriousblue said:
I agree. I think feminists often promote some negative notions about male sexuality, but since there was no evidence of explicit feminist influence here, I could not pin the blame on them.
Yeah, that article is the kind of thing I referred to the note at the end of my post. Just before finishing it, I Googled him, and found that Janka might not be as innocent as he initially appeared to me on the show. However, I decided to go ahead with the post anyway.
I can see why you would get this impression from watching a movie like Magnolia. Magnolia was a great movie; however, it is just a movie, and it is a caricature of real life seduction figure Ross Jeffries. While Jeffries’ methods were once the best thing out there, they have largely been supplanted.
Some seduction coaches are undoubtedly hucksters, yet I think men who are having difficulties with women will get good results from most seduction workshops. This isn’t because pickup coaches are teaching men anything magical or even particularly new; they are simply finding ways to undo the cluelessness and the sexual shame that has been foisted on many men. The only reason that seduction coaches can advertise that their teachings are so powerful is because the current education men get around how to interact with women is a collection of lies, more lies, yawning gaps, and counter-productive cant, with a smattering of useless platitudes. As far as making men subjected to this brainwashing more effective with women, these coaches are picking off the fruit that is hanging very low.
It’s not so much a case of creating charisma where there was none, but rather of uncovering charisma that isn’t currently being expressed, because it’s being covered up by social anxiety, cluelessness, or shame about one’s sexuality. There is also more things to success with women besides charisma that are easier to teach, such as basic social skills, knowledge of female psychology, and style. Many men, including myself, have made seemingly-miraculous transformations through studying this stuff.
Speed Seduction?
Act gay. Women will be facinated, even more so if you hit on them.
Plus it offers an easy ‘out’.
salome:
[quote]It’s a known fact that broken relationships are cumulatively harder on women than men.[/quote]
(Emphasis added.)
I might want to see references for this, simply because I’m not that familiar with studies on it, but as for the comments about suicide rates spiking after breakups and divorces: you’re probably talking about different things here. With reactions to breakups, yes, men might be hit harder; with reactions to a series of breakups, women might be harder hit. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And may I just note: it’s sad that Casanova gets such a bad rap. (Don Juan, not so much. But he was a literary figure, whereas Casanova was a person.) Sure, Casanova had a lot of sex, but after reading his memoirs — there’s an unabridged version published by Johns Hopkins University Press, and it’s a great read (all six volumes) if anyone’s interested in the subject — it’s clear that he was, more or less, what we might consider a feminist of his time: never slept with a woman with whom he couldn’t hold an interesting conversation, respectful, empathetic, and a philosopher and world-traveler to boot. Basically, he was the very definition of a “man of parts,” or what the SC might call a true natural, with a healthy view of the female sex.
Quite sad that his name gets dragged through the mud so often, and that he’s reduced to a mere womanizer.
[quote comment="21439"]salome:
[quote]It’s a known fact that broken relationships are cumulatively harder on women than men.[/quote]
(Emphasis added.)
I might want to see references for this, simply because I’m not that familiar with studies on it, but as for the comments about suicide rates spiking after breakups and divorces: you’re probably talking about different things here. With reactions to breakups, yes, men might be hit harder; with reactions to a series of breakups, women might be harder hit. The two are not mutually exclusive.[/quote]
You’re probably right.
The women are actually _alive_ to be hit ‘harder’ with each successive break-up. Their multiple-breakup male compatriots have probably offed themselves.
Besides, what does it actually mean if you’re harder hit by ‘cumulative relationship failures’? Rather then the failure of a *specific* relationship? Doesn’t sound like the difference is due to greater bonding-ness, more like ego. Unless you theorize that women are bonding to men as an abstraction, not any specific man.
It’s times like these I really wonder about the human race. I’m a complete sow and I’ve managed to attract and retain a mate of the outie-persuasion for a decade.
It wasn’t that hard. And I’m a looser in more then just the looks-catagory.
Certainly no-where near the specimen salom is.
But then… on the other hand, I don’t think my husband is my emotional inferior.
typhonblue:
[quote]The women are actually _alive_ to be hit ‘harder’ with each successive break-up. Their multiple-breakup male compatriots have probably offed themselves.[/quote]
Which is somewhat like comparing the common incidence of a long-term debilitative illness to a lesser incidence (by percentage) of lethal trauma. It proves nothing, establishes nothing, changes nothing about the fact that you’re comparing two different things, and demonstrates an elephantine amount of callous cynicism.
It also does nothing to shed light on potential causes.
[quote]Doesn’t sound like the difference is due to greater bonding-ness, more like ego.[/quote]
The case could probably be made that this is somewhat accurate, but in different ways, due to different forms of socialization. If men are encouraged to seek validation by securing a partner, single breakups are likely to have a stronger effect. If women are encouraged to seek validation by securing a long-term partner or family, then a series of (what would be viewed as) failures would be more detrimental to self-image.
Again: two separate things, and each could be viewed as a matter of ego were one so inclined.
[quote comment="21442"]
Which is somewhat like comparing the common incidence of a long-term debilitative illness to a lesser incidence (by percentage) of lethal trauma.[/quote]
If, at every instance of breakup, men are more likely to off themselves, then where does the ‘women are more affected, cumulatively’ come in?
Due to the effect of post breakup suicide, more women will hit the multiple-relationship category then men. And at that point the effect of lethal-depression induced by ‘multiple-relationship-failure’ should start to equalize the suicide rate.
In addition to this, the number of men with breakup induced ‘debilitation’ has to be significantly higher then the numbers of suicides.
[quote]It proves nothing, establishes nothing, changes nothing about the fact that you’re comparing two different things, and demonstrates an elephantine amount of callous cynicism.[/quote]
Hmm.
[quote]The case could probably be made that this is somewhat accurate, but in different ways, due to different forms of socialization. If men are encouraged to seek validation by securing a partner, single breakups are likely to have a stronger effect.[/quote]
But aren’t men encouraged to seek validation by a ‘love ‘em and leave ‘em’ lifestyle? By all rights men’s socialization should _protect_ them in the event of a break-up. They’re now free to go on to conquer new shores.
[quote]If women are encouraged to seek validation by securing a long-term partner or family, then a series of (what would be viewed as) failures would be more detrimental to self-image.[/quote]
And men aren’t encouraged to also seek validation through marriage? Being a married man earns a man a certain amount of respectability.
[quote]Again: two separate things, and each could be viewed as a matter of ego were one so inclined.[/quote]
Except, for one group, they result in greater rates of suicide.
typhonblue:
[quote]If, at every instance of breakup, men are more likely to off themselves, then where does the ‘women are more affected, cumulatively’ come in?[/quote]
As a separate issue. If this were a statistical analysis, and the point were to establish what kinds of effects were more likely for each group, then the comparison would be valid. That is not how the responses here have presented it, which has been an approach of comparative severity. However, they are dissimilar events, connected only in that they involve effects on self-image; as such, they are incommensurate.
[quote]And at that point the effect of lethal-depression induced by ‘multiple-relationship-failure’ should start to equalize the suicide rate.[/quote]
Only if there is a correlation between these effects and suicidal ideation. That is not self-evident.
[quote]In addition to this, the number of men with breakup induced ‘debilitation’ has to be significantly higher then the numbers of suicides.[/quote]
Over the short term, possibly; that’s reasonable, considering the incidence of suicide. But there’s no basis to extrapolate from that to long-term effects, as the stimuli for suicidal ideation in these cases are acute.
[quote]But aren’t men encouraged to seek validation by a ‘love ‘em and leave ‘em’ lifestyle?[/quote]
Not according to some ongoing research. To go for some of the more popularized versions, I’ve previously mentioned Suzie Bright’s analysis of men who have simply stopped dating because they got tired of disposable relationships, and studies of the “hookup” culture have found that men are more likely to want relationships to evolve out of the circumstances than women. This was the case once; there’s reason to believe that it’s not the case any more.
[quote]And men aren’t encouraged to also seek validation through marriage? Being a married man earns a man a certain amount of respectability.[/quote]
Not nearly as much, based on twenty years of (admittedly non-academic) conversation and observation, including with those men and women who have been divorced, and suicidal (both when in the hospital after attempts, and in conversation as friends).
[quote]Except, for one group, they result in greater rates of suicide.[/quote]
Which is an appropriate statement to make as a statistical observation. But that is as far as it goes, and it does not invalidate salome’s point.
First of all, there were several assumptions made by salom.
1. Women bond to a greater degree then men.
2. Women are affected more by cumulative breakups then men.
How can the additional pressure of achieving multiple relationship status be anything more then self-image related? The additional angst isn’t over having a severed bond with any *individual* but having failed to bond successfully with your gender of choice in the abstract. Therefore feeling like a failure. (Or, more accurate to what actually happens, feeling like the *other* gender is a failure.)
Committing suicide over a specific relationship could also be ego-driven, but it’s not *necessarily* ego driven. The cumulative thing is necessarily ego-driven. You proved that point yourself: a woman who is upset over her cumulative relationship failures is afraid of being invalidated, not living up to her vision of womanhood. Regardless of who decided the visible criteria of womanhood, wanting to live up to it is egotism and not AT ALL related to women’s supposed ‘greater bonding’.
So we have this:
Committing suicide(or otherwise being debilitated) over a specific relationship is not necessarily ego driven, it could be bonding-driven.
Committing suicide(or otherwise being debilitated) over a series of failed relationships is not related to bonding. Bonding requires a one-on-one relationship with another human being. Instead this conflict is related to self-image or perception in the greater community.
Therefore assumption number 2 contradicts assumption 1. (If we include the established statistic that men are more likely to suffer emotional distress over breakup–as evidenced by greater rates of depression and suicide.)
Women are not capable of a deeper intimacy then men. QED.
[quote]
Which is an appropriate statement to make as a statistical observation. But that is as far as it goes, and it does not invalidate salome’s point.[/quote]
Salom’s main point is that men are incapable of bonding on the same level as women.
typhonblue:
Your argument depends on whether or not bonding is related to self-perception in the first place. I’m not saying that it’s invalid, only that it’s contingent, and that the premiss is, again, not self-evident. We could say that bonding has a biological as opposed to psychological component, but we could also say that self-perception is subject to the same, based on work relating to the embodied mind hypothesis and the wider phenomenon of proprioception.
(Your argument also omits consideration of the phenomenon of learned helplessness and its connection to self-defeating behavior, viz. the work of Berglas & Baumeister on the subject.)
However, the argument also rests on the point that I’ve been trying to make: that the trauma in the one case is dominantly acute, whereas in the other it’s dominantly chronic; the effects probably relate to self-image in both cases, but within different social contexts, with different coping methods and different support systems. (This is in addition to forms of self-perception that likely differ based on both gender roles and the degree of acceptance of those roles.) They are substantially dissimilar on many fronts, and cannot be directly compared.
There is no contradiction if these are separate spheres.
[quote comment="21447"]Salom’s main point is that men are incapable of bonding on the same level as women.[/quote]
That isn’t the point that I was addressing, though, so I’m not sure why it’s relevant to the argument I presented.
To clarify what I meant in 17, I’m referring to the following quote from salome:
[quote]It’s a known fact that broken relationships are cumulatively harder on women than men. Over time, the more breakups the more she loses touch with her sanity. It will literally drive her insane. Women bond much more. They have children after all![/quote]
The first three sentences state one proposition (that successive broken relationships are cumulatively harder on women than men), whereas the last two state another (women bond more than men). The second provides a supporting argument for the first, but the first is capable of standing without the second; that one may simply be an inaccurate explanation for the observed phenomenon.
Personally, I don’t buy the supporting argument in terms of its appeal to biology, and I doubt that “bonding” has only one type or expression. Women may bond more in particular ways, but even if that’s the case, that does not preclude men from bonding with equal strength in another.
[quote comment="21448"]
Your argument depends on whether or not bonding is related to self-perception in the first place. I’m not saying that it’s invalid, only that it’s contingent, and that the premiss is, again, not self-evident. We could say that bonding has a biological as opposed to psychological component, but we could also say that self-perception is subject to the same, based on work relating to the embodied mind hypothesis and the wider phenomenon of proprioception.[/quote]
I’m not saying bonding is related to self-perception.
I’m saying that trauma due to a failure in bonding can only manifest acutely, not chronically.
Chronic trauma related to successive failures in bonding is related to self-perception, alone.
That is not to say that trauma from an individual instance of bonding cannot also be related to self-perception, just that it is not _necessarily_ so.
[quote]
There is no contradiction if these are separate spheres.[/quote]
But there is contradiction if you add in Salom’s assertion that ‘women bond more’.
She uses ‘women bond more’ to support her argument that women are, cumulatively, more affected by relationship failure.
Yet being affected more by cumulative relationship failure suggests that the injury is not coming from a severed bond, but from a failure to live up to some social standard. The points are self-contradictory.
Whereas distress over a specific relationship can be related to the act of bonding itself.
BTW, I’m aware that this whole discussion dehumanizes men and is innately repulsive.
Imagine if we were arguing if black people could experience love and bonding to the same degree as white people?
Aych:
Good Grief! She’s made precisely one post here (count them), and you’ve already written her off as far as making a worthwhile contribution to the site.
Why do I bother?
Salome:
Here’s to hoping you do find the man you hope for – we’re not all alike. Sometimes when you swear off finding a relationship it actually opens up the possibility of one – that is what happened with me.
[quote comment="21461"]I’m not saying bonding is related to self-perception.
I’m saying that trauma due to a failure in bonding can only manifest acutely, not chronically.
Chronic trauma related to successive failures in bonding is related to self-perception, alone.[/quote]
I wasn’t saying that you believed that bonding is related to self-perception; I was saying that your argument is contingent on the idea that it is not so related, and that this is not a self-evident proposition. So your argument is a contingent one.
[quote]Yet being affected more by cumulative relationship failure suggests that the injury is not coming from a severed bond, but from a failure to live up to some social standard. The points are self-contradictory.[/quote]
Even if I included salome’s supporting statement regarding bonding (keeping in mind that, as noted, my position differs), this contradiction does not necessarily follow. Again, it’s a contingent argument; it relies on the idea that the trauma of broken bonding experiences is not, itself, cumulative. But this is where things like learned helplessness could come in; and if women do, in fact, bond more strongly than men, the severance would likely have a stronger impact on them as well (acute effect), possibly leading to a more pronounced development of LH over time (chronic effect). It would not mean that men are excluded from this, of course, only that it might not be as noticeable as a chronic phenomenon, or might be easier to recover from within the short term, generally speaking (even conceding a stronger initial shock). The mechanism would play out differently for each group because of how it operates in each group.
[quote]BTW, I’m aware that this whole discussion dehumanizes men and is innately repulsive.[/quote]
In so far as it is an attempt to directly compare unlike things, yes, it is — because we’d be judging men’s and women’s experiences and traumas by standards that do not necessarily apply to them, and that reduces them to objects and abstractions. This is precisely why I have been emphasizing the point that these are incommensurate things, and need to be considered as such. It’s the only way to retain a perception of both groups as fully human.
Daran: Yeah, I jumped on that one a little too fast. (sigh)
[quote comment="21469"]Daran: Yeah, I jumped on that one a little too fast. (sigh)[/quote]
Well, we’re all just human.
*sigh*
Infra, I’d continue arguing with you, but I can’t see the point.
I think you are, ultimately, trying to preserve a sense of equity.
That’s fine, in and of itself, but it also can distract from exploring why *exactly* men are more acutely affected by relationship break-up.
I don’t necessarily think it’s due to men bonding more to women then women bond to men, but it probably *is* due to social forces that negatively impact men more then women.
[quote comment="21470"]Infra, I’d continue arguing with you, but I can’t see the point.
I think you are, ultimately, trying to preserve a sense of equity.[/quote]
I suppose that’s reasonable, but I’d like to clarify that it’s not just (or even primarily) about equity. To wit, as far as this:
[quote]That’s fine, in and of itself, but it also can distract from exploring why *exactly* men are more acutely affected by relationship break-up.[/quote]
I think that it’s the opposite. If we want to understand why men are hit harder by the downfall of individual relationships, it seems necessary to consider men’s contexts and reactions on their own terms; making comparisons with women’s reactions tends to complicate and confuse that. It may be that, in the end, some things are the same, but starting with that as an assumption (or starting with the assumption that one group bonds more than another) can divert and contaminate the entire argument.
We could say that men bond differently than do women, or less, or more; but in order to investigate these things we have to first identify how it is that men bond with their partners; we have to investigate the context and the way that this affects how and why those bonds develop, and what those bonds tend to mean. This is preliminary to any exploration of comparison and contrast.
“Well, we’re all just human.”
No, I didn’t do that because I’m human. I’m just kind of sick of how the feminist never changes her mind about her claims of systematic female oppression no matter how many of her claims can be shown to be exaggerrated, spun, heavily distorted, hyped, selectively-presented or empirically false. She just never changes her mind, no matter how wrong or ridiculous or untenable her claims turn-out to be. In fact, she’ll resent the hell out of you for even doubting one scintilla of anything she says, even if she says something that contradicts what she said not ten minutes earlier.
[quote comment="21471"]It may be that, in the end, some things are the same, but starting with that as an assumption (or starting with the assumption that one group bonds more than another) can divert and contaminate the entire argument.[/quote]
In the context of what salom said, there is nothing to support her assertion that women bond more. Or the implication that women are more damaged by relationship failures. (I really don’t think she was considering things in such fine grained detail as we’ve discussed them. I would be inclined to think that she believes men aren’t affected in an acute way by relationship breakup more then women.)
At least in terms of romantic relationships.
This could be true in terms of platonic friendships and I would be inclined to agree with that based on the research I’ve read and my own observations.
Also true is that men are more likely to lose contact with their children after a relationship breakdown.
typhonblue:
I agree that there are problems with salome’s assertion that women bond more, and, as I’ve stated, I don’t personally hold to that position. (I think that it’s more likely that they bond equivalently on average but possibly with emphasis on different aspects or expressions.) As for the assertion that women are more damaged by repeated relationship failures, I stated that I’d like to see sources; based on conversations over the years, I think that it’s possible, but that’s no substitute for a controlled study.
I do think that the Don Juan image and experiences with men who do practice the “love ‘em & leave ‘em” style of sexuality contributes to a view that women bond more than men, as does the appeal to the biological factor of childbirth. I don’t think that these are necessarily excluded as factors, but they are problematic: someone who takes a perspective of “love ‘em and stay with ‘em no matter what” may have no more genuine bonding than a Don Juan, and may only go through the motions that are supposed to be associated with it. Similarly, even if the ability to have children necessarily translates into a greater ability to bond with them, that does not necessarily translate to a greater ability to bond with partners — partners aren’t offspring.
There are possible aspects to socialization that play into this, and not just in terms of gender roles as they relate to open emotions, fidelity, etc. For instance, one of the theories that Baumeister proposed is that women tend to have closer social relationships (close circles of friends, etc.) whereas men tend to extend them over a broader scope (social clubs, etc.). This would imply that the demise of close relationships, repeatedly, over the long term, would affect women more than men, because it relates more directly to their dominant mode of interpersonal relationships. It would also imply that men are harder hit by the demise of single relationships because, even though they might have an extensive support system, it may not be of the same (close) type and may not be able to counter the stresses as well.
When it comes to suicide risk, losing custody, etc., it is certainly a valid point to make (statistically) that these things happen more to men than to women; but this also means that there is little a priori reason to deemphasize a different, prevalent effect with women. Where there is variation on one side, there is likely to be variation on the other. This does not mean that the variation is established, but it does mean that it moves into the realm of the probable. As such, I don’t think that salome’s assertion — that women are more affected by cumulative breakups than men — can be dismissed out of hand, even on the basis of flawed supporting arguments.
If we’re going to address the core issues, several questions need to be answered: What is bonding, and what are its components? What are its variations? Are there gender-specific forms or inclinations? Does it vary with homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, or with perspectives such as polyamory? What role does it play in the reactions that occur after a breakup, or after a series of breakups? How do we distinguish this from pure self-image issues and socialization factors?
Or, more to the point of the thread: does an emphasis on casual sex necessarily imply an inability or decreased inclination to bond with a partner? (This is related to the polyamory case.)
Unless we address these things — and I think that considering each group on its own merits is a precondition for this, if for no other reason than that it is an effective way of identifying variations and social factors — the arguments are likely to devolve into polemic.
To echo Heidegger, the first necessary step in getting a proper answer is to properly formulate the question and the method. Comparison of traumas seems, to me, insufficient.
Infra, for the record, I vehemently disagree with the notion that there are men’s experiences, and women’s experiences, and never the twain shalt be compared. Nor do I understand why such an approach would be the only way to consider both “groups” as fully human. It would seem to me that the opposite would be true; that us-ing and them-ing would lead to (at best) at least some unintentional dehumanizing. I don’t think there are very many experiences which humans are completely incapable of relating to (if they aren’t sociopaths), regardless of what “group” they belong to, and I think it results in mystification to assert otherwise IMHO.
Strictly speaking, sure, but if the only thing I knew about group X and group Y was that group X broke their left legs 9 times more often than group Y, my money would be on group X having their right leg broken more often, too. It’s sure not conclusive — maybe group X are car passengers sitting on the left side during an accident, while group Y are those on the right — but there are innumerable groups of folks who tend to break their left legs that would be more susceptible to right leg injury as well (due to bone deficiencies, high risk activities, etc.). Certainly in the absence of any actual evidence, there would be no reason to assume that group Y would have their right legs broken more often than group X.
Similarly, there would be no reason to assume that women would be more vulnerable to repeated heartache than men, given the (limited but at least tangible) evidence that men may be more vulnerable to acute heartache.
I am also not particularly persuaded by something which you and typhonblue seem to agree on: namely, that acute and chronic emotional distress must have differing core origins (i.e. breaking bonding vs. self-perception issues). I’m not saying such an idea is implausible, just that it’s far from proven or even particularly compelling to my mind. I think, due to the abrupt emotional break from their parents which men typically face far, far more frequently than women, men (as a group) have a less robust emotional foundation than women do, and this makes them more vulnerable to both acute and chronic emotional wear and tear.
aych: I’m sympathetic to your complaint in #27, given how it seems that sometimes even the best feminists will indulge in a little casual male ‘de-humanization’ from time to time. Nevertheless, I disagree with the notion that they’re Borg.
HughRistic writes:
It’s not so much a case of creating charisma where there was none, but rather of uncovering charisma that isn’t currently being expressed, because it’s being covered up by social anxiety, cluelessness, or shame about one’s sexuality.
Well, I’d say if one can overcome social anxiety, you’re 90% of the way there. But that’s actually a pretty tall order – to the best of my knowledge, its something professional psychotherapists and psychiatrists have never really been able to teach people to overcome. (Then again, its not like these people are the be-all and end-all of mental health.)
In fact, if there are demonstrably effective methods of overcoming social anxiety, I’d love to know about it.
Ballgame writes:
“Infra, for the record, I vehemently disagree with the notion that there are men’s experiences, and women’s experiences, and never the twain shalt be compared.”
Totally agree there.
Hell, its hard to generalize how different situations play out for one individual. When I was younger, I definitely played the field and was pretty happy doing so. One girl I met on a pretty casual basis – already had a boyfriend, pretty much wanted a “friend with benefits” thing with me – I soon found this girl was very much my ideal and fell for her hard. Of course the relationship didn’t last and I got pretty hurt behind it. (Compounded by the fact that she was incredibly cold to me after our breakup.) In fact, its still a source of painful memories 20 years later.
Yet I’ve also had a lot of casual sex that was pretty uncomplicated and I have good memories of.
So how any kind of breakup is going to play out and who, if anybody, will get hurt is completely dependent on the individuals and situations involved. The idea that “women will always feel X” and “men will always feel (or not feel) Y” is pure nonsense.
Aych :
Is Salome feminist? I don’t see that she has identified as such. IS this typical of feminists?
“Now we have the “sexual equality” fallacy. We are equal, but not SAME. In fact OPPOSITE, hence the attraction. A blending of the two needs to occur.”
I am not sure that statement is feminist; perhaps she will clarify over time what the structure of her approach is. Sounds at the moment more like aggrieved traditionalist.
________________________
Salome, if you feel so inclined perhaps you might clarify where you generally stand on feminist issues? Or not, as you are comfortable with . . .
[quote comment="21479"]
aych: I’m sympathetic to your complaint in #27, given how it seems that sometimes even the best feminists will indulge in a little casual male ‘de-humanization’ from time to time. Nevertheless, I disagree with the notion that they’re Borg.[/quote]
Sometimes feminists have nothing on the misandry that comes out of god-fearing, man’s-usefulness-loving conservative women.
ballgame:
[quote]Infra, for the record, I vehemently disagree with the notion that there are men’s experiences, and women’s experiences, and never the twain shalt be compared.[/quote]
Sure, but that’s not what I was arguing, was it? I was arguing that these particular things are dissimilar on many fronts, and that because of this, direct comparison isn’t the best way to go. That’s a specific criticism of a specific domain, and hardly represented accurately by “never the twain shall be compared.”
[quote]Nor do I understand why such an approach would be the only way to consider both “groups” as fully human.[/quote]
Again, in context: if the situations differ on many fronts, and one applies a common standard to them regardless of these differences, abstraction is necessarily invoked as a part of that process. During abstraction, one detaches the model from the thing modeled, and in the case of human beings, this is tantamount to (if not the definition of) dehumanization.
[quote]Similarly, there would be no reason to assume that women would be more vulnerable to repeated heartache than men, given the (limited but at least tangible) evidence that men may be more vulnerable to acute heartache.[/quote]
No, there is no reason to assume this, and there is no reason to assume that one variation will produce its opposite — but I haven’t done either one of those things. I’ve stated that it is probable, on the basis of the idea that where variation occurs in one group, variation (often only established by contrast, which is to say statistically) often occurs in the other — a principle firmly established in the phenomenon of bifurcation — that salome’s observation is not ruled out, and in fact gains some credibility. (Note: her observation, not her supporting argument.) I stand by that reasoning, unless we are defining one group as the control. But in that case, we would also have to take a look at what occurs with a lesser degree in the test group, and in this case, that introduces the possibility (or probability) of less prevalent long-term stress with men once again, simply on the basis of variation and divergence.
What I am saying is that the idea is provisionally valid, and cannot be dismissed out of hand. It’s not inherently well-nigh impossible (as is, for example, the idea that the Earth is flat, yet internally spherical, and containing a dark sun) nor does it starkly contradict plain observation (as would a statement that after a relationship breakup, people generally walk around laughing and genuinely happy); nor do the counter-arguments have any bearing on whether or not the asserted phenomenon actually occurs. What we have are assertions that it has been observed — which also means that it is not a purely hypothetical explanation rooted in the observation of only one group, as in the X/Y scenario.
[quote]I am also not particularly persuaded by something which you and typhonblue seem to agree on: namely, that acute and chronic emotional distress must have differing core origins (i.e. breaking bonding vs. self-perception issues).[/quote]
No, I’m saying that bonding probably involves multiple issues, causes, etc., that both chronic and acute stress likely involve these issues as well as self-image ones (but that “bonding” as such has not been examined in depth, even though it is a core element of the question) and that the difference between acute and chronic stress may be related to a number of factors, including social context.
There are different mitigating factors, different expressions, etc., and there may be different core aspects. But the point is that we haven’t actually investigated these core issues, which is best done — if we’re going to compare two groups — by looking first at each group on its own terms.
What I’m saying is not too complex, and I’m not sure why it’s being missed here, so I’ll put it by way of loose analogy: if you want to study the differences between hydrogen and oxygen, you don’t look at water. You look at the way hydrogen behaves, and the way that oxygen behaves, and then you compare the two.
That’s all I’m saying: if you’re going to compare two things, you first have to know what it is that you’re comparing. Comparisons themselves are not a way to establish that. (To get technical, they are ontologically negative, not positive investigations.)
I know Salome’s post was very emotional, but I’d like to respond to it since I think it reflects popular opinion.
[quote comment="21428"]“When women are instead taught that the one true path is for sex to lead to relationships, then it is no surprise that are surprised and hurt when they have experiences with men that deviate from this path.”
Women are not “taught” this anymore than men are “taught” to want to have sex with many women.
[/quote]
Isn’t it possible that culture plays a part in men’s sexuality as well? I think there is probably a biological difference, but we all have brains and free will. Culture can shape and mould human motivations in different ways, and though I can’t prove it, I believe our culture amplifies at least the difference you mentioned between men and women.
[quote]
It’s a rare exception (as you pointed out in your “talk”) when a woman does not equate sex with a relationship.
[/quote]
I doubt that’s true. Are one-night stands a “rare exception”? Do most women equate one-night stands with relationships?
[quote]
God knows, men are confused about this and want to somehow turn women into men, the same way women want to turn men into women. The key is always respect. If a woman feels a particular way, simply notice it, care about it, and respect it. There is no way in hell to explain it, nor should she have to justify or try.
[/quote]
I don’t think Hugh is talking about feelings; he’s talking about motivation and expectations. If a woman has an expectation about something that will happen after sex, in this case monogamy, why shouldn’t she speak up? It has nothing to do with feelings, and it’s easy enough to explain! “I only have sex with men if they’re in a relationship with me. I believe in monogamous relationships.”
At any rate, no one is capable of reading minds. One of the biggest complaints I’ve heard from women (and something, by the way, that the seduction community tries to address) is that they don’t know a man’s intentions. Is he romantically interested? sexually interested? Does he want to be friends? They want men to be clear. Women can’t read minds, so how can we expect men to? Why can’t we just be honest with each other?
[quote]
The same way men keep thinking they “should” be able to have “casual” sex with many women simply because they want to with no negative consequences whatsoever. The same way they just don’t understand why women don’t “get it” that sex does not equal a relationship. And around and around we go.
[/quote]
Hopefully men don’t think they can have sex with no negative consequences whatsoever. I don’t. The most obvious risks are disease and pregnancy, but there is always the risk of breaking a heart or having your heart broken.
[quote]
It’s a known fact that broken relationships are cumulatively harder on women than men.
[/quote]
I doubt that’s true or that it could even be proved. What it means to be “harder” isn’t clear, and apparently there isn’t even agreement about what a “relationship” is. I know plenty of men who’ve taken breakups very hard. Again, it’s hard to quantify, but I do think men tend to deal with these things without talking to their friends.
[quote]
Women bond much more. They have children after all! This does not have to be proved, I hope!
[/quote]
Again, I don’t think this is even a well-defined statement. I think this comes from the idea that just because you don’t see men hugging and crying together, they don’t have feelings. Everyone has feelings. This does not have to be proved, I hope.
[quote]
A man should find a good woman and go deeply into her body, mind.
[/quote]
I hate to say it, but why “should” he? To be sure, I know plenty of men who would love to have the deep kind of relationships you’re talking about (almost all of whom are single and seem to have a hard time with women) but why “should” men do this?
Furthermore, it seems to me that some women draw a lot of conclusions from the men they’ve personally dated. I don’t have the stats, but I think women just tend to be more selective when they choose partners, for whatever reason. That means that some women are drawing conclusions about men from a relatively small subgroup. It also has some other implications. It’s impossible for 90% of women to be in monogamous relationships with 10% of men, for example.
Sorry to hear about your breakup. To be honest with you, I try to stay away from all the gender stuff when I’m not feeling well. People identify very strongly with their gender and arguments about sex can quickly become heated and irrational.
[quote]Fire away.[/quote]
I certainly didn’t mean to do this. Hopefully I didn’t.
[quote comment="21493"][quote comment="21479"]
aych: I’m sympathetic to your complaint in #27, given how it seems that sometimes even the best feminists will indulge in a little casual male ‘de-humanization’ from time to time. Nevertheless, I disagree with the notion that they’re Borg.[/quote]
Sometimes feminists have nothing on the misandry that comes out of god-fearing, man’s-usefulness-loving conservative women.[/quote]
Just another point on this continuum…
I’ve heard complaints from conservative women regarding feminists that amount to, ‘they’re too nice to men and boys.’
It’s nice to see some intellectual honesty now and again.
Bari:
[quote]I doubt that is true or that it could even be proved.[/quote]
One thing that suggests to me that it might be an accurate observation is the whole “Nice Guy” phenomenon. That would go against the bonding argument (if that has a strictly biological root), but if there are socialization factors that are similar in the two cases, but more prominent with women in general, it’s not an idea that’s completely out in left field.
One of the observations in the SC is that things like “one-itis” (or more generally, abstract romantic ideals) can contribute to a downward spiral in terms of the ability to get and sustain relationships, and even in terms of the development of misogynistic perspectives and negative self-image; there might be some match-up between ideas such as these and women’s romantic/sexual socialization in general.
It might be possible to prove this perspective, to a degree, if we were able to establish that men are more likely to be hit hard by cumulative breakups the more they hold to ideas like these (or, conversely, that the more they drop these ideas, the less impact there is with cumulative breakups), while establishing that these ideas are more common with women than men as a whole. If there’s some truth to both points, that would lend some credibility to the observation.
Infra: I appreciate your effort at clarification. [Edit: I'm responding to your #35.]I struggle with your comments sometimes because you often don’t flinch from teasing out the complexities that underlie superficially simple concepts that others take for granted. As a result, I occasionally wonder if I’m understanding even your straightforward explanations in the way you intend.
So let me see if I can spell out where we are:
We agree that the notion that women suffer more from the cumulative impact of multiple breakups than men is a plausible conjecture which no one has raised any supporting evidence for yet. It is not clear whether you agree with my opinion that in fact the reverse is more likely true, given that men seem to suffer more acute breakup distress and that men have less emotional resiliency than women (due to socialization).
I’m unclear about where we stand regarding the ‘comparing men and women’ issue. I read your original comment as suggesting that men’s experiences of romantic breakups is an entirely different thing than women’s experiences, and therefore the two groups need to be studied independently.
I’m not a big fan of identity politics, or the notion that we “are” this or that kind of human being and are therefore inherently closer to other humans of the same stripe than we are to those who are not of the same stripe. To paraphrase a certain someone, I find such notions “divisive and inegalitarian.” In general, I believe that studying the differences between groups is legitimate if the conclusions you derive are strictly probabilistic ones (i.e. “males are more likely to experience X than females”) and not ones which imply that the groups in questions are two different kinds of beings (i.e. “men process grief differently than women”). Your oxygen vs. hydrogen analogy doesn’t really clear this up; if anything it suggests that you’re not on the same page with me here. (I’m not berating you; I don’t think all that many people are on my page, frankly.)
typhonblue: I agree with your sentiment about some conservative women.
[quote comment="21572"]
typhonblue: I agree with your sentiment about some conservative women.[/quote]
I think most women engage in some level of misandry. But truly rabid misandry is reserved for the religious or the feminist.
Not that all feminist or religious women are rabidly misandrist, just that some are. In different ways.
For some reason the secular humanist type women don’t tend to be as rabidly misandrist. But perhaps I haven’t met the right kinds.
[quote comment="21572"]I struggle with your comments sometimes because you often don’t flinch from teasing out the complexities that underlie superficially simple concepts that others take for granted. As a result, I occasionally wonder if I’m understanding even your straightforward explanations in the way you intend.[/quote]
Yeah, that happens a lot. Investigations of that type are my primary M.O., though — if something is taken for granted, that usually means that it hasn’t been examined in any depth; but since these primary assumptions are often the roots of our arguments and stances, that also means that we’re usually hiding ourselves from ourselves, in a sense (in that we may adopt a particular assumption because it simply allows us to understand the world), and unaware to a greater or lesser extent of the history of ideas that shapes our perspectives. So I tend to target things that appear obvious and self-evident.
[quote]We agree that the notion that women suffer more from the cumulative impact of multiple breakups than men is a plausible conjecture which no one has raised any supporting evidence for yet. It is not clear whether you agree with my opinion that in fact the reverse is more likely true, given that men seem to suffer more acute breakup distress and that men have less emotional resiliency than women (due to socialization).[/quote]
I think that there’s some truth to the “less emotional resiliency” argument, but I’m not sure that repeated acute responses, even when severe, necessarily translate to more severe chronic responses. It might be that focusing on the acute stress, even though it can lead to more severe immediate reactions (including suicide), allows for an individual to separate these events from their long-term self-concept, focusing the individual on specific circumstances rather than pattern. In that sense it could be considered an (socialized) adaptation, something that carries a higher risk of short-term damage but a lesser risk of long-term effect. (I’m thinking along the lines of “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger” versus “when looking long into the abyss…,” and their corresponding ways of viewing the self.)
[quote]I’m unclear about where we stand regarding the ‘comparing men and women’ issue. I read your original comment as suggesting that men’s experiences of romantic breakups is an entirely different thing than women’s experiences, and therefore the two groups need to be studied independently.[/quote]
More what I’m getting at is that if we want to see what the root differences are, we have to get an idea of how men react on average, and of how women react on average, which is something best identified by looking at each group on its own terms. Then we can compare the two and see where similarities and differences exist, and attempt to correlate these things with differences in socialization (or other possible root elements), which again are things that are best identified on their own terms. In this way we can see how a common stressor affects a particular system and see why the divergent responses occur.
The approach that I’ve been arguing against — the one of comparative impact, aside from statistical value — focuses on trying to establish which group has the greatest number of responses of a particular type, but leaves the mechanism of this response as a black box. It then tries to work backward from this to establish root causes. The problem is that this often involves a negative procedure (men are not encouraged to do x) instead of a positive procedure (men are encouraged to do y). It doesn’t establish what causes the responses, but instead eliminates from consideration those things that, in some circumstances, seem to prevent them. But if we’re not engaging in a positive investigation, we run the risk of eliminating something that actually exists, but functions differently in each case given the overall context of the system. (By way of analogy, consider a the effect of a pilot light being lit in a CO2-rich environment versus in an oxygen-rich one.)
Typhon: not all feminists are misandrists, of course not.
But no one’s ever been called an “anti-feminist” for hating men too much.
[quote comment="21577"]Typhon: not all feminists are misandrists, of course not.
But no one’s ever been called an “anti-feminist” for hating men too much.[/quote]
I think the only women who aren’t misandrous are ones who are actively trying to confront it in themselves.
And then there are some people can hold unconscious prejudices but their innately gracious nature never allows them to manifest significantly…
I’ve seen several feminists say that Solanas wasn’t a feminist, though they didn’t denounce her as an antifeminist.
I think both points are generally true. We live in a culture which is both misandrist and misogynistic in the sense that some cultural norms denigrate men, while others denigrate women. All of us, to a greater or lesser degree internalise and perpetuate these values. Specifically, we internalise those norms which denigrate our own sex, just as we do those which denigrate the other.
Actively confronting these within ourselves is one possible reaction. Actively embracing them in another. Between those two lies Ignoring them, perhaps to the point of being oblivious to them.
Daran, we all know that if Solanas hadn’t shot those guys, she’d still be a considered a figure of some respect among NY-based feminists (she was right up until that point).
Shooting Warhol was a bad career choice for her. She should’ve limited her behavior to urging vigilante attacks on pornography publishers in the way that Dworkin did.
Besides, it’s quite telling that you literally have to start urging genocide against men before feminists start notice you’re a bit kooky. Not “anti-feminist”, mind you. Just kooky.
Agreed.
I am not a feminist. I dislike feminists immensely. Might I suggest you listen to “In Sync with the Opposite Sex” by Allison Armstrong. It will appeal to both men and women I think and give more creedence to my assertation that women chemically bond more than men. It will make you laugh with recognition at the true “oppositeness” of men and women or masculine and feminine if you prefer.
Yes, my post was very emotional. Emotions are not logical. Emotions are guidance as far as I understand them. Are we moving toward something better or something worse? Refer to http://www.abraham-hicks.com for more on that.
Another great source of wisdom is The Enneagram. http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/
Personally, I think it is one of the best systems known to mankind to transform ourselves from the slavery of our personalities. I am an enneagram type eight and my former love is a six. Everything we experienced was textbook classic for our types. I had the knowledge of what the dynamics were; he did not. He is a fear type and I am anger type. He is passive-aggressive and I am more aggressive. It takes a great deal of self understanding and understanding of the other person as they really are and not the fantasy we might be wanting to project.
It certainly seems with all the odds against us with the incredibly high expectations and difficulties in romantic relationships that it is probably very helpful if both parties are on SOME spiritual growth path. It takes strength of purpose and a vision for where you want to be as much as a sense of where you are. In fact where you want to be is more important to focus on. He pretty much has in his head the same thoughts and beliefs his parents instilled in him, and no real drive to add to it. In fact he’s more fearful of new ideas, whereas I thrive on them. But that knowledge did not keep me from loving him with all my body, heart, and soul, but in the end I could not keep up both ends of the relationship, as much as I tried..
Personally, I am still very much distraught, and wondering; what next? Thank you.
Here is the link showing the study about women suffering more from breakups than men. It seems to apply to me and I’ve been very worried that the number of breakups I’ve experience with the one man I spoke of (so many I lost count!) has resulted in me nearly losing my mind. I’m not trying to be dramatic here and am not particularly fond of drama. It’s just a plain fact that my sanity has suffered to the point that I honestly don’t believe I will be able to risk it again.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4507.html
Hmm… your study would tend to confirm what you have said.
However, judging the rate of depression or emotional distress in men is notoriously difficult if you base it on self-reporting of emotional problems.
I wonder if they based it on self-reporting of the _physical_ signs of depression if they would get the same result?
I think that even typhonblue’s suggestion is tame, considering the issue; I wouldn’t publish a study about such a sensitive issue (“which sex suffers more due to breakups?”) without taking the life histories and having in-depth interviews with my subjects. Picking data out of a generalized survey and assigning level of “hurt” over breakups seems like a hack job for me, but I’m not a sociologist…
We have the paradox that more women report feeling depressed while more men simply kill themselves. This is true in all situations and not just relationship breakdown.
It may be that men are ashamed of their depression or feel undeserving of help. This would indicate that men generally suffer more.
I have also known men deliberately pick fights with other men. They seem much better once you pick them from the floor.
The film ‘Fight Club’ was actually about male depression. They show every symptom apart from awareness of their condition.
Strangely- a woman can gain social status through divorce. Her friends will pay her more attention and so on.
A man will generally become socially isolated as well as financially ruined and separated from his children. All these factors would indicate greater incidence of depression- but the man is less likely to report it.
Obsolete.
No wonder western dudes are depressed. Imagine having to “earn” respect.
You poor fucks.Someone told you you could get it some other way?[Casually inflammatory banter like this is not encouraged.—ballgame]