Continuing the debate over sexual attraction, gender roles and power
| May 16th, 2005The discussion on this thread - originally about an Ohio rape case - has gotten too long, and has drifted considerably. So I’m closing that thread and starting a new one.
The new topic appears to be questions of lust, gender roles and power. Do girls and women have more “sexual power”? Do boys and men feel more lust than girls and women do?
I’ll quote parts of recent posts by Aegis and La Lubu to start this thread off, but feel free to respond to any post on the old thread, here on this thread.
Aegis: Understanding the disadvantages that a certain social system grants in one area should not lead us to ignore the way that system also grants certain advantages in another area. Obviously, the pressure on women to be beautiful, and the pressure on men to earn money are both disadvantages. But because of that pressure on men, they often succeed in earning more money, granting them economic power (although this power require sacrifices in other areas). Those poor men, being forced into having all that financial power! Likewise, the pressure on women to be beautiful may result in them improving their beauty, and consequently gaining sexual power over males. Of course, female sexual power does not always translate into respect from males, and it often comes at a price of other types of power. [...]
Surely being viewed sexually can often be a very positive experience for females! Isn’t it nice for an attractive woman to have a guy she really likes become totally smitten with her? Isn’t it nice for her to be able to wait for a guy to approach her, and then let him do most of the work when he does approach?
And some of my first experiences not being viewed as sexual were negative. I felt competely unnattractive to women until I was age 18, and this had horrible effects on my self-esteem and ability to interact with women. I also remember one time when a friend of mine who went to middle school with me told me only half-jokingly that she would like to marry me some day… just so she could sit in my big house and look at my artwork. I don’t think she would have been interested in dating me in a million years, but apparently I was good for earning money to buy a big house and adorning the walls of said house with paintings. Imagine how you would feel if a guy told you that he would like to marry you simply for your looks.
I am not saying that a guy who encounters comments like this and feels unnattractive necessarily has things as bad as a woman who gets catcalls and creepy older suitors all the time, just as I am not saying that a man never being seen as sexual in the business world has as much advantage as an attractive women who can easily attract men. Those comparisons are difficult to make.
One thing that bugs me about claims of “women’s sexual power” is that, insofar as it exists at all, it’s entirely indirect power. A woman’s so-called sexual power doesn’t mean that she gets to decide which project will be funded, who gets hired or fired, etc; at best, all it can mean is that she has the indirect “power” of influencing men who in turn get to make the actual decisions.
How much power did Monica Lewinsky actually have to determine US policy? I’d argue, virtually none. But no doubt it could be claimed by some that she had “sexual power” over Bill Clinton.
La Lubu: Aegis, being viewed sexually can be a positive experience for females. However, I would argue that most women have experienced being viewed sexually as either equally positive and negative, or more negative than positive. Why? Because we don’t get to keep being viewed sexually within its context, in other words, our perceived sexual persona is elbowing into all the nonsexual areas of our lives.
Like the professional world, for example. No matter how neutral our dress or behavior, the mere fact that we are Female, with a Female Body, brings sexuality into the equation as work. For women, this often translates into reduced opportunities at work. Potential mentors shy away from us because they don’t want to be tagged by the inevitable sexual rumors. Higher-ups don’t want to believe that women are on the job to work rather than find a husband. The Mommy Track is real. Even when we’re not mommies. How attractive we are or aren’t can translate into what work opportunities we are given, or aren’t. I once had a foreman on the job walk me around to all the journeymen already there, asking the guys if it was ok if I worked with them…he didn’t want to make anybody’s wife mad. Out of thirteen journeymen on the job, all said they’d work with me, that it was cool. But only two of them thought the whole idea of singling me out like that, for that reason, was complete bullshit. Only two other journeymen on the job thought it should have been irrelevant whether anyone’s wife got mad. The other guys thought it was nice of him to ask!
* * *
Again, don’t feel constrained to responding to only the above on this thread. Any of the posts on the old thread may be responded to here.
May 16th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
why in gods name would Monica be expected to have any power ? She was an Intern for chrissakes. How about the way Condi might use the juice on some guys around town ? might be more of a relevent Q. Only a man would think sex power works one way only, and only a man would assume women could/should/dont/wont have equal or better dollar power as time goes on. If you ask me, women already control a big part of the economy. In my business experience, women are making plenty of decisions. Not interns however, male or female, sans a BJ or not.
This comment was written by revisionist punk.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
I think that the question of whether women weild “sexual power” is only legitimate when men don’t want to acknowledge rape culture. Otherwise it really is a non-issue. Absent rape, “sexual power” for either gender is irrelevant and meaningless. From my point of view, it is part of the rape apologist parcel.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
To further clarify: both genders are sexualized into a rape culture, so the meaning of “power” is already slanted in favor of maintaining that power to a greater or lessor degree. Without acknowledging the context within which adolescents are taught about sexuality and in which they first express that sexuality, power can only be viewed as part of the continuum of rape and power over. Power, when used in the previous thread is only in the hierarchical, power over sense. Some male posters seem to think that women weild an organic power over men that is, in fact, a socialized power that often masks men’s rape enculturated sexual acts.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
I totally agree. I have never claimed otherwise. Both you and La Lubu basically seem to be saying “sexual power does not create social/economic power!!” Yet I already pointed that out in my previous posts, and I think I was pretty clear in doing so. I agree with most of La Lubu’s post, but I feel that she wasn’t really addressing my point.
The point of my discussion of sexual power was to answer the question by several posters of how beauty translates into privilege and power. I think I’ve shown pretty clearly that beauty does grant some specific types of power and privilege, while at the same time beauty standards can translate into powerlessness for women in the contexts that you and La Lubu have pointed out. I am not claiming that the advantages/disadvantages of beauty norms exactly balance out, because I really can’t know that. Nor am I claiming that the sexual power women get in current gender norms balances out the socioeconomic power males get. Though I do claim that right now, women have more sexual power than men due to current gender norms privileging women in terms of attracting mates. I will explain and add some important qualifiers to this claim later, but first I will repost my discussion of sexual power.
And I will underscore again: the way I am defining sexual power does NOT mean that it grants social or economic power. I am thinking of sexual power in terms of attracting high quality mates (though that’s not all of it). If people think it’s misleading for me to call that “sexual power,” then I would be open to suggestions for another term.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
More about women and passive approach to dating…
Here is a blog entry from the same girl I linked to earlier…
Lots of nasty “gender war” catfighting in there.
Now you see. They key point here is that this girl expects her dates to call her. The thought of picking up the phone and calling never enters her head even once.
And also another interesting quote:
Hmm… can we say “too high demands” ?
And now, if I attempted to use feminist logic in a reverse way I could say something like:
“Social notions and the media create unreasonably high expectations on men.”
This girl actually believes that she is somehow entitled to such a “prince charming” and she herself doesn’t have to do anything reciprocal to get in a good relationship.
Scroll down for nice replies by Robot and Andrew…
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Beauty definitely causes women to have sexual power. First, I will define what I mean by “sexual power:”?
Sexual power is the characteristic that allows you to (a) attract mates sexually, (b) instill admiration/awe into mates, (b) have greater choice over ones potential mates, and the attractiveness of those mates, (c ) expend less effort and energy into the process of attracting a mate, and (d) gain tangible material benefits because of your sexuality. More choice + less effort + more material benefits = more power. There are probably a few other dimensions to it that I haven’t figured out yet.
An important relative of sexual power is the degree to which you feel sexually attractive. This variable is partially determined by sexual power, but it is moderated by your self-image, which is why beautiful people can often feel unnattractive. Sexual power does not necessarily have anything to do with the respect you receive, your level of self-esteem, the social or economic power you have, or your success in finding or having relationships (because relationships depend on platonic attraction / emotional connection in addition to sexual attraction). Yet sexual power can heavily influence all of those factors, both positively and negatively. The influence is simply moderated by other variables such as your reputation, your personality, etc…
Why does beauty translate into “sexual power”? for women? For several reasons:
1. Beauty gives women the power to attract mates. As the study I linked to showed, physical attractiveness is a major component of female sexual attractiveness to males. Beauty gives a woman more choices in potential mates, and the choice of more attractive mates, and this is power.
2. Beauty gives women the ability to cause admiration, awe, and shock in men. In other words, beauty gives women power not only to sexually attract men, but to influence male emotions also (in high amounts, even to the point of being able to intimidate and cow some men). This is power, regardless of whether males treat females positively or negatively in response to it.
3. Beauty gives women the option to do less work in courtship than males do, due to current social norms that prescribe male initiation. This is power. Women have the choice to be passive or proactive (at least in some contexts); men need to be much more attractive before the choice of being passive becomes realistic, and this choice is power. Note: I am not saying that women don’t do any of the work in initial courtship, only that they don’t have to do as much. I am also not saying that women do less work in relationships (because relationships require skills other than attracting someone), only that they have less work in attracting a mate. Neither am I saying that being beautiful doesn’t take work, only that most of the work can be done in advance at the store and in front of the mirror, so it’s not actually done during the courtship itself. (If I could buy some kind of cream that would make me witty and charismatic all day, I would.)
4. Beauty gives (some) women the ability to receive tangible material benefits such as unreciprocated favors, gifts, or dinners/meals from males. Love poems too. This is partly due to the anachronistic, sexist construction of romance. But having people willing to do shit for you just for the privilege of basking in your hotness is power, even if you consider such behavior unecessary and patronizing.
These four are always power for females on an objective level, because have more/better/easier choices is always power (although they can have consequences that are disadvantageous to females). Here are a couple ways that beauty often causes women to have power:
1. The admiration males feel for beautiful women can easily translate into adoration, especially due to current cultural scripts. Yet the admiration can turn into denigration, if the woman is perceived to dress/act in a slutty manner. Beauty can also cause a woman to be perceived as more intelligent (because physically attractive people are perceived as more intelligent in general), OR to be perceived as less intelligent, depending on the context.
2. Beautiful women have the opportunity to see themselves as more sexually attractive, because they are treated as more sexually attractive. Yet this effect can be canceled out by low self-esteem. Beautiful women are less likely to grow up socially isolated, because they will get more attention during their formative years. Yet the type of attention they get, competition with other females means that they won’t necessarily develop self-esteem simply from being beautiful.
Beauty is a tradeoff. Being beautiful may disadvantage women in some ways, but it gives them a lot of power in other ways. To ignore either of these facets of beauty is one-sided. Feminists often seem to ignore the advantages that beauty gives females, and cast female beauty standards simply as oppression. Anti-feminists often ignore the strain that female beauty standards cause women, and see beauty standards as evidence of female narcissism and manipulativeness of men. Both perspectives are one-sided and ignore the bigger picture.
P.S. Possible issue with this post: Perhaps it is misleading for me to call what I am talking about “sexual power.”? Maybe Warren Farrell’s term “beauty power”? is more clear. For instance, “sexual power”? sounds like it would include things like having quality sex with a partner who gives you orgasms. Females are less likely to experience orgasm in the current culture, so is that an area where females have less sexual power, or is it something else entirely? Perhaps “orgasm power?”? Wait… that sounds like it means something else ;)
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
If you cannot describe this “power” outside of narrowly heterocentric paradigms of sexuality, then I don’t think you can make sweeping and general comments about women’s sexuality. Afterall, women’s sexuality is not dependent on a male audience.
Further, I think you cannot adequately address even your own comments if you do not critically analyze how boys and girls are sexualized at puberty (taught about their respective sex roles).
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Aegis, I’ve missed where feminists deny that physical attractiveness is an advantage. Most of what you wrote just describes the advantages of being physically attractive, regardless of gender.
Women aren’t passive in courtship. But they’re often expected to maintain the pretense that they are passive. This isn’t an advantage — usually, it’s a major disadvantage.
Receiving gifts is a trivial advantage, when gift-giving between partners is unequal. In that case, it’s usually an expression of male dominance: look, I get paid more, so I can buy stuff for you.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Hey everybody, it’s the very next paragraph of the blog entry that someone quoted!
Are you that intellectually dishonest, someone, or can you not read? Maybe they don’t have irony where you’re from. Here’s some more:
So, basically, she’s acknowledging that Prince Charming ain’t gonna appear at her window anytime soon, that these fairy-tale standards are seriously screwed up, and that she has some responsibility to take initiative. Passivity blows. Whether she gets to the point of acknowledging that men aren’t obligated to be Prince Charming to her Sleeping Beauty is anyone’s guess, but she doesn’t seem terribly enchanted.
Oddly enough, you glossed her as saying the exact opposite.
Finally, does it not occur to you that this woman is describing the weight of social pressure to be passive, even though she clearly wants to be with this guy? How she has to sit at home watching Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason while she waits for her man to call? And how that’s not really such a nice situation to be in, dependent on a man to make your life worth living?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
I have no idea how what Q Grrl said counters what Aegis said…
This comment was written by someone.Care to explain further?
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
No, it’s obvious if you read feminist theory.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
… but I wasn’t countering Aegis. I was expressing my opinion.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
What do you think of when you hear the word “power”? When I think of power, I think of something that can put a roof over my head and food on the table. If it does neither of those, it’s not really power.
I love my daughter. Immensely. More than anyone else in this world. Yet, despite that, you can’t really say that she has “power” over me. My love for her does not translate into her being in a position of power over me. I’m still the adult. I still make all the decisions.
That’s why I have a hard time with the conversation about rape degenerating into a discussion on women’s sexual “power”. I consider it a misuse of the word “power”. Real power has an aspect of force to it, whether that force is physical, financial, or through social custom or restrictions.
What force is the beautiful woman using against men?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
piny says
To me it looked like she is angry that she still didn’t get a “prince charming” yet…
And she certainly didn’t speak about making the call herself, so I don’t see how you make the conclusion that she decided to take initiative.
She is just angry, but she refuses to change her approach.
Haha…
See how biased you are.
You say that women not making calls is social pressure on women.
Nevermind the fact that having to be the one to make the calls every time is quite pressuring.
At least you could say that it is social pressure on both sexes… that would be a decent starting point.
Although to me it looks like pressure on males mostly.
Acting passive like this isn’t “social pressure”, rather it is her own pressure on her dates!
Here is what she said: “If you don’t call me, you can get fucked. I’m not going to reciprocate.”
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
I think it’s a grass-is-greener situation. Assuming relatively equal numbers of heterosexual men and women (and relatively equal desire to be in relationships), the math simply doesn’t work out if there’s an imbalance of power.
So why are so many people convinced women have “all the power”?
* Men tend to focus on the subset of women they find attractive (who, if there’s a social consensus about their attractiveness, may in fact have quite a lot of “power” in this context), and then assume these observations hold true for all women. (Not sure if women do this too; I suspect it’s to a lesser extent because unattractive men are not as invisible in our society as unattractive women).
* The demands made on us are not as obvious as the demands we make on others; similarly, the power others have over us is less obvious than the power we have over others. (
* Many women have a lot more power in heterosexual relationships than they used to, thanks to increased economic power.
* Many women also have more power in heterosexual relationships than they do in other contexts.
* It’s comforting to think that one’s lack of romantic satisfaction is the result of a power imbalance between the genders rather than any individual failing.
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
She has realized that there is no such thing. She doesn’t think that Prince Charming exists. That’s completely different from the paragraph you quoted in isolation, where she demands Prince Charming and wonders why he hasn’t shown up yet.
She has decided not to wait by the phone anymore–that’s a change in her approach. She’s learning not to be passive, because passivity is not working for her.
Dude, you’re talking to a feminist. No one here thinks that men aren’t constrained by gender roles. The question is which role provides a relative amount of power. In this case, there’s the person who waits to be called and the person who gets to call or not call. Who’s making the decisions here? Who’s waiting for someone else to make a decision?
And–just a line or two down–you’re the one arguing that there’s little if any social pressure on women, right after providing an example of a woman who would rather sit at home nights than make a short phone call. Why is that? Why has she decided that it makes more sense to wait on a man than to ask him whether he’s interested? She’s depressed, bored, unhappy, so she clearly isn’t doing it because it’s fun.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Beauty has power, but that does not mean that women automatically have more “sexual power” than men. In fact, the idea that they would is counterintuitive. Let me tell you, Johnny Depp, Tom Brokaw, and yes, even George W. Bush have a hell of a lot more sexual power than I do. They first two are a hell of lot prettier than I am and GW is at least as pretty and a hell of lot more charismatic. All three derive financial, political, and social benefits from their sexual power alone, the likes of which I could only dream of having a fraction of - through any means.
The illusion that women have more sexual power than men comes from the fact that they have less power overall and so a) they are more likely to resort to wielding sexual power like a blunt object b) people are more likely to dismiss what little other power women do have, and focus only on their sexual power and c) those that do have power always dictate the terms on which other people can scramble for what’s left. Ergo, in a patriarchy where women are dismissed as the other, the only power women are allowed to have is defined by what (hertero) men can’t get by themselves: sex and babies.
Aegis, you weren’t the only one who was only wanted for what you could do and not what you looked like in high school, and we aren’t all guys either. The difference is that the we not as pretty girls tended to simply be unwanted, period. No one ever told me, jokingly or not, that they’d like to marry me so that could have all my pretty pictures or so that I could be around to fix stuff around the house. The guys who were wanted for their looks tended to be wanted for other things as well, while the girls were more likely to be only wanted for their looks, all of which creates the illusion that women have more sexual power than men.
It would be more accurate to say that women use their sexual power more often than men do because that’s what will get them the best results. But again, that isn’t because guys wouldn’t get the same results as women, its because guys have more options and tend to use them, so they are less likley to choose to wield (only) their sexual power and so it’s not as obvious when they do use it.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Jeff
Who are these many people… Not even me and Aegis say that women have “all the power”, and everyone else seems to hold the view that women are disempowered.
This is not true, obviously there is plenty of neglected men?
And of course women often ignore them when they speak about “male power” too.
Highly attractive* individuals of both sexes will get much more attention from the opposite sex, so why make these statements?
* By “attractive” I mean attractive in all senses, not just appearance. This is how I intended to use my “alpha”, “beta” and “gamma” terms, but they were met with extreme aversion for some reason… isn’t it better to have clear terms so that we can know for sure what we are talking about the same thing?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
check out alt.romance sometime. You’ll find plenty of people complaining about disempowerment in the dating scene, usually along the lines of “it’s not fair that men have to do the asking out,” or “it’s not fair that ‘nice guys finish last,’” or “it’s not fair that women can get sex any time they want.”
Except that they can’t do it quite as much as heterosexual men can in the context of dating, because you can’t ignore the unattractive person who’s hitting on you the same way you can ignore the unattractive person you’re not hitting on.
I believe that the “power variation” is far greater among women, due to our cultural insistence on men being the instigators in heterosexual interaction.
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I have a friend who sometimes tries the “you women have all the pussy power” argument. We’ll be in a boisterous row (his preferred method of conversation) and he’ll pull this out to anything I have to say about men having more power than women.
I’ve learned when it comes up to stand, grab my crotch and loudly reply, “I hereby order thee, by the power of my pussy, to agree with the point I just made! The all-powerful pussy demands it!” Then I declare myself the winner of the debate because, you know *points to crotch*, and if he tries to keep going I interrupt him and say, “Hey, the pussy has spoken, Hetero Man. Obey its power.”
It helps that I’m a babe, and not in the “all women are babes” sense but in the usually accepted sense. This hetero man looks me in my pretty, 20-something, symmetrical face and declares women like me have all this “pussy power” but what good is the alleged “power” if I can’t even get one man to concede one point in an argument I’m right about anyway (for example, the reason no woman has been US president is not because women just don’t have political aspirations)?
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
La Luba: Exactly - when I think of power, I think of choice. The notion of sexual power that has been contineously expressed by Aegis and Someone smacks of conditional power that hinges soley on the ‘male’ and how attracted he is to the woman who has ‘power’ at any given time. The power isn’t consistent, inherent or extending beyond the time which the man feels he no longer stands to gain anything from the woman. Beyond which, this particular ‘power’ as Brian stated is not limited to women. It seems really trivial to me to try to make having the option to choose where to go to dinner for a specific time frame related to a mans sexual interest a privilege that compares to the male privilege of being sexually promiscious without operating under the heavy handed moral judgement imposed upon a woman.
Hehe, sounds like a budding feminist to me.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
I laughed ’til I cried. That’s classic.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
piny:
But piny, where does she actually say anything that makes you believe she has decided not to be passive anymore??
Quote it…
This quote of yours makes sense… if we assume that she is handicapped and can’t pick up the phone and dial some numbers.
But she actually can!!
Look at this passage of hers:
How much more obvious can it be?
But no, she still doesn’t get the right idea.
She is angry and disappointed, and still she holds on to exactly the same idea of acting passive.
This is why I disagreed with you when you said that she decided that passivity doesn’t work for her anymore. She… didn’t.
Why do you think she has decided that?
Why doesn’t she call?
What will happen if she does?
Is stubbornly refraining from calling not the same as “playing hard to get”?
How can you say that the pressure here is applied on her? By whom is this pressure applied even??
She certainly ends up doing worse for herself, but it’s her own fault, for playing such a stubborn game.
She has an invariable condition that the guy must make the call, she never will.
She would rather not date at all then give in.
—-
I am pretty annoyed by all this stuff. Why can’t people act smarter?
Why play all those headsplitting strategy games?
Reading this makes my head hurt.
If people played less strategy games, dating would be better for everyone. Males and females, attractive and less attractive.
Why must something that is supposed to be about love have to turn into an outright war?
What a sad state of matters.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
What hasn’t also been addressed here (perhaps in the previous topic?) is that even if you grant attractiveness as a real power, it is the most ephemeral of powers, and fades rapidly once you hit your 30s. Sure, some women hold on to its vestiges with their force of will, personality, and plastic surgery, but they cannot win against time; eventually, that power is gone for them. Whereas actual political or financial power can be held and even passed on to your offspring (who may or may not inherit any attractiveness you have). And attractiveness in men, because it is more associated with financial/economic power, as well as less stringent beauty standards, can fade without much impact on their ability to date, provided they have a minimum amount of financial security and ability to communicate. The older they get, the better their chances may get, actually, since women outlive men. The same cannot be said for women.
I have many guy friends and I understand the bitterness they feel at being rejected by someone (or several someones) they considered attractive–yes, in that situation, they had power over you. But I would argue it was/is a transitory, situational power. I don’t think it can really be compared with social/political/economic power.
This comment was written by emjaybee.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Samantha, I am soooooo stealing that.
And thank you for making my day.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
What we have hear is a lot of confusion over the meaning of the term power, which isn’t surprising because it means different things to different people in different contexts.
One classic and rather mechanistic definition of power from the annals of social science is that A has power over B when A can get B to do what B otherwise wouldn’t have done.
This definition is simple but elusive. A’s power over B is limited to a certain set of things. I (A) have power over my roommate if I ask her politely to get me a glass of water, because she generally will, and she probably wouldn’t if I didn’t ask. I don’t have the power to get her to, say, run into traffic or write my dissertation for me. To say that A has power over B using this definition is imprecise, as Ampersand points out. The power of beautiful women over horny men extends a bit further than my power over my roommate (I can’t get her to *buy* me drinks, just retreive them occasionally–vice versa as well, of course), but it’s still a pretty narrow and limited form of power in the grand scheme of things.
Of course, the most interesting form of power is more of a form of power to rather than power over–power to create, to construct, etc. This power remains overwhelmingly in the hands of men.
This comment was written by djw.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
This is the part where she decides that passivity isn’t working; this is the part where she decides to resist the social pressure on her to sit around waiting for “Prince Charming.”
Yes, because she feels–or felt until very recently–that she is obligated to do so. She’s not enjoying herself, and she would obviously rather be on a date than not. And yet, she persists. Why is that?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Samantha: Sexual power doesn’t help you win debates, it helps you do other things. Such as getting people to do stuff for you, having a wide range of partners to choose from, being sure that getting sex is not much of a problem, having a “card” in relationships, and more…
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Because what you are talking about isn’t about love, its about sex. I remember all this adolescent dating/game playing all too well and I don’t see how there was ever a relation to “love”. Love just happens, smacks you upside the head and then its all over for you (at least till finances make you start fighting).
I think a good portion of the argument here is about perceptions of power and assumptions that are made about how people will react. If you don’t make the mistake of assuming that these culturally engrained ideas are actually real I think you’ll find that they don’t exist.
Seconds on the classicness of the “pussy power”. Great stuff!
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Her actions are to say that she’s not going to be a slave to a game, Someone, as much as you might not see that as one of the qualifiable choices, as I read it, it seems very much to me that she is saying she is coming to realise that she has other choices, not limited to being part of this dynamic. ‘There is no clause that says I have to date at all!’ is the exact quote that implies this ‘action’.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
piny
No, she decides that she doesn’t want to date anymore or whatever.
The conclusion that she makes is not “I will now be more active and take it more in my own hands”.
But rather it is “guys suck for not doing what I want”.
In order for us to be able to say that she decided to change her passive approach to a more active one she needs to say something that would indicate this change.
A good example would be, “so I decided to make the call.”
See?
But piny, it isn’t social pressure on her, but rather it is her own expectations!!
Think about how ridiculous what you said sounds.
It’s like saying that a member of royalty refuses to dress up on his own, because he is under social pressure to wait for his servants to dress him up.
I already provided my explanation, she is playing a strategical game. And she refuses to enter into a relationship that isn’t on her terms.
What is your explanation? Is she afraid that something “bad” will happen if she makes the call? What exactly will happen?
Well the guy could reject her, but this just proves my point that she is playing a strategical game, not willing to take on pressuring tasks.
Please provide me with your own explanation now…
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Ted
Eh…?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
someone:
In what way does winning debates (ie having political power) not translate into “getting people to do stuff for you, having a wide range of partners to choose from, being sure that getting sex is not much of a problem, having a “card”? in relationships, and more… ” and lots of other stuff like more money, more opportunies, more rights, more freedoms, more security, do I need to continue?
Whereas sexual power, being more conditional and transitory than other types power, when used by itself, pretty much only translates into being able to manipulate people who have the real power. Ok, so you may be able to dictate stuff relating to sex, but only up to a certain point. I mean, I, living in the grand old USofA, where I may have less real power than most men, but still some non-sexual power, can say no to guy and be reasonably certain he may simply politely walk away and probably won’t hurt me, but in places where women literaly have no power other than sexual power, that isn’t true. So sorry, but I call bullshit.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
1. I didn’t actually say that feminists “deny” that physical attractiveness is an advantage. I said that they consistently ignore that fact, because their analysis of beauty standards focuses only on the way that it hurts women.
2. Correct, most of what I wrote does describe the advantages of being physically attractive, regardless of gender. But that’s not the point. I was simply showing that physical attractiveness does grant certain types of power to women; I never said that it doesn’t grant power to men also.
It is also obvious from my analysis that beauty grants more power (and also more powerlessness in other areas), to women than it does to men. Because male attraction to women depends quite a lot more on beauty than female attraction to men (see the studies I cited), all those advantageous effects of beauty apply a lot more to women than they do to men. Hence my claim that women can get more mileage out of showing more skin than men can.
I never said that women are passive in courtship. I said that they can afford to be more passive and less proactive than males can. Sure, the expectation on women to be passive can be a disadvantage to them when they would have benefitted from being more proactive. But the norm of female passivity and male initiation also allows attractive women who want to play passive to sit back and let the man do most of the work. That is power; that is privilege.
From my post #442 in the other thread, on the subject of females being expected to be passive:
“The flipside of this norm is that males must be sexually aggressive to do well with females, and that (attractive) females who wish to sit back and be passive can do so. Like with showing skin, the norm of males being more sexually aggressive and proactive privileges BOTH men and women in some ways, and burdens them both in other ways. How can this be? Because males and females are not homogenous.
This system privileges sexually aggressive, assertive, extroverted males, and passive females; it punishes sexually aggressive females and passive males. Unlike the norms for showing skin, I think the norms for initiation clearly benefit females more than they benefit males. If you are a female who desires to be sexually aggressive but feels that she shouldn’t, that sucks, but at least you do have the option to be passive and wait for a guy to come to you. If you are a male who is passive, you are totally screwed, because the chances of a woman making direct advances on you, while not nonexistent, are pretty damn slim. Being a sexually aggressive female under the current system might mean not having the type of partner or relationship you might want; being a passive male under this system means not having a partner at all, unless you are very attractive or very lucky. And I think that males who are too passive are more common than females who want to be sexually aggressive, but feel they shouldn’t.”
Thus, I think it is very one-sided to pretend that the norms for initiation are more of an advantage for males than they are for females.
It’s not correct that gift giving is usually an expression of male dominance; actually, that claim is rather strange. Gift-giving can also be a gesture of supplication or adoration, and such supplication is enshrined in many gender scripts for romance. Putting a woman on a pedestal above a man may be just as sexist as putting her below him, yet it’s pretty hard to argue that she doesn’t have at least some type of power over him from being on the pedestal. Giving gifts or doing favors can also be an attempt simply to impress a woman (because under current gender norms, women are “supposed” to be impressed by that behavior).
And even if a man buying gifts is expressing dominance, his wallet is still lighter afterwards, and the woman still gets the gift. Framing males giving gifts or doing favors for woman simply as an expression of dominance is very one-sided, and misses important aspects of the construction of gender roles. When a man spends thousands of dollars buying a diamond ring for a women, who barely makes any less money that he does, it is pretty silly to argue that he comes off better from that exchange.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Jenny, neither I or Aegis have said that “sexual power” is an absolute form of power than can get you anything. It mostly works in a few types of situations.
Grabbing your crotch and then acting surprised that it didn’t help you win a debate is not a “classic” and it doesn’t prove anything.
It’s completely void.
You get guys approaching you, but they in all likelihood don’t get women approaching them as often.
This comment was written by someone.This is your sexual power.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Aegis
Yes, I was trying to explain all this stuff in the old thread in many attempts.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Well, no, not at all, because she can’t fire this guy, let alone clap him in irons. A servant is someone employed to make your desires a reality. It would make as much sense to call her a servant, since she’s waiting on his word. But to expand your analogy, what if you didn’t think you had the right to dress yourself, and what if you couldn’t be sure that someone would help you do it? This arrangement isn’t working–she’s sitting at home naked, as it were. Her “servant” isn’t under any obligation to show up.
Why are those her terms? Did you read the blog post? She’s not happy. Why would she stick with this approach, if she is in fact doing so?
My explanation is that she has been taught to believe that women are passive, that they have to sit around waiting for men to call. They don’t announce desire. They don’t go chasing after the men they want. This obviously has its drawbacks–she’s writing the blog post because she has nothing better to do on date night, and doesn’t believe that it’s okay for her to make her own damn plans. It’s not that she fears social sanction–not for this, anyway–but she may well believe that it would make her unattractive to this guy she likes.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
I’m becoming increasingly convinced that men actually have more sexual power than women. Sexual power obviously means nothing without a certain amount of real power to back it up, most especially the right to autonomy. So, if sexual power becomes more potent when mixed with other power, then more real power one has, the stronger one’s sexual power (assuming equivalent beauty).
Which may explain why actors tend to make more money than actresses.
But then, it could also be that I’m biased since, as a hetero woman, men have more sexual power over me.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Like I said earlier, it’s pretty much irrelevant to me. If any single guy can’t get laid, that’s no indication that women have anything resembling a power advantage. God knows I don’t get all the damn sex I want either. Even if it’s slightly true that men want .5% more sex than women and therefore suffer .5% more frustration, it certainly doesn’t make up for the the power imbalances in every other aspect of life.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
And seriously, someone give these guys a couple hundred bucks so they can purchase the mighty sexual powers of a streetwalker and quit whining that women have all this power.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
piny:
So you are agreeing with me that by acting passive she wants to keep an advantage?
This comment was written by someone.Now let’s examine your statement more deeply. Why exactly would she believe that something as simple as making a call would suddenly make her unattractive to a guy that seemed interested in her a while ago?
Who said that women making calls are unattractive?
Can you point out some sources of this meme?
And it must be an incredibly strong meme, since according to you it prevents her from even bothering to make the call, despite feeling so disappointed.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Someone,
To answer your EH??
Read everything that Aegis just wrote in post 34. Those are the assumptions that culture imposes on us. Now forget they exist and act like you feel you want to, not how culture dictates. Once you accomplish this you’ll be golden in the dating game and life in general. You’ll be genuine, honest and charismatic and both males and females will appreciate that quality in you. (by you btw, I’m not actually referring to you but any generic you out there whose life is guided by those assumptions).
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
For example if in most movies when a girl is show calling her potential date and then being rejected in a hurtful manner, and being in tears afterwards, this could act as a powerful deterrent to women taking the initiative to make calls.
This comment was written by someone.But from what I have seen of american movies, they don’t have such a trend. American movies for the most part just repeat stereotypes, such as the guy calling and the girl waiting for a call.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Oh and I forgot to mention…
This comment was written by someone.In american movies you can often this stereotypical scene of a girl waiting for a call, and then never receiving one and being hurt and disappointed as a result.
So there is actually more of a deterrent to waiting for calls than for making them?? At least in the area of movies… (which have a lot of influence on young people by the way)
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Ok, well, um, actually…….guys don’t approach me. Unless you count the really creepy French guy who followed me along the streets of Paris one night during my junior year abroad.
My “already taken” male co-workers do occassionaly complement me on what I’m wearing, but I’d rather they tell me I’m doing a good job. Or what I could do better if I’m not. And while I’d really like to tell one of them that I love his long hair and if he ever cuts it I’ll never speak to him again, I think he might take it the wrong way since he’s one of the “taken” ones. So I give him advice on adjusting to his new position instead.
And I don’t quite get how guys approaching me would translate into me having more power anyway. It’s not like I get to pick the guys that approach me, unlike the these hypothetical guys who got to choose me to approach. I “get” to pick from a preselected handful, but they “get” to at least try for any woman. And according to one of my store’s recent bestsellers (I work at a bookstore) I should never ever approach a guy, ’cause if he hasn’t already it’s because he’s “just not that into me” and even if he is, and I do, then he won’t be anymore. These same people also assure me than I’m sexy! smart! and have woman power! as well, so…..whatever.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
No, I’m saying that by acting passive she believes that she will please him and keep him from running away. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Well, this is one of the most famous incarnations.
Maybe Amanda can help with some links to relevant MSN dating-advice columns.
Who told you that men _have_ to be aggressive to get lucky with the ladies? How did you internalize that idea? Who first told you that?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Ted, okay that is nice… I do agree with you in a way.
I call it “not caring too much”. Which is a pretty simple idea.
But it doesn’t really have much to do with this debate does it?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
No, because then some nice guy does call Bridget, or Meg, or Kate, or Sarah Jessica.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
You refrute your own argument. IF she calls she isn’t acting “passive” anymore and loses her attractiveness and/or power (by the way you interchange the concepts).
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Good point. For all this talk of women’s sexual power, prostitutes are the most raped women in the world. That demostrates men’s angry, emotional reactions to the incorrectly perceived sex power of women more than the s0-called power manifesting itself in women’s hands.
There’s silly talk that rears its head every now and again about how the sex-selective dearth of Chinese females will eventually give them more power because they’ll be considered rare and in a better position to use men’s desire for females to get what they want. What has happened is Chinese women have increasingly less power because only a fool would let something as valuable as a pretty Chinese female be controlled by a woman. For the goose that lays golden eggs, whether the Giant owns her or Jack steals her is not for the goose to decide.
Now I’ve got an Ani song on my head:
Don’t ask me why I’m crying
This comment was written by Samantha.I’m not gonna tell you what’s wrong
I’m just gonna sit on your lap for five dollars a song
I want you to pay me for my beauty, I think it’s only right
cause I have been paying for it all of my life
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
First, please everyone, read my post defining what I mean by sexual power.
As I have said about a million times, sexual power doesn’t always translate into social or economic power (except sometimes in the cause of (d), but that is about the limited area of gifts and favors, not about socioeconomic power in general ).
Sorry, but that statement is just misguided. There are plenty other types of power that don’t put a roof over one’s head or food on the table. By your definition, things like the power to physically intimidate someone are not really power. If this was true, feminist theory would be in a lot of trouble.
I am not saying that sexual power, or the power to have someone love you, translates into overall power. But it still grants a certain type of power. Think of it this way: if you also had an adopted daughter who you didn’t love as much, which of your daughters would probably have more power over your emotions and privilege in your relationship with you, your real daughter or the adopted one? Yes, your love doesn’t translate into your daughter having power relative to you, but it probably does translate into her having more power over you than she would have if you didn’t love her as much. See what I’m getting at?
Why does “real” power need an aspect of force?
I hope you aren’t implying that I ever claimed anything like this, because I never have. Let’s leave the straw men in the field.
Correct. The whole picture of why women have more sexual power in much more complex.
I never claimed that I was the only one who had trouble in highschool. In the context of the original thread, I was simply trying to show that gender roles disadvantage males in highschool as well as females. So we basically agree.
The problem here is that you are looking at only the very top bracket of male attractiveness. At this top level, it is possible that males have as much sexual power as females. Also, at the bottom levels, it is possible that sexual power is about equal also. Yet in between, females have more sexual power.
Now this is actually a very good point, although it doesn’t show that women have less sexual power. Note: in my definition of sexual power, I am not saying that it necessarily gives women an easier time finding quality partners who want relationships with them, only attractive partners who want sex with them. Yet it is an important insight that men who have sexual power are wanted for other things as well; while this does not mean that men have more sexual power, it does explain why they may have more social power in other areas. Male sexual power depends to a greater degree on social status/skills, so it makes sense that males with higher sexual power are more likely to have higher social power in other areas: they have to have higher social power if they want women to be interested in them! I will more fully explain this issue and more when I make the post explaining exactly why women have more sexual power than men (within the confines I already stated).
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Someone,
I cannot make heads or tails of what this debate is about in the first place. Seems to me its about justification for adolescent sexual frustration with a few tidbits about the role of attractiveness in all its manifestations and the influence it has on office politics. The only conection I can see is that if you are genuine and present good ideas that people will generally forget about physical attractiveness per se and that person will be “attractive” nonetheless.
I’ve never understood really what role gender plays in that, but I admit that I am in an isolated field and don’t socialize/interact out in the “real world” with the rest of my fellow (non scientist) humans all that much.
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Piny
Not calling your potential date equals pleasing him.
Keeping this in memory…
Hmm… I see.
Here is the top review:
Look at the part that I have put in bold… It’s exactly what I have been saying… lol.
Playing “hard to get” is NOT the same as pleasing your guy!
Now let us examine your statement that acting passive in such a particular manner (not returning phone calls and not calling) is pleasing to a guy.
Is it really? I doubt that many males would agree.
I don’t. Perhaps Jeff or Ampersand or Brian Vaughan do? (Do you?)
Also this book sucks and it gives totally shitty advice to women looking for a relationship. It teaches them how to be manipulative, setting them up for failed relationships.
In the real world, such behaviour is going to annoy most guys (rather than please them, as you suggested), so these women will end up even more frustrated, when they actually never get a call.
Here is another nice review:
Yes, he puts it very nicely.
This comment was written by someone.This book doesn’t help anyone, it just makes it harder for both males and females. What a crappy book.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
It is neither power nor privilege. As Jenny points out, simply sitting there doesn’t determine which people would approach you. For a woman to attract the attentions of a man she is attracted to, she’s got to take some sort of action to get his attention — flirting, etc — and they have to keep working at it thereafter. The screwy thing is that women are usually expected to keep up the pretense that they’re passive — acting dumb and so forth.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard from women who tried to break out of that model, and were punished with especially ugly rejection or worse, when they were in their teens or early twenties.
You’ve never heard a woman worried because she just started dating someone, and he gave her a gift she wasn’t expecting? The usual response I hear is, “He must be expecting something.” That is what the “gender script” says, after all: he buys dinner, she “puts out.” Men giving women expensive gifts is often considered intimidating and creepy.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Ted
I don’t refute my own argument, but you prove it. :-D
Yes, if she calls she isn’t acting passive anymore, and she believes that acting passive gives her power. (It does if she is attractive enough.)
I don’t interchange them.
This comment was written by someone.“Power” is the ability to set your own rules for your partner to follow (or else he/she is ditched), or to influence his/her actions in some way.
“Attractiveness” is a source of power.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Some really interesting, intelligent posts here. Fun.
I’m currently re-reading Wolf’s “The Beauty Myth” which is devoted to this very topic. Wolf’s approach is that the myth was created and is maintained for political and economic reasons. Sexualized beauty power is a double-bind, intensified as late, and designed to compensate for (Western) women’s increased political and economic power in the 20th century. Regular men don’t benefit from it nearly as much as Madison Avenue does. Anyone here read it?
This comment was written by Michelle B..Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Someone, if The Rules disgusts you, there may still be hope for you. I doubt anyone posting here actually likes that book. It mostly comes up in discussion as the most over-the-top expression of sexist norms for women’s behavior in (heterosexual) dating.
You misunderstood Piny’s comment. Women are often taught that they shouldn’t take initiative, that to attract men they must be passive and flatter men’s egos. They’re taught to believe that they please men by being passive. Piny wasn’t saying that it was actually the case that men are pleased by this, or that women should behave in that way. Piny was pointing out how women are socialized to behave in a way that’s contrary to their own best interests.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Brian Vaughan, you make “women” sound like an incredibly gullible and nearsighted category of people.
This comment was written by someone.I doubt that the women that follow books like The Rules or just come up with it on their own (like the myspace.com girl) actually believe that they are pleasing their guy by acting that way. Purposefully disrupting open communication and being manipulative is not pleasing. It is a powerstruggling game, just like the reviewer says. These women believe that this way they can have an advantage, but more often it just backfires on them.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Ted;
Honestly, that’s probably my number one frustration with this ‘continuation’ thread. The first thread was about rape, and upon the entrance of Someone, and re-entrance of Aegis trying to back Someone up, it became a debate about whether 18 and 19 year old young men know more about sexual dynamics and motivations of women, than women do. It’s been the worst kind of pandering, that I’ve felt compelled to respond to every now and then because of the outlandish statements being made. Then came the accusations of rudeness and lack of civility that seemed to completely ignore the fact that the thread had been completely hijacked from a legitimate and frightening issue, into a what very much has felt like a troll. The portrait of the mindsets that I’ve seen with regards to these young men is one of justification that are the framework built upon the very horrific thing the initial topic spoke of - women being seen as chattel - sexual objects that by virtue of no responsibility being accepted by the young men involved, responsible for being the sexual sirens (knowingly or unknowingly) that bring about their own doom.
I keep seeing huge posts by Aegis and Someone where strawmen abound and responsibility is neglected in lew of this absurd notion of lust equalling ’sexual power’ in a positive manner, rather than accepting that it’s a cultural construct that has been used to firmly place women into the catagory of sexual object.
It all upsets me, and having attempted time and again in the past few days to read these posts in the context of debate, and time and again finding myself outraged at the psuedo-sophmoric-psych arguments tossed around by these young men as definitives about sexual dynamics.
Bleh.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
The key difference here is separating pleasing someone from increasing your chances for this someone to act in a reciprocative manner towards you.
What is “pleasing someone”? Pleasing someone is making them happy, caring about how their feel.
What is “increasing your chances for this someone to act in a reciprocative manner towards you” ? It is any strategy that is supposed to make your partner act more reciprocative.
For example this book teaches its readers to play “hard to get” in order to increase their chances for the man to act in a reciprocative manner. (It is supposed to induce him into a mindset of being worried why isn’t she acting in a reciprocative manner towards him, and trying harder to win her affection as a result.)
But it does not teach them how to make him happy.
These are two different things.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Kim, I’m inclined to agree with you.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Brian Vaughan, you still didn’t answer me…
Would you be pleased if a woman ignored your calls and always expected you to call her, make all the moves, etc?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Several posters have raised an interesting question: don’t the existence of strippers, prostitutes, and Monica Lewinsky demonstrate that this “sexual power” I am talking about is really not power at all?
No. As I have said, sexual power doesn’t guarantee social/economic power (it can either increase, or decrease those types of power depending on other variables). Hence, the fact that strippers, prostitutes, and Monica may lack socioeconomic power doesn’t contradict my analysis at all.
All I have been trying to show is that beauty grants women sexual power, and sexual power gives more choice over higher quality sexual partners, and can sometimes lead to material benefits. Strippers, prostitutes, and Monica actually confirm my argument.
True, prostitutes don’t have much choice over their sexual partners. But being beautiful alone does not cause prostitutes to lose their choice over their partners; being in poverty or choosing to be a prostitute causes loss of partner choice. And note that beautiful prostitutes with more sexual power can charge more, and probably have more choice over their clientele, all else being equal. More beauty = more choice, and more material benefits. Same with strippers: the more beautiful ones can probably make more money.
Monica definitely had sexual power. She had the choice of a partner who was much higher in status and attractiveness than her. Think of it this way: if a man wrecks his personal life working at a high powered law firm, does it mean that his privilege in getting hired there in the first place isn’t really privilege?
Sexual power causes women more partner choice, and of more attractive partners, even in contexts where women lack socioeconomic power. Just because a woman’s relationships with the men she attracts might go bad, it doesn’t mean that that she didn’t have some type of power in being able to attract those men in the first place. We wouldn’t argue that male greater choice in certain industries isn’t really power because men may wreck their personal lives working in those industries.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
My name is Jacqueline and I am the author of “Relationship Realism: Sans Hollywood Bullshit.”
After reading the above comments, I can see that my article is being taken completely out of context. It’s a shame that something I wrote as partial satire/partial self examination is being perverted by disgruntled readers to fit whatever viewpoint they may have. For shame!
To shed some light on some of the above comments about me placing the onus on the man to call, let me just say that he had told me he’d call … AND THEN DIDN’T. I have a phone, I know how to dial it, and I realize I, too, can contact the other person. My frustration, which I must not have articulated well enough in the article, was that we have expectations of men from their own words, and when it doesn’t happen, we’re devestated. Then I go on to examine WHY we are devastated (i.e. the whole fairy tale syndrom).
For those of you who would like to read the article in its entirely and judge for yourself, please link to: http://blog.myspace.com/15534586
Sincerely,
This comment was written by Jacqueline.Jacqueline
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Everything Brian said before I had a chance to. These expectations don’t have to be accurate in order to be accepted as such.
I see. So, passivity doesn’t actually give women power? It won’t actually give them an advantage? Men aren’t actually desperate enough to put up with this shit in order to get the sex that women don’t want as much and can therefore trade on? Huh. Interesting reversal there.
It’s also entirely different from having an advantage over someone. She’s behaving in a way she believes he prefers, in order to keep him from exercising the option of leaving. An advantage would involve her holding some kind of power over him, and she clearly doesn’t. She’s trying to present staying with her as a more attractive option. It’s like saying that your bank has an advantage over you if they offer you a free toaster for opening a checking account.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
But why would a good-looking man not have had the same power vis-a-vis the high-status women he wanted?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
An excellent post.
The concept of “sexual power” is not supposed to be understood as some mysterious power that protects you from harm and helps you out in life in every situation.
Rather, it’s something that gives you a general advantage in some areas of life.
Even when the woman herself is socially weak otherwise.
It isn’t a “counterweight” to social or economic power, it is a thing on its own.
In determining an individual’s likelihood to be successful in life, there are many other variables that are important, not the least being simple luck.
And nonetheless “sexual power” is something one would rather have then not have.
“Sexual power” is also different from the negative effects that a woman’s sexual attractiveness might cause her, such as unwanted attention for example. (Something many attractive women complain about.)
“Sexual power” is only the positive effects.
So we could say this: being sexually attractive gives you sexual power, as well as some drawbacks.
By the way Aegis… reply to my email you fool. :(
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Why should the latter not be taken into account when toting up the advantage accorded via the former? If possessing something is a liability as well as a blessing, then you can’t very well talk about how great having it is, full stop. The unwanted-attention part definitely has an effect on how and when women may attempt to use sexuality to their advantage.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Piny
Passivity obviously does give power. This is self-explanatory, since by being passive you are making your partner try harder to win your affection.
The problem comes when you aren’t that attractive (eg. the target audience of The Rules, older not-so-attractive women without much positive relationship experience looking to get married), or you are overdoing it (the girl from myspace.com)
If you play it right it works.
Passivity is not necessarily coupled with “hard to get” either. You can be genuinely affectionate to your date, but still act passive.
Many girls may do it because they are shy, not because they are playing “hard to get”.
There are different reasons for passive behaviour, I already mentioned this in one of my posts in the old thread. Look it up if you want.
Summary:
This comment was written by someone.Passivity itself is generally beneficial, if you can afford it. It is more beneficial on women, because women are approached by men more often than the reverse. Of course on unattractive women it isn’t going to help much… but neither will it on unattractive men.
This is why the target audience of The Rules will usually end up doing worse for themselves by acting passive, and especially in such a hard-cut way, never returning calls and such…
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
And another reason that passivity works better on women is because most women already do act passive. That means men don’t have that much of a choice if they wished to look only for non-passive women.
On the other hand, a passive man is at a loss since most men aren’t passive, so he will end up being underlooked, unless he is very attractive.
If all men suddenly decided to act passive no matter what, then two things could happen:
1) No one would be dating
2) Women would be forced into being active
This is an important part of how these dynamics work…
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Aegis said:
But all these are true of good looking women (not the grand majority of women by any means) AND of good looking guys. My brother has sexual power - considerably more sexual power than my sister or I. He didn’t have it in high school (classic band geek), but when he reached his full height and his chest broadened out in his late teens. I think in his entire life he chose and asked one women out - everyone else he dated pursued HIM. Women gave him gifts. Women fed him. Women asked him out.
The woman he married saw him in a play when she was fourteen and pursued him for years - he wouldn’t even go out with her until she was sixteen, and they didn’t get married or engaged until she was in her twenties. Thing is, I think he kind of regrets his own passivity - it was easier to go out with the girls and ladies who pursued him, true, but it was so easy he didn’t usually date the girls who most attracted him!
My sister, OTOH, barely dated. I think in twenty years she went out with two guys, and that was only a few dates apiece. No one else asked her, but when she asked guys out that was perceived as her being “pushy” or “unfeminine.” So not only are women who aren’t beautiful not getting asked out - often, they quite literally can’t ask anyone out.
And the standards of beauty for women are extraordinarily constraining. I had more than one guy tell me, “I’d like to go out with you, if you’d just lose five (or ten) pounds first.” My “eligibility” as a date was determined by five or ten pounds! My weight fluctuates ten pounds a month anyhow - some of these guys would date me one week and have nothing to do with me the next! Generally, even when a woman is impressed primarily with a guy’s earnings or abilities, she gives him more leeway than that.
When “sexual power” is the main source of women’s power, and when most women simply don’t have access to said “sexual power,” I just can’t see why this is even an issue.
Aegis said:
Yes, but only to beautiful women. Most women are never that beautiful, and those who are only have this power for a very short time. Because men can be sexually attractive for a number of different reasons, more men can be sexually attractive. I’ve known a lot of guys whose sexual attraction was zip in high school who literally had ladies hanging on them vying for attention by the time they got to their late twenties - not because they were any more beautiful but because they’d learned to be charming or they were making good money.
Flipside? The beautiful women I knew had pretty much lost that edge at the same age. Female beauty is tightly connected to youth - doesn’t matter how beautiful she is, by the time a woman hits her thirties or forties novelists would describe her with, “he could see she’d been beautiful in her day, and some of that cachet still lingered….”
Ted said:
This has been my experience, as well. A friend of mine once told me I’d never have a problem getting a guy’s interest so long as I had a good long time frame to get to know him, because I was “fun to be around.” Physical attractiveness is far more important in situations like bars and parties, where you meet someone and you’ve got one chance to make an impression. My sister-in-law saw my brother on stage and she knew she had no chance to “snag” him through her looks - instead she joined clubs he was in and got to know him in a more relaxed social setting over time.
I’ve known a fair number of guys who divide the world into “women” and “people.” “Women” are the women they find physically attractive - and, oh, how they’d whine and moan about “women” and the power they held. But when I’d sit them down and point out that they were surrounded by females they didn’t recognize as women, who were having the same “bad luck” they were getting dates with the guys they were attracted to, they’d get very quiet. Those that got married, married females they’d originally labeled as “people” and thus ignored - once they started looking past the outside package, they suddenly had a fair number of possibilities for female companionship in their lives.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
More piny
Because a disadvantage can’t be called a power.
See, here is what I said:
Is this ok?
This is true.
However we still see a great number of women trying to be as sexually appealing as possible. Despite the unwanted attention that they get, they still want to be sexually attractive.
From this I can conclude that for these women the negative drawbacks of being sexually attractive are not enough of a deterrent to give up trying to be sexually attractive.
(It might be for some other women, like religious christian women for example. But even when these women try to minimize their sexual attractiveness because they are set off by the drawbacks, it still can’t be concealed completely (things like face and hair and body shape…) so they will still end up enjoying the advantage of having more potential partners to choose from.
This comment was written by someone.I am sure that even religious christian men will be more interested in a woman with a nice figure and a pretty face.)
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Ok, I will be going now… more replies later.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Aegis, I expect that anytime now, some mother who adopted her child is going to come into this conversation and be right down your throat for the use of the terms “real” daughter vs. “adopted” daughter. People who adopt their children do not look at it that way, nor do I. See, I’m a parent. And the thing is, my love flows from me to my daughter regardless of whether it will be reciprocated. I don’t know that I can explain it to someone that isn’t a parent (and I don’t know if you are, but would find it hard to believe that you are based on that statement). Anyway, my point was, it’s something that’s coming from me, not her.
I still stand by my assertion that real power involves an element of force, even if it’s potential force. Power is a form of energy that enables you to meet your needs, like the roof over your head and food in your belly. In that light, sexual power isn’t really power, because the only “power” rests in the ability to basically beg others to get your needs for you. That is a far more vulnerable position than being able to meet those needs yourself. Sure, the beautiful prostitute can make more money from her clients than the less attractive prostitute, but the real power is the money that comes from the client. The client is the one who holds the wallet, and thus, the power.
And for those of us who don’t want to be prostitutes, what of us? What do we do, when our employers, educators, clergy, counselors, neighbors, etc. bring the baggage of the prostitute/client transaction into every relationship between a man and a woman? If sexual “power”, or better yet, sexual dynamics stayed in the bedroom, would we even be having this discussion? I think not. The problem is that sexual dynamics are foisted upon women without our consent, outside of proper sexual contexts. Meaning, that our appearance, sexuality, age, etc. carry a heavy weight for us (women) in nonsexual contexts that does not apply to men. Men have the freedom of neutrality that we do not have.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Just one more post…
shiloh says
Believe me, this is how I often feel about women that rant about “guys are assholes”, cheating, and such.
And it isn’t really true.
It is a complaint often used by both sexes:
This comment was written by someone.“they only go after the hot girls with large boobs”
“they only go after jerks that mistreat them, or rich guys”
Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
What Kim said (and similarly I have found myself drawn in against my better judgement).
This thread is just too depressing for words and serves of yet another example of how feminists never get to discuss rape and male abuses of power without some overly defensive male(s) insisting we must instead discuss how PHMT.
*sigh*
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
The highest priced bodies in prostitution are pretty girl child virgins and they have the least “choices” of any prostitutes. See golden goose example above.
Hence, the fact that strippers, prostitutes, and Monica may lack socioeconomic power doesn’t contradict my analysis at all.
That’s an intellectually dishonest statement. It’s not that sex workers “may” universally lack socioeconomic power, like it sorta happens but has nothing to do with sexuality, power, gender or anything we’re talking about. They lack power because men make them be their prostitutes, and that means to be sexually desired but not actually liked or respected. They resent the “power” they say Women have and use prostitutes to remind themselves that really, when it comes down to it, he can make her [stand in for Everywoman] do any nasty thing he wants because, when it comes down to it, he does in fact have more power over her in every way that counts including sexual power.
The disadvantages for women being unwanted sex objects is indeed power; it’s men’s power.
One man in a recent interview said when one of his friends says he’s dating a stripper, from that point on she’s forever referred to not as Jennifer but as “the stripper” by the group of men. I went to a frat party with my older brother and the men there knew me only by “Chris’s sister” or “jailbait”. They seriously didn’t even care what my name was, only which male I “belonged” to and my fuckability status. Some privilege, this sexualized prettiness that erases the need for women’s names.
I lived for a few years in NYC and here’s no way this feminist babe is buying your tripe about how peachy it is to be a prettier than average young woman. Getting verbally assaulted by street men is not about this pretty girl’s sexual power, it is about men’s sexual power. It’s homeless and minority men (most abuse came from them) saying to me, “You may have a career, home, and happy life but I’m still a man and you’re still a woman and we both know that places you literally underneath me, bitch.” That’s what they’re really saying when they say, “Bet your pussy tastes good” as I pass them on a bridge (true example).
shiloh, nice post on #70, especially the women versus people business.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
When I first started reading this post (around 500 ago) I didn’t really get the whole “rape culture” arguement presented by Q grrl. I still don’t think I generally agree with the term, but over the last 200 or so posts I have begun to understand the point. Tis a sad state of affairs.
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
“…saying to me, “You may have a career, home, and happy life but I’m still a man and you’re still a woman and we both know that places you literally underneath me, bitch.”? That’s what they’re really saying when they say, “Bet your pussy tastes good”? as I pass them on a bridge (true example).”
Oh that’s real “sexual power” there. Gee I can’t wait to wield that. Oh that’s right I already do since it happens to me all the time at my college campus. Except for me it falls along the lines of,” so what you’re an honor-roll/Dean’s List student, you still have a pussy and pair of breasts, so automatically that makes you my little sex-toy.”
It’s degradation, not power. A woman has to degrade herself and reduce herself to a sex-object and sex-toy for men’s pleasure before they even notice her. She has to cater to their sexual appetites–which always reduce women to pleasure objects. It’s quid pro quo sex acts (bordering on abuse and rape) and it’s always the woman giving them up like an obedient little wind-up doll in order to receive a “pat on the head” from the men.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Damn I forgot to close the bold signs at the end there.
[I got it - Amp.]
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Good point, shiloh. I have a good friend who isn’t traditionally handsome by any means but he can get a woman eating out of his hand unlike almost any man I have ever known. I’m a conventionally pretty woman who by the inane theories being flouted here should be able to manipulate a man and while he’s always praising my looks and whatnot, I know damn well that if we ever dated, I’d be the one constantly worrying about the cheating and unable to exert this amazing cunt-and-beauty power I have that gets me exactly shit. Honestly, I get more leverage off my sense of humor.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
This is kind of a tangent — we hear a lot about beautiful and attractive women being harrassed, and being pressured into/deciding to trade on their looks while they can, but what of the unattractive women? If this “power” is based on being beautiful and sexy, the unattractive woman is pretty much dirt. And while it’s not spoken of as frequently as the “Damn, you fine!” variety, the “Damn, that bitch ugly!” type of harrassment has a great deal of vitriol with it. Of course, both types have in common the apparent belief on the part of the speaker that whatever he’s thinking, he can just go ahead and say, as if what he’s commenting on is just scenery.
I was sexually harrassed in middle school once on the bus, and not because I was an early developer or because I was trying to get male attention. The principal I reported the incident to obviously didn’t believe that anyone would have harrassed me. I practically had a negative amount of “power.” And subsequently, I avoided social interactions that might lead to situations like that.
I also found it very strange (and still do) that even though I heard and hear all the time about street harrassment, no matter where the women were and what they were wearing, men basically ignore me. What does that tell an adolescent girl (although I’m 26 now) about her worth, if men don’t even bother to harrass her? I still am amazed that my boyfriend finds me attractive, even though now that I’m past adolescence I’ve got a happier view of myself.
I’m no master at debate, so I’m not trying to present an argument or make a huge point — I just think it’s interesting that the women who are verbally abused for being ugly, or the ones who are ignored pretty much get forgotten in discussions about this sort of thing. I feel like I didn’t do a great job of explaining this, but here goes :-P
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Oh, I forgot to add — An unattractive man might well get some flack, but keep in mind that there are men who seem to take it as a personal insult if an unattractive woman enters their sphere of vision, and they will do their best to let people know.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Hey, let’s not be sexist — what about the “power” that attractive men have over women?
Ha!!
You men know how shakey that is, even you pretty ones. It’s not worth much, is it? How’d you boys like to be trying to pay your rent with THAT?
And that is all the “power” in the world you think that women should have?
REAL power is about having resources which one actually commands totally, not just having some marginal ability to influence someone else to change the way they manage resources which they actually command totally.
Women’s sexual power isn’t worth a dime. Men just talk about it because it is the ONLY power they don’t have and that bugs them a lot. Men obsess about the tiny tiny little bit of power women have in this world, because that seems unnatural in a world full of burqas, brides burned in carpets and 75 cents on the dollar.
Women talk about it because it makes them feel a little better.
But it’s bunk.
Jan VanDenBerg
This comment was written by Jan VanDenBerg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Jan,
Exactly.
Sexual power, as being discussed here, seems to translate into being able to pick sexual partners or get people to do things for you based of the promise or hint of sex.
As far as the first, the only difference in power between men and women comes from the supposition that men want it more. As far as getting sex based only on looks goes, if desire is equal, and beauty is equal, than everything else is equal.
When it comes to wielding “sexual power” for things other than sex, if you see women doing it more than men, its because of their relative likelihood of getting what they want through manipulating someones desire for them versus other methods. Its not that women are naturally so much better at wielding sexual power, but that guys tend to have more options, and women are less likley to (appear) have much to offer other than sex.
And this whole idea that you can focus on only the positive aspects of “sexual power” but not its limitations is ridiculous. Especially in light of how this discussion started.
If I can’t say no to unwanted sex then I don’t have any more power than if I never have the opportunity to say yes. In fact, I have less power, actually.
There isn’t much that “sexual power” can get me besides sex that (in a world without sexism) I can’t get better in other ways. And if I don’t have any other power, then I can’t say no, so I have no real sexual power either.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Jenny (and Jan) - that about sums about the whole discussion! Female sexual power is a double-edged sword, and in a world where it’s always someone else setting the rules by which it’s used, it’s a power that’s not truly under our own control.
Women’s bodies have been blamed for “leading men astray” morally, spiritually, and physically for centuries now. It really shouldn’t shock anyone when it’s pointed out that female beauty/sexuality is a pervasive excuse for rape in 99% of cultures today.
This comment was written by Michelle B..Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
The only “sexual power” that matters is the power to say “no” when one wants to and not have anything bad happen — the power to NOT be sexy and still be in good standing.
How much power do women have to say, “Hey, I don’t feel like being sexy today; I’m not in the mood. Today I feel like talking seriously about heavy issues and letting vent to my own personal frustrations with regard to structural difficulties and assumptions being made around here.”
Yeeah! That’s going to get you anywhere!
Women have the power to say “no” and to present their true feelings sometimes, but frequently, they don’t. Not on the job, with a boss who just insists on having his ego massaged or there will be hell to pay, and not in the corporate, mainstream media, where women all seem to be leggy, busty and obsessed with men and sex to the exclusion of all else, where women are just about how men want them to be, in other words.
Remember how hated Hilary Clinton was — just for trying to be serious?
Try to talk about something BESIDES sex and, whoa, have you ever lost all that wonderful “power.”
When you don’t even have the power to change the subject, you haven’t got much power.
Jan VanDenBerg
This comment was written by Jan VanDenBerg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 12:32 am
Q Grrl said: Absent rape, “sexual power”? for either gender is irrelevant and meaningless.
Bingo! You know, for me there’s something even more wrong at the root of this idea of sexual power, the notion that not just sex but all human interaction can be reduced to power plays. It’s a horrible mentality. It screws with people’s minds. It assumes you have to think of love, friendship, sex like a matter of conflict, strategy and competition. Instead of playfulness, fun, communication, emotions, affection, respect, mutual assistance…
Economic power, social power, political power, military power, those things exist as long as we live in societies where hierarchies count. You can’t easily get out of that mechanism, you just have to live with it and not make it dominate your life. Personal relationships are the one sphere where we can at least try and prevent dominant power structures from creeping in. It’s not easy, and too often we are subjected to that mentality even as we reject it, but I just cannot understand those who accept it unquestioningly, thinking that’s what makes sex and human relations interesting. I don’t want any part of that.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 12:46 am
Every time someone or Aegis says power they should be required to add: “The power of being sterotypically attractive till you’re forty or so” and see how that changes their argument. Not that I imagine it would change it much. I watched them derail a thread about rape into a discussion of female power. Yeah, well, you know what? If women had that much power the world would be a very different place. Pandering to these two is jsut amazing. I notice that the misquoted and misused author of someone’s piece didn’t get so much as a blink from either one.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 2:54 am
I was reading the original thread (I’m not finished yet) and I just had to respond to these two topics:
First someone on straight women not being attracted to men’s bodies and being repulsed by male on male action:
“Males find females kissing sexy.
Females find males kissing disgusting or don’t care.
Why? Because women are the “sexy”? gender.”
Now that I’ve picked myself up off the floor from laughing so hard: OH MY GOD! As a straight woman who just recently discovered Queer as Folk (sorry, I just love the way they do the title) all I have to say is: watching Justin and Brain go at it has to be one of the sexiest things I’ve ever seen.
“Gay porn is mainly targeted at gay men, not women.”
And that of course is proof that all (sucessfull) porn is made for men because only guys want it, and for no other reason. There is no possibility that the people who make porn only think that guys want it, so they will only sexualize men when making porn for gay men, or that mostly men make porn (for the same reasons most directors are men) so of course porn that sexualizes men tends to be made by gay men rather than straight women.
I mean, all those shows about gay men must be made for gay men, right?
It’s not as if the largest demographic for shows like Boy Meets Boy, Queer Eye, or QaF is young women. I mean, really, what was I thinking? I must be an absolute anomaly.
And as for this:
“But I don’t use [boys] to refer to young men/male teenagers in general, because this isn’t how the word is used. It is used to refer to children.
But girls is used to refer to teenage girls and young women.
This is how the words are used in the contemporary English language, I didn’t make it so.”
When my mother was a few years younger than you, living in the south, nigger was a word used to refer to colored people. She didn’t make it so. But she damn well didn’t use it either. If you plan on referring to yourself as an adult you’d better damn well start calling me one too, and anyone else your age or older. Although if you continue to use the “everyone else does it”? defense, I’m going to start referring to you as a child. Not in an attempt to be insulting or anything, just to be acccurate, because if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck….
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 3:11 am
Jenny, these are all old arguments that were talked about and they are now dead. Why are bringing them up again?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 3:13 am
“what Kim said”
This isn’t a thread about rape, it’s a new thread with its own topic, so this complaint is meaningless. If you don’t want to discuss this topic, then don’t.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 3:19 am
noodles
I am pretty sure that this is a case of the “Appeal to Emotion” fallacy mixed with a “Strawman” fallacy.
You are doing two things:
1) Associating my comments about how people play power games in relationships with the negative consequences that ensue from this.
2) Accusing me of supporting this.
I actually agree with you, it would be lovely if all this powerstruggling didn’t exist, but it does. I didn’t invent it.
See, I even said it before:
Did you miss this part? Why are you accusing me of thinking that it makes sex and human relations interesting? I don’t, I think that it brings lots of negativity.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 3:26 am
By the way, I propose a new rule for this thread…
Whenever someone asks someone else a direct question they have to answer it, unless the question is fallacious in nature. (Not based on the actual things that were said.)
Is this a good rule? Can we all agree to follow it?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 3:34 am
Actually, this kind of rule will probably cause me to be bombarded with questions. So nevermind. ;)
Let’s just agree to try to answer questions and address the points that are made?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:04 am
I will now try to respond to the posts that were made one by one…
Samantha
Samantha, I don’t believe that referring to someone as “Chris’s sister” or “Samantha’s brother” is insulting. It’s perfectly natural for
people to refer this way to a person that they don’t know that is related to someone that they know.
If you were a longtime part of that company, they would refer to you by your name.
As for “jailbait”, it is one of the negative effects which I have described.
Having negative effects due to being sexually attractive does not negate the existence of sexual power.
Here is a question to you: would you rather be unattractive, or as attractive as the average young woman? (You seem to be pretty insistent on
referring to yourself as a “babe” and a “pretty girl”, so I am guessing you must be significantly more goodlooking than the average woman.)
You will have to prove how does making lewd comments at you give these men sexual power.
Let’s look at the definition of sexual power again:
(Aegis)
Please explain how does insulting you help them with any of those five points? (He has b listed twice)
And I really mean it, do respond to this post.
I think that it’s pretty self-evident that being attractive does in fact grant you a certain degree of sexual power. (Which different
individuals may use differently.)
For example I am pretty sure that you have a wider choice of potential partners than a less attractive (average) woman does.
You don’t have to put up with a guy that acts rude, or drinks, or you don’t find him physically attractive, or has some other unwanted
characteristics.
You can set a rule: “If you want to be with me, you have to fit these criteria.”
And then the criteria which you set can be more demanding than ones that a less attractive woman can set.
This is how you have Type C of sexual power, a larger choice of mates, and access to better mates.
This doesn’t mean that you are guaranteed to find someone that you like and fits all of your criteria, but that you have a better
chance at doing so than a less attractive woman.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:33 am
I notice that the misquoted and misused author of someone’s piece didn’t get so much as a blink from either one.
Yeah, I noticed that too. It was like she didn’t even post anything.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:53 am
Someone, as I said in the opening post, “Any of the posts on the old thread may be responded to here.” If Jenny wants to respond to those “old arguments,” then she has every right to do so.
By the way, “appeal to emotion” isn’t a fallacy. In traditional rhetoric, an argument without an appeal to emotion (or pathos) is incomplete.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:56 am
someone,
How did I know you were going to ask something like this:
“Jenny, these are all old arguments that were talked about and they are now dead. Why are bringing them up again?”
My response: read the last two sentences of the post that kicked off this second thread.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:58 am
Ampersand, appeal to emotion is a fallacy in this case, since noodles was using it to further her argument.
Take a look at this:
She is saying that because the notion of power plays is a negative one (with which I agree very much), it is reason to believe that the notion is wrong.
This comment was written by someone.With this I disagree, power plays are real, and sexual competition is real.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:01 am
You are doing two things:
1) Associating my comments about how people play power games in relationships with the negative consequences that ensue from this.
2) Accusing me of supporting this.
Are you talking to me? Was I even responding to you, Mr Someone, or referring to you? Nope. I was adding my own comment to Q Grrl’s own comment, on a mentality in society at large.
If you want to be the one and only subject of all discussions about gender, sex, social norms and expectations, feel free, but you know, there’s a society out there that’s made by more people than you.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:01 am
A similar argument that could be made:
You might agree that paying taxes is unpleasurable, but it doesn’t mean that taxes don’t exist.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:05 am
This post on Hugo’s blog discusses issues relevant to this thread.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:15 am
someone,
Even if the overall topic wasn’t the original thread on a rape case narrowed down to focus on sexualtity and power, how do you seriously expect to discuss sexuality and power on a feminist website without someone bringing up rape?
And on that note, I’d like to bring up another “old argument”
(you are welcome of course, to exercise your power of autonomy and ignore it-although you will get bonus points for discussing how much actual autonomy you would have if you didn’t have the power to say no, or if such power was conditional or such rights were inneffectively enforced).
Aegis says:
(sigh) No, any 18 year old boy who presumes to know more about women’s desires than the women he is debating with is viewed by said women as well, naive, at best.
And as far as someone being viewed at the Patriarchy Incarnate. Well, literally, yes. And I mean that in a very precise and non-insulting way. Patriarchal societies, according to feminist theory, accord men certain privileges that women do not have, most especially a sense of entitlement. Incarnate means “in the flesh ” So yes, a living male person who argues that he knows more about women than women themselves do, and who also makes it clear that he deserves to be called an adult, but women his age do not, and who can only defend this stance by saying “that’s the way it is”? is most definitely Patriarchy Incarnate to feminists like myself. Not because we think he’s evil or even mysigonistic, but because that’s what the words mean.
oh, and Amp, sorry for repeating what you just said.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:43 am
The anonymous troll said
Ok, I will be going now… more replies later.
I had hoped you’d take the time to upgrade your reading level. You’ve misunderstood or miscontrued most posts, ignored or turned inside-out the responses to your inane assertions, and demanded that people “respond” to you after they have many times. Misunderstanding the reason The Rules was linked to was classic. I was starting to wonder if English was your native language until someone mentioned “18 and 19 year old…” in which case, a few college level English classes might help remedy the problem. One hopes.
This constantly telling others how to behave in this thread is getting annoying. You obviously don’t have a firm grasp of the issues. The old “everyone must now play by my rules of LOGIC” trick is usually hauled out whenever someone gets frustrated that they can’t convince others of their (frequently illogical) argument. Funny, nearly everyone here, except for you, has been making quite logical and reasoned posts so far.
This comment was written by Michelle B..Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:46 am
Uh oh, the personal attacks and ad hominems are starting. Heh heh…
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:49 am
noodles, so who were you referring to when you said
Is the “those” referring to me and Aegis?
This comment was written by someone.If it isn’t, then I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 6:14 am
someone, you don’t get to define sexual power. What has practically every woman on this thread and the last one been telling you, ad infinitum? That your definition of “sexual power” is complete meanningless crap! So, being pretty gets you more attention than being ugly. Big effing deal. Most of that attention is very negative; it’s disrespectful, demeaning, and intended to “put you in your place”. And it damn sure doesn’t put food on the table or a roof over your head, so it’s irrelevant.
When Samantha (or any other woman) is getting harassed on the street, she is not the one in the position of power!! That unprovoked verbal attack is designed to put her in her place; a reminder that she is the lesser party, that she is only avoiding a beatdown or rape because of the ‘good graces’ of her harasser. He is reminding her that he not she, is the one with the real power. A little “don’t get too uppity, ‘cuz I can still fuck you up, bitch” reminder.
I wonder how you’d see the power dynamics if your narrow young ass was thrown in prison, with larger, meaner, older men deciding that you were the “pretty one”. The one that was going to take the place of females. I wonder how much sexual power you’d be able to wield.
Go read the thread on Hugo’s blog, since Amp posted the link here. Pay close attention to the sociobiological argument for rape. It’s garbage, but a helluva lot of people, including women, buy into it—that rape is both a way for men to increase their progeny, and a way of getting the “big bad dominant genes” out into the world. If you really believe that viewpoint, then you’re not going to take rape seriously for what it is; you’re not going to think of rape as being a real crime. That’s the baggage that we women carry around with us without our consent. We have to recognize that if we are raped, that a significant number of people, male and female, don’t think it’s that big a deal, or even that rapists are a twisted form of ‘good guy’, because they’re the “big, bad” muthas.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 6:55 am
I can always feel my eyes glaze over when men start talking about women’s “sexual power.” If men really thought that the “ability” to be constantly seen as a disposable, interchangeable object by an entire class of people was such a huge form of power, they’d be doing everything they could to cultivate that power for themselves. Aside from certain sectors of the gay and/or urban community, all-over, all-consuming beauty regimens (or cults, as I prefer to call them) aren’t all that common among men. When MAXIM, et al, start teaching men the joys of bi-monthly body-waxing or tell them to leave school in order to make an easy fortune as strippers, I’ll start believing in all this supposed “power” I’ve been “gifted” with simply by dint of having breasts and a rounded rear end.
Note that I am not arguing that men don’t use their physical appearance at time to their advantage, or that women don’t respond to physical appearance in men. I AM arguing that there’s not a veritable industry and/or secular near-religion built up around one particular, saleable icon of male beauty. Nor is men’s appearance marketed to them by other men as their primary concern, and the most practical and proper route to getting what they want in life. MEN’S HEALTH doesn’t have any two-page cosmetic spreads about how this or that product will make a man just as dreamy as Orlando Bloom, or whomever.
Some killer posts in here, especially La Lubu’s.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:08 am
La Lubu… fine I will answer your post. But I expect you to return the courtesy and actually respond to my posts.
Big effing deal? That’s an interesting way to put it.
Apparently being able to negotiate your own terms for a relationships better and being able to select from a larger pool of mates is meaningless.
Because people don’t actually care about being unattractive, it is not a source of great discomfort for many people, not a reason for depression, alcoholism and suicide.
People don’t worry about finding a good relationship either.
No one suffers from heartbreaks, no one suffers from unrequited love, no one suffers from being dumped, no one suffers from not being treated the way they want to be treated by their partner.
Nope. It’s all a “big effing deal”.
Sorry, but I have to disagree….
This has been mentioned earlier, and I have responded to it, here:
So here is the question again:
Do the negative drawbacks of being sexually attractive outweigh the positive advantages?
Would most sexually attractive women want to become less attractive?
I also asked this question of Samantha, I am waiting for her answer.
It would be really nice if she answered.
I disagree with the claim that only something that can put food on a table or a roof over a head is useful.
There are other things that can be useful.
As I have mentioned before several times (but too lazy to find the quotes), sexual power IS NOT a synonym for economic power.
The ability to afford food and a place to live is dependent on one’s economic power, not one’s sexual power.
If Samantha is worried about affording food and shelter, this is what a job is for.
No one is saying that she is supposed to rely entirely on her sexual power to do this. (Although this is not impossible, and successfully done by large numbers of attractive women.)
The two powers are completely different things. (although they can contribute to each other)
Economic power is about one’s “value” in purchasing capacity. What kind of things can they afford? What kind of abilities does their money give them?
Sexual power is about one’s “value” in the world of dating and relationship. What kind of criteria can she put on a potentional mate? How hard is it for her to attract someone? How much power can she wield in a relationship?
And of course, of course, OF COURSE, economic power is far, far, FAR more useful than sexual power!
Economic power in a large degree is incredibly useful.
However, sexual power can also give her an economic advantage to some extent, since it may make it easier for her to attract a wealthy man.
Summary:
Economic power is considerably more useful than sexual power, but this does not mean that sexual power must be viewed as a replacement for economic power. It has its own domain of operation, where it comes useful. And indeed it is useful. It is something most people would rather have than not have.
The claim that being made here is that when someone insults her, this gives him power.
Does insulting someone really give you power? I don’t think so… It might give you some satisfaction, but not any measurable power that does something useful for you.
Samantha mentioned before that most of those men that insulted her were homeless or lived in poor minority neighbourhoods.
Samantha herself is more or less economically stable, she has a nice place to live in, she is probably getting higher education in a university or college now (or maybe already completed it), and she has a generally good quality of life.
I don’t think that it is correct to say that a homeless man has more social power than Samantha. Neither does a poor one that belongs to an ethnic/racial minority.
Firstly, describing my ass as “narrow” and “young” and then suggesting how I might get raped is pretty offensive. You could use some neutral imaginary person instead, no?
Now the point itself…
This comment was written by someone.I don’t think that the dynamics between dominant and submissive inmates in prison which are based on physical domination, humiliation, and mob pressure can be accurately compared to the dynamics between women and men in a civilized society which are based on mutual interest, negotiation, and (for many people) ultimately trying to seek out someone to be your lover and a loyal companion in life.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:15 am
You know, someone, I kind of think that it’s the blog maintainer’s privelege to post rules and so forth. But then again, you’ve been giving orders since you got here.
A really good rule for you–well, aside from anything about listening, that is—would be to go read stuff that Amp posts.
Seeing as how you don’t appear to read the stuff you do post—your response to the blogwriter you quoted selectively was extremely revealing—I’m probably being too optomistic.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:21 am
Amp, if you’ve got nothing better to do upon awakening, perhaps you can explain why “someone” is somehow less “dominating” of the conversation or less offensive in attitude than NYMOM was when you asked her to leave. Honestly. He jabbers above about jobs as somehow a seperate field or pursuit that doesn’t figure isn’t this discussion at all. This after Lubu and others have repeatedly explained how men’s twisted notions of “female sexual power” DAILY undermine and damage women’s lives ON THE JOB –even when a woman has so much utility clothing on that you probably couldn’t figure out her gender from more than ten feet away. That’s just one example among many of his listening skills, and his intentions– the former of which are clearly not honorable and the latter of which are not even remotely geared toward learning anything here.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:22 am
Or vice versa. :o Hell with it. I’m going to get coffee.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:26 am
You might agree that paying taxes is unpleasurable, but it doesn’t mean that taxes don’t exist.
Not only is Someone lecturing us all about female sexuality without having a clue, he’s also pontificating about rules of proper discussion and logical fallacies and straw men arguments without having the sligthest idea of what logic, proper discussion, or straw men are.
I am impressed at the ability to monopolise entire threads. That’s definitely a skill.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:29 am
Ad hominems and twisting my words are not a good tactic for a debate.
I can understand what argument you are trying to make, that women’s sexual attractiveness brings more negative drawbacks (including hurting their economic potential) than positive advantages.
If this is what you want to say, then say it in a reasonable civil manner, instead of a hostile attacking manner.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:32 am
“This isn’t a thread about rape, it’s a new thread with its own topic, so this complaint is meaningless. If you don’t want to discuss this topic, then don’t. ”
For those of you who were around for February’s example of male reversal’s, here’s another classic! Absolutely classic, in fact.
You take an intense thread about rape, inject an 18-year-old misogynist male’s views on female sexuality, tell that male it is inapprorpriate to talk about that in a thread on rape, he ignores you and continues derailing. He then gets a new, solitary thread entitled after his design (and not, say Ginmar’s line of reasoning) and then he has the FUCKING BALLS to write the above statement. Nice.
Troll.
So, back to rape. I really think it is impossible to honestly talk about women’s sexuality and power without fully discussing how rape (or the fear of rape) is used to shape young women’s sexuality. To talk about “female power” without acknowledging rape is just to talk about another version of male objectification of women. Someone and Aegis aren’t talking about women’s reality (as they ignore all that the women have written here and kiss up to the men) — Someone and Aegis are talking about their objectified view of women’s sexuality. Women are “other” and “different” and have “power”. Women are never just women. And perhaps that is why they can ignore rape.
In fact, Someone’s pathetic cry that the feminist women are diverting his topic with talk about rape is an act of condoning rape. His blindness to the effects of rape put his actions into the rape apologist category. Again, to him, rape is a crime (horrors!)… and then well, what else is there to talk about. Oh, yeah. We can talk about women’s sexual power! Hubba Hubba. Could it be any more transparent that our society condones rape. Come on people!
Someone: while rape is a crime (horrors!) to you, it is a force, both physical and psychic, that shapes women’s sexuality as we know it. But you probably know that — you use the same tactics verbally that many men use physically on women. You cannot hear a woman say “no” because it is far more important that your perception of reality plays out, despite anything that a woman says or does. You’ve already proved this.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:36 am
Ad hominem.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:37 am
Uh. What Alsis said, amp.
I also want to quote Someone, so this doesn’t completely fly under the radar:
I don’t know which angle is the most insulting: his attitude towards the feminists posting here, or his underhanded slam of disabled people.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:43 am
for it to be an ad hominem, it would have to be false.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:44 am
someone, the reason I don’t put any stock into attractiveness, is because I have experienced life as the “ugly one” and life as the “pretty one”. Meanwhile, I was the same person inside and out. I found that the emphasis placed on my looks by strangers or acquaintances was shallow and meaningless. What counts is how folks treat you when they know you. Anything else is as fleeting as the wind. Really.
And for the record, being “pretty” doesn’t shelter one from depression, addiction, suicide, heartbreak, unrequited love, or being dumped. Nor does it offer any easy path to a decent relationship. Relationships are not built on what either partner looks like. And while you are young, and are experiencing life through a lens where “looks matter”, as you get older, you will find that “looks” don’t matter all that much. You will also find, as you reach your late-twenties, early-thirties, that women are just as likely to call you and/or ask you out, as you are to do the same.
As for the comment about “gettting a job”, hell!! What do you think I have been trying to get you to understand? That for women in the job market, our physical appearance is always an issue for us, to the detriment of having our work examined and evaluated objectively. Our appearance, whether “pretty” or “ugly” or any shade in between, is an obstacle in the employment arena. When you were born, there was a popular book called “How to Dress for Success.” The idea was that women had to walk this fine line between being too feminine, and not feminine enough at work. The book had elaborate wardrobe, makeup, and hairstyle strategies that were supposed to help a woman advance in her field. Wardrobe. Makeup. Hairstyle. Strategies. Perhaps I’m completely dense, but uhh….shouldn’t education and ability take precedence? A man can go to work, be clean and neat, and be dressed professionally…..and that’s enough. Not so for women. Age and weight are also huge obstacles for women on the job.
Put the “but….you can attract a wealthy man!” canard down for the final cluck, willya? What I hear in that statement is “Quit your bitching and be a prostitute! Anything you get in this world should be based upon what a man is willing to give you! You don’t need a brain. You have a pussy!”
And what makes you think that the men who rape other men in prison are any different from the men who rape women outside of prison? The whole point being, is that rape is a crime of violence, and an assertion of dominance. The only place you would ever experience a feeling of fear of sexual violence is in prison. We women have to deal with that fear periodically throughout our lives. When Samantha was walking down the street being harassed by those men, it didn’t really matter that they were poor or homeless. They still had the power to rape her, and the chances of her seeing justice served would be slim, statistically. The chances of her being blamed for her own rape would be high. She would be asked “why were you walking there? why didn’t you take a cab? why were you alone?”.
Prison rape is tolerated because it is a form of social control. Rape outside of prison is a form of social control, also. It is also a weapon of war and genocide.
You didn’t answer my question. How much sexual power would you wield in prison?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:45 am
ginmar
Proposition does not equal imposition. All I did was ask whether this would be a nice rule to follow to make debating more effective. And you know it perfectly well.
So this is a Strawman.
This comment was written by someone.Stop it.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:50 am
La Lubu
None, because I wouldn’t be able to select my “lovers” on my own, they would force me.
This comment was written by someone.This is not the case with women in a civilized society which do select their lovers on their own. In a society that practices arranged marriage and the parents decide for their daughter and she is not allowed to refuse a marriage, women hold no sexual power. But this isn’t how the modern western society functions.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:54 am
More La Lubu
They had the power to rape her, but not because they have more social power than her. I can murder a rich man and get away with murder, but do I have more social power than him?
Also obviously it isn’t their insults which give them the capability to rape her, but rather it is the fact that she is relatively defenseless, and they are physically stronger.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:08 am
“Do the negative drawbacks of being sexually attractive outweigh the positive advantages?”
That is actually a very good question. And it doesn’t have an easy answer.
On the one hand, who doesn’t want to be attractive? Only a very strong, secure person can be 100% satisfied with him/herself. As a student, I see young women who just obsess about it. They think the only way they will be loved is if they are drop-dead-gorgeous. I don’t think they are right about that, but that’s what they think. I would even go so far as to say they think they are worthless if they are not beautiful. It is sad and I used to feel sorry for them, but now I’ve gotten to the point where I’m just annoyed by their lame wimpiness. Sure, they hate catcalls, but they still need that “gaze” in order to feel validated. :barf:
On the other hand, you want to be seen as a fully human non-object, and perhaps you want some economic power. (That was another good point, btw, by acknowledging that sexual and economic power are different.) So to get economic power, a woman may have to make herself less attractive.
That’s kind of where I’m at. I just graduated from college. I have very long, blonde hair, and I know it is part of my attractiveness. But now that I’m looking to start a career, it will be more of a hindrance. I don’t want to be the “piece of ass” at work. I want to be respected, and I have very high career goals. So yeah, some of my attractiveness will have to go.
But then let’s say I chop off my hair. I am not a whiny, insecure wimp, but yet I’m not strong 100% of the time. I’m sure shorter hair will make me think I’m not quite as good as the Cosmopolitan model I see on the supermarket shelf. I will still be attractive with short hair, but I won’t be “smokin hot”. I won’t obsess about it, cry, or consider suicide, but still… I will have to give something up.
I am engaged to a good man. He doesn’t say, “No, don’t cut your hair!” like some men do. He doesn’t look at playboy or go to strip bars or any of that crap. Yet despite his devotion, I can’t help but feel deep down that he will find me less attractive if I cut my hair.
So what I really wish more than anything is that I were a man. That way I could be both beautiful and successful. Please don’t confuse attractive with beautiful. Attractive women can be successful, but beautiful women will have a very hard time. Beautiful men do not have this limitation.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:19 am
someone. Women do not always have the option of choice. Go over to RAINN, and you can see that one in every six women in the United States has been the victim of a rape or attempted rape. Think about that next time you’re in a roomful of women, like in a classroom or at a club. Start counting heads. Then start thinking about the number of women who have been sexually attacked.
And this is in “modern, western society”. Go back to the original rape thread and follow the link I posted about the likelihood of a rapist being convicted, imprisoned, or of spending more than one year in prison. The odds aren’t in favor of the rape victim. I consider the palty, short sentences offered to the average rapist to be indicative of an acceptance of rape in this culture. If we didn’t accept it, we would demand mandatory, long sentences to keep rapists off the streets.
And again, yes, women have some ability to choose a lover in this culture. However, women do not have the option of keeping their sexual personae out of nonsexual situations. There is no neutral ground on which we can stand. And rape survivors didn’t choose a lover. They were raped, just as you would likely be raped in prison. And just as you would have no sexual power, the power resting in the ability of other men to force themselves upon you, women have no sexual power when confronted by a rapist, either. And we are of limited power (as individuals) to make our way through a culture that demands that women are sexual at all times. Hence, the need for a feminist movement, and a collective action that can effectively change the culture in a beneficial way. We have made gains. There’s still more work to do.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Wow. This is just stunning. Q Grrl’s comment #116 sums up 500 plus comments as well as can be done. And someone pays it no mind, thus adding credence to said comment - adding unneeded validation.
someone, we have heard what you have to say over and over and over again. What you have to say is opinion based on ignorance and inexperience. What you have to say is that your need to be right is so overwhelming that you will not listen to those who disagree with you nor will you address refutations of your sophmoric opinions. Your need to be 100% correct in all of your statements leads you to ignore the fact that you are a prime example of how our society condones rape.
So go back and read comment #116, read comment #90. Do you see any truth in them? You should. You have become a stereotypical, classic example - nay, a caricature of misogynistic white male privilege.
To take a page from your book… you should stop commenting here, go away, do some research and learn something about listening to others before you post anywhere ever again.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:29 am
“This is how you have Type C of sexual power, a larger choice of mates, and access to better mates. This doesn’t mean that you are guaranteed to find someone that you like and fits all of your criteria, but that you have a better chance at doing so than a less attractive woman.”
That is true in theory, and sometimes true in practice. But if you’re a hottie, you also have to watch out for men who only date you for your looks. It is harder to weed out the good ones.
Once I had my hair all in braids (like in the pic on my blog), and it made me less attractive. I didn’t have as many hot guys or rich frat boys hitting on me. BUT I noticed that shy, sweet men started to approach me more. You know, men I would actually be interested in! It didn’t matter because I was (and still am) engaged, but I made a mental note of it.
I eventually took the braids out because my business school peers treated me like a white trash piece of shit. (But I personally thought I looked cool and badass with the braids!)
Anyway, I think I hit on something with the piece-of-shit comment. I think women feel like they are pieces of shit if they are unattractive. And in some ways, society does treat them that way. So part of wanting to be attractive is not necessarily wanting “power and privilege” but wanting to NOT be a piece of shit.
Which then means that attractive women do at least have power and privilege over pieces of shit. If you can’t be valued for who you are, maybe you can at least be valued for your sexuality. Hey, that’s better than nothing!
Does that makes sense?
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:32 am
drumgurl
Thank you for making a wellwritten and reasonable post. Much appreciated.
I agree that there might be many insecure young women that obsess about their looks.
But I doubt that all of them (or a significant majority) really think this way.
If you look at young women as a whole, not all of them are so insecure and lacking self-esteem.
Many can be quite confident and quite demanding in what they want in a mate.
For some young women their looks might be something that makes them feel better about themselves, for some others it is like a “fun hobby”,
for more others it is just their way of life, because this is how they were raised, to believe that they should concentrate on their looks
and their goal should be to get a rich man and they don’t know any other way to behave.
And of course we should make a difference between women that concentrate on their looks to the point of obsession, and women that put some
effort into it but within reasonable borders. I think that the latter category would include the majority of women, especially when they get
a bit older (22+). (For teenage girls I can’t be so sure of which type there is more… In my area girls do try to be attractive, but within
borders… many are a bit chubby and they steal wear revealing clothes, many don’t use make up or use minimal make up, etc…)
I am not female, but I suspect that this kind of thing can be addictive…
And then she gets caught into a loop of having to be “hot” all the time, so that she feels the “high” of her hotness being acknowledged.
I’m not too sure about this though, please correct me if I am wrong…
Okay… so we can agree that being attractive can bring some positive advantages as well as some negative drawbacks.
It is possible to say that being more attractive (especially in a reserved way, instead of an openly sexual way… like long hair isn’t
something very openly sexual) at work would actually be beneficial in some ways… (social interactions), but whatever, it’s up to you to
decide.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:42 am
“I think women feel like they are pieces of shit if they are unattractive. ”
No they don’t. But they’re told they should.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:42 am
Yeah, so women have all this power, right? Yet who’s derailing and whining and bitching when he doesn’t get his way in thread after thread? NYMOM got asked to leave, but not this kid? It’s a feminist message board…yet it’s the trolls who are dominating?
Wow. Power.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:43 am
I’m going to address two major questions that I see here:
1. Does being attractive give you a form of power?
The obvious answer to this is yes, of course it does. But this is actually an overly simplistic, and hence rather pointless, question to be asking. What needs to be asked is; what form of power it provides an individual? That’s the far more informative and, I would argue, interesting, question to ask.
The piles of research and theorising out there show that the form of power that attractiveness, particularly in this case female attractiveness, is in actuality a ‘resistance’, in the Foucauldian sense. In other words, the imposition of power and oppression actually provides a space where those that are oppressed can exercise a form of power. However, ‘resistences’ are themselves, while a form of power, are highly tenuous, and intrinsically damaging, because they involve participating in the system that is oppressing you, in order to avail yourself of the space that is provided for you by that system (of course, this space may be your only option, but that’s another discussion).
This then leads on to the second question:
2. Does attractiveness as a form of power for a woman outweigh the oppressions in a patriarchal system?
The simple answer is no. By being a resistance it can only hope to claw a measure of disempowerment back. But moreover, the damages to women are considerable in ‘playing’ this game. For a start, it’s playing the game on the basis of rules that are designed to disempower you. By having women defined as sexual objects, and then becoming a sexual object in order to garner the power involved in acquiesing to and excelling at the rules of soceity, one becomes vulnerable (for want of a stronger word) to the consequences of ‘accepting’ the dehumanising positioning. Particularly in the way our society deals with objectification the dehumanisation involved means that you have less rights, and less safety, as an individual. Hence rape, hate crimes, etc.
Not only are such acts of violence an imposition of power over to ensure you, as an oppressed minority, are kept in your place if you are stepping out of it, but even if you ARE playing your ‘place’ then this does not afford you any more of a safety from the consequences, ie violence. Hence, attractiveness has nothing to do with these expressions of violence, but rather contributes as an imposition of power itself onto women to ensure that they are kept in a place where they can be raped, abused, etc … ie be made as ‘less’.
However, further, the consequences of TRYING to perform one’s ‘place’ (ie a woman ensuring that she is attractive) are considerable, on a societal level. The fact that minority women are only considered attractive in the mainstream if they conform to white beauty ideals, the fact that bodily ideals are causing women to diet themselves into death and disease, to perform dangerous modification surgeries not because they want to, but because they feel they have to, etc, etc all show that conforming to an oppressive and extreme narrow ideal is hardly empowering.
Finally, the obvious evidence is the lack of women in positions of power throughout the world. IF the sexual power of women outweighed the oppression in a patriarchal society then we would see women equally represented in society in positions of power. We simply don’t.
Anyone that honestly thinks that women somehow gain power over men through sexual power is showing their ignorance in thinking that somehow the playing field between men and women is level, and moreover, is actually seriously heterosexist.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Can I second both Q’s post #116, and Alsis’s post #112?
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:54 am
That is a nice point… but I still believe that having a larger pool of potential mates is better in the end.
It makes sense, no?
The same is true for a “rich” or “hot” guy, but I still would rather prefer to be rich and hot, and then I would simply avoid girls that look like they are interested only in my money or my looks, and talk to ones I like, and then I would have a better chance for them to like me back.
(Although for the type of girl I hope to meet money shouldn’t be a factor in looking for a sincere loving relationship at all, but whatever… It still would help me.)
Okay, so in your particular case, changing your hair style made you less attractive to “hot” and “rich” guys and more important “shy and
sweet” ones.
However there is two important points to remember…
1) “Hot” and “rich” guys usually are more successful with girls than “shy and sweet” ones (being shy is usually detrimental to success), so
from this we can conclude that more women prefer to attract “hot” and “rich” ones rather than “shy and sweet” ones.
2) If you are interested in some particular “shy and sweet” guy, you can try to get to know him and ask him out on your own, or you
can be a bit flirty and drop hints until he takes the initiative.
That means that your good looks which cause “hot” and “rich” guys to be attracted to you do not prevent you from getting with a “shy and
sweet” one which you are interested in!
This is important.
And furthermore, “shy and sweet” guys still are human, so they are more likely to be reciprocal to a more attractive woman.
This comment was written by someone.For example if this “shy and sweet” guy you were interested in (if we imagine that you are single) hated your face, that wouldn’t be very beneficial to you, right? Regardless of who you want to meet, it is always better to look good.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Typo fix: Okay, so in your particular case, changing your hair style made you less attractive to “hot”? and “rich”? guys and more attractive (perhaps because of looking more approachable?) to “shy and sweet”? ones.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Yes, that was true for me as a teenager. I was always aware of people looking at me. If I didn’t have a significant number of gazes, I thought something was wrong. And I tried harder the next time.
Thank God I grew out of it by 18. I will admit that it was all due to insecurity. But I sure wasted precious time in front of the mirror.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:00 am
Yes, I believe the “net benefit” is greater if you’re attractive. The rich and hot comment made me laugh my ass off.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:01 am
I see the male anti-feminists are still running riot over this “feminist” blog whilst feminists and anti-feminist women (like NYMOM) get banned.
How come you found her views and behaviour so much more offensive than that of someone’s or Aegis’ Ampersand?
I don’t think women feminists should be posting here. There ought to be some kind of sisterly solidarity. There are plenty of feminist blogs run by women who don’t give tacit support to anti-feminist men whilst banning women to choose from.
Just my two cents, FWIW.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:04 am
You know, something that’s really striking about these two is that they’re so young–and so sexist already. They’ve got all the tactics down, all the attitudes—where did that come from, anyway? They know enough to derail conversations about rape to conversations about female ‘power’. They go on and on about that stuff. Where does that come from? ‘
Because, hey, if they’re going to derail, I say we re rail it right back.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:05 am
“The same is true for a “rich”? or “hot”? guy, but I still would rather prefer to be rich and hot, and then I would simply avoid girls that look like they are interested only in my money or my looks, and talk to ones I like, and then I would have a better chance for them to like me back.
(Although for the type of girl I hope to meet money shouldn’t be a factor in looking for a sincere loving relationship at all, but whatever… It still would help me.)”
If you are dating girls, you are a pedophile.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:06 am
Thinking more about it, maybe it is better to use a term like “sexual advantage” or just my older term “alpha”…
This comment was written by someone.The term “sexual power” implies that it is something that you can directly apply to perform some tasks, but it has a different nature. It’s more like a “boost” to your capabilities in the areas that it concerns.
It isn’t guaranteed to work and it isn’t very reliable (unless you are extremely attractive), so the word “power” is not such a good choice.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:08 am
Sorry Alsis38.9 I didn’t refresh the thread before I made my post so I missed yours.
What you said.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:20 am
I’m going now, more replies later. (To Sarah in Chicago, and La Lubu and others.)
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Another vote for #116 and #112.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Ginmar,
It’s something that is taught to little boys - the derailing thing, I mean. So for someone it isn’t a tactic brought to bear (bare?) just here. It’s part of his method of social interaction. Hey! I wanna talk about this! Listen, listen, listen to me!!!
If you’re looking to end this as a predominant characteristic in men, you not only have to point it out to those doing it and insist that they stop, you also need to stop it being taught as a good way to interact to little boys.
More worrisome to me is that he takes conclusions drawn solely on his own experience and holds them as articles of faith. They are unshakeably, unquestionably true. And if something is brought up that would bring them into question distraction & misdirection and false hurt (”ad hom, ad hom, don’t twist my words”) is used. Those are characteristics of fundamentalism (fundamentalism need not only be of the religious variety).
Has anybody actually done a count of how many comments someone has made in these two threads? I’m going to guess at 200. Talk about dominating a conversation and trying to win through application of a blunt, metal object.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Yet more examples from someone of the, “I’m not talking to you if you don’t follow my rules,” thing.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:25 am
A quick reply to drumgurl
So I was right… nice.
Do you think your parents could have done something to help you?
Ok, so we agree. :)
And now I’m really gone…
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:27 am
I think this thread is different, though. I’ll quote Amp:
The whole point of this thread is to address points by both La Lubu and Aegis. I mean, let’s say you were quoted on a MRA blog. Wouldn’t you feel compelled to participate in the debate? Wasn’t Amp basically encouraging people on both sides to participate? And didn’t he ultimately agree with you?
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Jake -
Really good points and examples :)
I also noticed this:
So, not only “I’m not going to play if I can’t make the rules” but also should you ‘win’ on the basis of his rules, then “I’m going to change the rules on you”.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:34 am
In addition to #112 and #116, I’d like to post a vote for #120. heh.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:35 am
“Do you think your parents could have done something to help you?”
Yeah, they could have not been ultra-conservative fruit loops. Haha!
But seriously, I think think everyone here (including the MRAs) would agree that parents can help their daughters by encouraging them to develop as people, rather than encouraging them to be just the cute little princess.
Because there’s another thing besides attractiveness that is a guy magnet: you are an interesting person. Not that getting a guy is everything, but a good relationship is at least worth something.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Is this what the boys tell you over at SYG? To twist things around to make the man look like the victim? That Someone is just here defending his good name or some such rubbish?
Please.
If I were quoted on a MRA blog I would ignore it.
What I will do here is to point out the blatent tactics of a misogynist.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:48 am
I haven’t been to SYG in a long time, but so what? I’ll take an MRA over a conservative anyday. Some of them are actually pretty nice.
How did I make the men victims? By pointing out that it appeared to me that they were invited to discuss this?
I also wouldn’t do something just because a boy told me to!
And lastly, I think that when someone said ‘power’ wasn’t the right word to use, I think he was trying to say maybe y’all have a point about women not having having real power through their sexuality.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:58 am
I feel you’re being overly-optimistic, Drumgurl. I think MRAs are only capable of having feeling for their daughters if they ARE cute little princesses.
You know, there are some interesting topics going on here, but the derailing and constant demands for attention are making any truly productive dialogue impossible (which is, I very much suspect, the whole point).
So…..I’m off to indulge my raging libido (heh, heh) with some nice, sweaty thoughts about my newest Sex-Beast Lust Object……
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:05 am
No, the claim being made was that when someone has the social right to insult you, and make graphic comments about the violently sexual things they want to do to your body, then they have greater power than you. They believe themselves to be superior to you. They’re using verbal abuse to reinforce the unequal relationship: you’re the worthless object to be used, and they’re the one that uses you. To the extent that society condones their verbal abuse and harassment, and offers you neither protection nor support, they’re right. This stuff is normal, ubiquitous; I doubt you can find a woman who hasn’t suffered it at one point or another. These men know that it’s perfectly okay to harass women, and that no one is going to speak up and tell them they’re out of line.
Have you ever had some strange w0man–or man–talk about how he’d like to rape you? Ever been groped? Would that make you feel sexually powerful?
Remember how before you talked about how important it was to distinguish between different kinds of power and advantage? Why are you conflating them now?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:18 am
So many examples, but I want to share two juxtaposed in my mind when I dwell on the subject.
One morning in Brooklyn I put on baggy sweats and an old shirt to go across 6-lane McGuinness Blvd for a pint of milk for coffee. As I was in the middle partition waiting to get the rest of the way home a man in a van stopped at the light smiled wide and started wagging his tongue at me. Without thinking I threw the milk, and when it hit his half open window it exploded all over him and then fell onto the street. Then quickly the light had changed and he had to go so I laughingly picked up the empty box and went to get another milk. It was so worth it.
Same crossing a few months later, I’m on my way home from work and decide to get myself a sweet treat. Waiting in the middle I see a car full of boys who looked barely able to drive, maybe 15-16, pull up to the light. I brace myself and wait for the inevitable when one boy in the back points at me and says to his friends, “Hey! She’s got an Italian ice.”
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:23 am
To continue with the tactics of derailment and assumptions made from male privilege/MRA point of views….
Aegis from comment #103 on the old thread:
Tactic #8 c. Compare rape to divorce as a way to belittle the social control exerted by rape. Or perhaps as a way to claim that women have social control via their huge advantage in divorce.
Tactic #8 d. Take as given that women always “win” (take more than their share/take everything) in divorce.
That line was, to me, the dead giveaway as to where Aegis’ sympathies lie - particularly tactic 8d. It states as fact that wives “screwing over” husbands in divorce is both the standard for divorce and common.
600 comments worth of this crap has left me feeling the need for a very long, very hot shower.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:29 am
If women had more sexual power than men, we wouldn’t consistently, as a whole, “settle” for men less attractive than us. If you think of the extreme exemplars of female “beauty” - young models, actresses and ‘trophy wives’ - they have an unfortunate tendency to be paired up vastly older, physically decrepit, often repulsive, and possibly impotent males. YUCK. Not a high quality choice of mate material there.
Then there’s the “According to Jim” phenomenon, which encourages men to believe they have the ability to attract a beautiful, younger women in spite of their own physical unattractiveness, boorish personality, or even their earning potential. Research shows that while women consistently underrate their own attractiveness, men consistently overrate their own. So even when we’re more attractive than they are, they’re less likely to recognize it - and less likely to accept women equally (or less) attractive than they are. Women have equally lowered expectations of men (physically speaking) so we’re not choosing “better” mates even if we are believed beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder all right: the beholder who has come to expect more attractiveness from women than men.
But none of this is apparent in high school. Dating there is a truly bizarre ritual that has no relation to the real world.
This comment was written by michelle b..Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:29 am
someone, you keep focusing on how “sexual power” or “sexual attractiveness” or “sexual advantage” or whatever the hell you feel like calling it, operates within a potential dating relationship, which is, of course, its proper context.
Why do you keep avoiding discussion on how it operates outside of that context? You know, how it operates in the rest of life?! For most adults, the dating scene is a miniscule aspect of their total lives. In the meantime, we have employment, higher education, community work, clubs, hobbies/avocations/interests, our family and/or children, our children’s activities and education, mundane everyday/every week chores, our health, our finances, our home, our spiritual life and intellectual growth, etc. to carry on with. And like it or not, our perceived sexual power or attractiveness intrudes on all these other spheres as well as its proper one. This isn’t the case for men.
It’s very telling that Redneck Feminist has to make decisions about her personal appearance lest her personal appearance take precedence over her job qualifications and performance. How many men have ever thought that their employer would either find them too handsome or too ugly for a job? Other than models or actors, I can’t think of any. But this is a universal concern of women in the job force, even where appearance is irrelevant to the job description.
Personally, my answer to the “is sexual attractiveness a positive or negative”, I’d say 10-15% positive, 85-90% negative, mostly because of the weight it is given in contexts where it is irrelevant.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Are you so sure that these are mutually exclusive terms ?
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:44 am
I’m going to generalize a bit, but I was surprised to find that most MRAs are not conservatives. That’s something I learned from visiting SYG.
I had previously assumed MRAs would be all like, “Women should just get married, have babies, and stay home.” So it was a shock to find out that they don’t generally think that, and in fact they think women should be a little more independent and take responsibility for themselves.
And you know what? I agree.
Sorry I derailed there. I just wanted to respond to alsis.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:50 am
NYMom and Someone are both people who were borderline cases, and I was considering banning both of them the day I banned NYMom.
In NYMom’s case, a regular “Alas” reader had emailed me suggesting she be banned, so I banned her. In Someone’s case, a different reader suggested to me that, so long as responses to Someone don’t dominate more than one thread at a time, he should be allowed to continue. Both readers are people whose judgement I trust, and as I said, I was borderline in both cases anyway. Honestly, that’s all there was to it.
I think that Someone’s presence has led to some really good posts and observations from people responding to Someone, so I don’t regret not banning him. But if we want to say “enough’s enough” and move on, that’s cool with me too.
It sounds like the consensus here is in favor of banning “Someone.”
Someone, from now please don’t post any more comments to any thread started by me on “Alas.” I know this will disappoint you, but you’ve already posted 149 times here, so you’ve had a more than ample opportunity to state your views. (It’s up to Pseudo-Adrienne whether or not you can post on her threads).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:57 am
someone says
I will agree that sexual power is about one’s “value” in the world of dating and relationship. What you seem to be missing, however, is that the higher a woman’s sexual power, the lower her value as a person. Female sexual power, by definition, is dehumanizing. Female sexual power silences women.
First example - when I was fourteen, I took a summer class in typing at the local high school, because it wasn’t offered at my jr. high. One day, as I’m halfway to school, crossing this big field, a guy I’d met precisely twice before grabbed me and started kissing me and feeling me up. He informed me that he was a star wrestler, and that I was going to be his girlfriend. I informed him that my tastes ran to skinny bespectacled geeks who read a lot, and I had no interest what-so-ever in being his girlfriend, thank you very much. He insisted that I only said this because of a “poor self-image,” that he was going to make me popular and happy, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
No matter what I said, this guy “translated” it to fit his preconceived notions. “No” meant “yes.” “Not interested” became “interested but won’t admit it.” “You’re not my type” becaome “she’s just shy.” Many feminists argue that pornography “silences women.” This is what they mean. The woman is only allowed to say what the man wants to hear - even if what she actually says is completely different. Pornography that plays with the rape myth tells the story of a woman who says no, but ultimately means yes. That is what this guy was doing to me. He was insisting that whatever I said meant what he wanted it to mean.
Another real life example of how a woman’s sexual power silences her. I was not one of the “popular kids,” partly because I had little interest in being one, but one of my good friends was exactly what you describe when you are discussing a woman with a lot of sexual power. She was a cute, feminine blonde, popular, intelligent, cheerleader, upper middle class, dressed conservatively but was perceived as sexy. The guys I hung out with - who, like me, were NOT socially powerful - said she was the most beautiful girl in the school. What did all this sexual power get her?
Well, in 10th grade it got her raped by most of the guys on the football team. She was dating one of them, he slipped her something stronger than she was used to, then passed her around to his buddies. When she told people about it, most of her friends basically said she got what she deserved - if you’re going to be beautiful, them’s the hazards. Mind you, she did not disagree - she accepted that this is just the way the world is. When I pointed out that being pretty is no excuse for rape, she said I was probably right, but what can you do about it?
Nothing. There is nothing a beautiful woman can do about it. From her perspective, and in her experience, woman’s “sexual power” means that she does NOT get to choose her mate. If she was not interested in the most “alpha” guy around - tough. If said alpha guy laid claim to her, she was stuck, because he viewed her as his property, and any guy hanging around too close would be chased off. In high school, at any rate, if said alpha male was on a sports team, not only would he monitor her activities - his buddies would monitor her activities. If she was interested in another guy, she had no chance of talking to him or getting to know him.
Of course, once you get past high school (and college, in some cases, but she deliberately went to a college that did NOT have any sports teams), this male control is less blatantly obvious. But it’s often still there. Look at Kathleen Parker’s story (on the web). John Rushie’s harrassment of his ex-wife’s family. Paul Corey. Eric Bleicken. A dear friend’s husband, who called everyone on her side of the family (including me, a non-relative) to tell them what a whore she was when she left him - this despite the fact that his adultery had so destroyed her reproductive system she had to have a hysterectomy and ovariectomy at 27.
Another friend, whose husband used to rape her when she was unconscious from the drugs they were using to help her sleep - this despite the fact that she was undergoing radiation treatments for her cancer and despite the fact that she was in constant pain and his rapes only exacerbated it. Yes, she’s blonde, long-legged, charming, and popular. What did all this “sexual power” get her? Abuse, plain and simple.
Most of the kids at my second high school were upper middle class. I used to hang out with actors, artists, engineers in the aerospace industry, millionaires who owned their own company. I’ve talked to the “beautiful people” of both sexes. Men who are beautiful complain that “she dumped me because I shaved my head” or “I never know whether she likes me for my self or for my looks or for my cash.” Women who are beautiful worry about being raped, about being abused, about ending up in a marriage to someone who will try to completely control them.
Again, men have access to sexual power, too - more access, through more channels, than women do. And the risk of sexual power for men is minimal. For women, sexual power is often outright dangerous. For women, sexual power is as disempowering as it is empowering. A woman weilding sexual power is easily silenced.
Ted writes:
Yes. I don’t know Amp’s reasons for letting someone blather on, but at minimum someone is demonstrating precisely the problem many women face. Rape exists primarily because a man decides that his version of reality is more important than the woman’s - he decides he gets to tell her what reality is. Whatever his motives (sex, power, anger), a rapist’s reality is that the woman’s sexiness somehow justifies his treatment of her. Everytime a male non-rapist treats a woman as a sex object, rather than a person, he is supporting the rapist perspective.
Arguing that a woman’s sexual power in any way “evens things out” between the sexes is to miss the point entirely. A woman’s sexual power is used to justify rape; a woman’s sexual power is used to silence her; a woman’s sexual power is used to dehumanize her. The fact that some women manage to use their sexual power in some instances to their benefit doesn’t change any of this.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Post #162. Hands down.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:18 am
This was a thread about rape so this is not a meaningless complaint. Moreover, Amp made it explicitly clear that posters were to
Predictable attempt to dismiss the original topic though … yet again.
If you don’t wish to discuss it maybe you should stop dominating the thread - or even stick to your statement a zillion posts and five days ago that you were going to stop posting.
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Perhaps we can request a new thread in which we return to the subject of rape culture (even though I still don’t like the term) as defined by Q grrl about 450 posts ago. I find the viewpoints of Q grrl, La Lubu and others quite interesting on this subject which I suddenly find myself quite concerned about (after reading all this). I’m sure I could peice together their viewpoints through all the mess of these posts but with all the responding, fussing, etc… I haven’t the time or energy.
Any seconds on the notion???
Perhaps it could be titled something along the lines of “how pre-puberty education influences the sexual dynamics between men and women in the modern workplace”. Sexual dynamics should probably be changed to something else, but I cannot think of it right now.
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:32 am
“On Rape Culture” would be clearer.
There’s already a discussion going on here, but this thread is getting long, so maybe starting a new thread would be a good idea.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Hm.
Would it be pre-emptively hijacking and diverting attention from rape to vote for a thread on sexual entitlement and its opposite? With a focus on how these dynamics support rape and/or rape culture, including harassment and objectification?
Then maybe discuss what we remember from childhood and adolescence? I’d like to talk about what we were taught. And I’m interested in questions about what women and men believe. I just don’t want these things to be analyzed out of the context of a society in which men frequently rape women.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Could people suggest a particular post (or two or three) they’d like me to quote from when starting the new thread? Preferably, stating the post number so I can find it easily?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:56 am
I like Piny’s idea. A quote from Shiloh’s #162 would work, or maybe one of La Lubu’s posts from the thread that this came out of, maybe #2.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:58 am
“Post #162. Hands down”.
Here! Here!
To answer the question Amp posted at top:
“Do boys and men feel more lust than girls and women do?”
Well, as Amp said, it’s not really something you can measure, but I’d say logic, eveolutionary theory and personal experience argue that at the most we are more alike than we are different. Just as the overlap between test scores for boys and girls on both verbal and math portion of the SAT is far greater than the small difference that gets played up, whatever differences there are betweeen the strength of male and female desire don’t amount to much, if any exists at all.
Now, boys and men certainly express more lust than girls and women do, but that’s obviously due to the fact that female sexuality is still repressed and frowned upon.
“Do girls and women have more “sexual power”??”
Hell, no. A “power” that’s as likely to harm you as help you isn’t much of a “power.” Women are more likely to “use” their sexual power in more overt ways than men because that’s their socially acceptable option. Period.
And I’d just like to second this comment by La Lubu:
“In high school, I’d have rather died than admit I jilled off, let alone admit the frequency of said jilling off! Now, I don’t give a shit.”
And thanks ever so much, La Lubu, for good ammunition the next time my brother tries to argue the ” women’s sexual drive doesn’t mature until late 20’s or early 30’s”? crap. God, I want to kick him every time he says that. I’d already promised myself that the next time he did he would subjected to a very detailed description of my first orgasm at age 13. I figure it’ll hurt him more than it will hurt me.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
[shrug] I appreciate the response, drumgrrl. It’s not what I’ve observed, but perhaps I’m imagining a different definition of conservative than you are. In any case, even men with radical politics can have remarkably retrograde views about women’s rights. Hell, some of those have been the worse cases I’ve ever seen.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Let’s substitute getting hit over the head by a lead pipe for sexually offensive comments and acts. Suppose that the more aggressive or suggestive a comment or act directed at you is, the harder the lead pipe hits your head. Suppose that this begins when you are a teenager (a conservative beginning, yes?) and continues on a daily basis for most of your adult life. Someone, if this were happening to you, would you be angry and/or upset if just walking down the street got you bopped on the head? Would you be angry or upset if you got bopped on the head just for showing up at work, attending meetings, getting coffee? Could you conceive that people would try to avoid situations where they would feel the lead pipes on their noggins? Now suppose that calling attention to the fact that your head is sore (or cracked open, or bleeding) is treated with surprise, or that it’s somehow your fault, or that somehow you have control over who gets to hold the lead pipe. Not fun or fair, is it?
The argument that women’s sexual power gives them an advantage in dealing with men is just another version of the “men are ruled by their dicks” theory of social interaction. What, aren’t adult men supposed to be able to control themselves when in the presence of potentially sexually available women? A real man uses his brain, treats everyone like intelligent human beings (unless proven otherwise), and saves the mating dance for the proper context. Ditto for real women. Too bad too many people are taught otherwise.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
La Lubu:
I’ll second that one, too.
Shiloh:
And it’s no coincidence at all that this is silencing of women and attempting to force a male-defined version of reality is EXACTLY what’s being done by the 2 posters here who are claiming that society doesn’t condone rape.
I’d be interested in a new thread about sexual entitlement & how it is related to rape culture too, btw.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Alsis, sad but true. People often hold contradictory ideas. But while I can’t remember my socialist group ever having to expel someone for racist behavior, I can remember several times we’ve had to expel men for sexist behavior. And the less severe cases are also not unfrequent.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Rape Culture and the Myth of “Female Sexual Advantage”.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Hi there…
Let’s make a little post.
Stuff about MRAs:
I’m not an MRA, although I think that they have some valid points. (And so do feminists.)
A major problem that I have with MRAs is that they have a tendency to minimize statistics about rape or spouse abuse, and they seem to have this idea of a huge conspiracy to make overinflated statistics.
I see little reason to trust what MRAs say over official statistics…
And another problem that I have with both MRAs and feminists is that they are “gender warriors”, which is annoying and misses the point.
It is impossible to ever cause some positive change towards reduction of sexism if you view the opposite sex as “the enemy”.
Stuff about myself “dominating the discussion”:
It is true that I make a lot of posts, much more that most of the other posters here. Why? Because I am actually trying to be a decent debate opponent and respond to people’s posts. That’s why.
In this light these accusations about me “taking over” make no sense. I make lots of posts because I try to answer as many people as possible, and I am one against many. (Aegis is apparently dead or something.)
This comment
by Jake Squid is offensive, sexist, and uncalled for.
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Oh hey… post 161 eh.
So am I still allowed to post in this thread or what?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Just a confession here. I was the person who suggested to Amp that what I’ve come to think of as the “someone thread” be allowed to continue, so long as it didn’t spill over onto other threads and come to dominate the entire blog.
I hope it’s okay for me to break the “no meta” rule by ‘fessing up to that, as well as to smash into tiny pieces Amp’s delicate attempt at anonymity, but I was feeling very uneasy (and a tad guilty) that some people seemed to have come to the conclusion that Amp’s decision must have been due to his inherent respect for the almighty phallus, or something like that. No. Really, guys. No. It was my fault. Mea culpa.
As for why I personally thought the conversation, as profoundly irritating as I was personally finding it, nonetheless had some value…
Yeah. Thanks, Ted. That was exactly one of my reasons. I thought that the thread itself was serving as a rather nice demonstration of a number of the gender dynamics which, IMO, are a large part of what allows rape to continue to flourish.
Also, I thought that it was reaping such awesome posts from some people–La Lubu leaps to mind–that I felt the thread had value on that count alone.
Which isn’t to say that it didn’t make me want to throw things across the room at times…
I’ve found this thread both infuriating and fascinating. From a debate over whether or not society condones rape, we’ve gone to something almost like a dramatic illustration of all of the subtler and more nuanced (if still very ugly) ways in which gender expectations and stereotypes serve to condone rape. Sort of like a Rape Culture Passion Play, if you will. Even when you know exactly who’s going to get crucified in the end, watching all of the nasty dynamics play out can still make for a profound experience.
Anyway, I’m sorry that my lurkerish judgement call proved so contrary to the consensus desire of readers far much more active in these discussions than I am. I didn’t mean to cause trouble.
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
And I present post 177 as evidence that Jake Squid was right on target…
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Elkins, I agree that not banning someone has served a larger purpose.
He reminds me of my younger brother in lot of ways when he was in high school (although said brother would be insulted by this comparison). I still remember THE FIGHT we had during my first visit back home after having left for college. It involved a lot of me yelling and I came pretty close to throwing things. I think it was the first fight my mother moderated between the two of us since I was, like, 9 or so. I also know that I really scared him with my anger. Not my tears or how upset I was, but my flat out, screaming at the top of my lungs RAGE. It had been a couple of years since I’d been able to scare him (I’m three years older, so it was pretty easy when he was, like, five). It was also…instructive, and a little bit liberating, to see him to completely taken aback by my anger alone. It was also gratifying to finally see him so obviously care about how I felt again after several hellish years of our once great relationship having gone down the toilet.
I’m sharing this not to digress, but because the subject of THE FIGHT was pretty similar to the topics that someone was constantly steering the discussion towards, and his debate style was pretty similar as well. The topic was sexism and my brother kept trying to argue (if my memory serves) that, what with all the gains women have made, gender stereotypes now harm boys as much as, or more, girls. (In the boys have it worse than girls way, not the, everybody pays for gender sterotypes way). Not the best fight to pick with someone who had just spent four months at a liberal all-women’s college. Needless to say, I called bullshit - LOUDLY. He tried to draw sweeping conclusions based on his limited experience. I called bullshit - LOUDLY and with my experience, and a lot more data, to back me up. He finally listened, but that was with his sister yelling at him, and his mother telling him to shut up and actually listen every once in a while - and backing me up when he twisted words or tried attacking me personally, or accused me of attacking him when I flat out said he was wrong. And even at that, it took a while (like months) for us both to calm down and really debate the topic properly.
So, I hold out hope for someone, because he’s young, and at least interested in the topic, if still only on his terms. I fear it will take, however, and all out screaming at the top of her lungs FIGHT with a woman he repects and loves for much of this to really start sinking in. I hold out hope for him because he’s said nothing to make me think that he is consiously mysigonistic, and so there is probably a woman like that in his life or his future.
In the meantime, we do the best we can, and figure its at least instructive for the rest of us.
Athough I also think that by the time people started complaining, that it was getting to be a bit much, (but then I’m not a regular poster either). When it comes to privileged boys, there comes a point where you need to show them the extent of their sense of entitlement by demonstrating the limits of their own rights and letting them come to grips with how that differs from what they assumed they were.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
And just in case someone is still reading:
someone says:
Oh, the hell it is. Not when your posts are repeatedly peppered (or consist only of) you complaining about how boring the conversation is, how its not worth your time, how no one is taking you seriously because you aren’t agreeing with them, and how you can tell this is so because they aren’t agreeing with you, or refuting you point by point, and other peoples requests to be addressed as adults are simply thrown out there in an effort to bring you down.
If repeatedly belittling others and their conversation, all the while continuing to not only engage in said discussion but also issue orders to others isn’t a prime example of entitlement, then, entitlement must not exist.
Listen up, ’cause this is important: labeling a statement, act, or person as sexist or privileged is not always an accusation or insult. It’s also not a command to act a certain way (although people have the right to their own opinions of you if you don’t - and the site owner can do whatever the hell he or she wants). Sometimes labeling something as sexist is just an opinion or point in a debate; after all, its a little hard to debate sexism without identifying what is and isn’t sexist. The fact that you refer to Jake Squid’s comment as not only sexist, but uncalled for, suggests you are having trouble with this concept, as if simply labeling as sexist a particular type of behaviour that isn’t also illegal is hitting below the belt. It’s not, and I suggest you wrap your head around this idea before you venture onto any more blogs or chatrooms, feminist or otherwise.
And I realise it is hitting below the belt to post this when someone isn’t allowed to post back, so I’ll understand if it gets deleted. I just felt like it needed to be said. again.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
RE Comment #177, I vote Someone should no longer be allowed to post here.
I’m tired of people derailing and dominating discussions of feminist thought on feminist blogs and have taken to banning consistent, long-term anti-feminist commenters frm my own blog. Not because I don’t value debate, but because they find it necessary to define the terms of debate on spaces intended for feminist discussion they are not invested in maintaining.
I’m done with it and will no longer tolerate it in the name of inclusiveness. It makes the entire experience of blogging, reading, and commenting less enjoyable for me. Especially on Alas, which is usually a wonderful ground for debate and feminist rhetoric. And to see these kids (which is what they are) attempt to actually redefine classical rhetoric for the purpose of stroking their own egos is telling of their experience, knowledge, and investment in the discussion. Nil.
And I do find it incredibly irritating that NYMOM was asked to leave while Someone et al is allowed to continue bloviating on so much utter bullshit.
Should we allow our feminist space to be their pseudo-intellectual playground? Nope.
This comment was written by Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 4:52 am
I’d like to see a larger purpose served then by allowing the feminist and anti-feminist women who were previously banned from this blog reinstated.
That would be funnie, Paige and NYMOM. Ampersand gives a platform to anti-feminist men whilst banning feminist women. Women being silenced by a man is not good for feminism.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 1:33 am
Hi everyone, I’m back (nasty research paper).
I’ve been rather dismayed by most of the comments in this thread, because most people seem to have thoroughly missed the point I was making. But I’m really cheerful today, so it’s ok.
My explanation of how beauty leads to sexual power, and what sexual power is, began when several people in the previous thread asked how beauty could grant a woman privilege/power in any way. In this thread, I have been trying to answer that question. (I’ve also claimed that women have more sexual power than men, but let’s leave that alone for now and deal with my main claim first.)
My answer is simple: Being beautiful gives women gain more, and higher quality, choices in mates. It gives the option to expend less energy in pursuing a mate. It gives them the power to influence the feelings and emotions of others (although influencing someone’s emotions may not translate into influencing their behavior). In other words, beauty gives women choices with men, and influence on men. Is everyone with me so far?
If you have more choices than someone else in a certain context, then you have more privileges than they do in that context. If you have more influence than someone else in a certain context, then you have more power than they do in that context. Still with me?
Choices grant privileges. Influence grants power. Beauty grants choices and influence. Therefore beauty grants privileges and power. Of course, these privileges and power only apply to certain contexts. That’s all my argument is saying. Now I will clarify a bunch of points of confusion.
As I have been saying all along, the sexual power that beauty grants is very limited. Sexual power does not necessarily translate into social or economic power. In fact, beauty can lead women to have negative social or economic power. I have been very consistent on this point:
The strange thing about this thread is that most posters keep pointing out that sexual power does not add up to socioeconomic power. But that’s what I’ve been saying all along!! It’s really weird to get beaten over the head with a point that you have already made several times. Several people responded with “sure, beauty does give advantages, BUT…” and they described all the disadvantages of beauty (objectification, less respect in the workplace, etc…). Yet when you think about it, that is not a counter to my argument, but actually agrees with me.
I think I agree with many of the posters here that beauty has advantages in some contexts, and heavy disadvantages in other contexts. So what is the problem here?
Btw, here are a few others points that people brought up:
1. “Beauty doesn’t give women power over men in general.” Well, yes. I’ve never claimed it does.
2. “Physical attractiveness gives men power too.” True. But it doesn’t contradict my argument that beauty gives women a type of power at all. Also, it’s pretty obvious that physical attractiveness gives men less power than it gives women, because males are more affected by looks than females (I cited research for this in the last thread).
3.”The standards for beauty are really damaging to women.” I agree. Does it contradict my argument? No. Think of it like this: the standards for making lots of money can be damaging to people (though perhaps not as bad as beauty). Does that mean their money is useless and gives them no economic power once they make it? Obviously not.
4. “Some men treat beautiful women as just a piece of ass or harass them.” True. Again, this doesn’t contradict my argument. I stated pretty explicitly that sexual power does not necessarily grant respect. That’s not what it is for: it is for attracting mates. To use my analogy about wealth: people might be exposed to all sorts of risks when they become richer. They are more in risk of getting robbed or scammed, and people might look down on them and assume they are dishonest. But do those risks mean that they have less economic power? Obviously not. I’m not trying to imply that rich people are treated as badly as beautiful women. The point is this: if certain power or privileges you have cause negative side effects in other areas, it doesn’t make your power less real (even if the negative side effects outweigh any benefits your power might give you).
5. “Only beautiful women have these advantages, and only when they are young.” Of course. My argument says that beautiful women have more sexual power, so of course only young/beautiful women have these advantages. This point is a good counterargument to my claim that women have more sexual power, but it doesn’t counter my argument that beauty grants women sexual power in the first place.
6. “Overall, sexual power isn’t actually very useful: the disadvantages cancel out the advantages.” Maybe, although some people might not agree. Though again, this doesn’t contradict my argument. All I am saying is that sexual power has some advantages. That’s all. I am making no claims about whether those advantages outweigh the disadvantages or not, because I can’t really know that. It’s possible to make the analogous claim that making money isn’t worth the effort either, but that doesn’t mean that money doesn’t grant economic power.
I hope this clears things up a bit!
P.S. I will respond to specific posts in a future post…
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 2:07 am
Aegis, this thread actually moved on to a new thread:
Rape Culture and the Myth of “Female Sexual Advantage”?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Thanks. I thought that this thread was for discussion of the sexual power issues, and that thread for was for discussion of issues around rape…
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Aegis, the reason you got the responses you did is because the actual point you are claiming is trivial and not disagreed with. Are there any situations in which a beautiful person has a sexual advantage over a non-beautiful person? Yes, obviously. However, when you make a trivial point as though it were significant, you should expect people to respond to you as though you thought the trivial point were significant. When that is the case, it is completely reasonable for them to respond by providing context to your trivial point, which changes the meaning of the trivial point. This is what people have done in response to your argument that beautiful women have some degree of sexual power. Your response of “No, no, let me totally ignore the context so that I can restate at length my trivial point, making several grandeous claims along the way that I promise to actually provide any support to at some later date,” is unworthy of the responses you received.
Your trivial point has been granted. Try looking at the context for a bit instead. How do you think sexual power interconnects with rape culture?
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Charles, thanks for trying to explain the reactions I got in this thread. I will keep your explanation in mind, although I disagree with you on a few points.
First, it wasn’t obvious to me that my point wasn’t disagreed with. Second, whether the point is trivial or not is a matter of opinion. I happen to agree with you: the claim that beauty grants sexual power is obvious. Yet I didn’t want to assume that everyone else thinks something is obvious just because I think it is. I assumed that since several people were asking what kind of power or privileges beauty granted women, that the question was not a completely trivial one, and deserved a serious answer. They asked, I answered. Simple as that. And yes, I am glad that they provided context to the disadvantages of beauty standards and the tendency to view women in a sexual manner.
I had to restate my “trivial” point over and over because some people seemed to be misunderstanding it. Because I wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page with me, and I because I don’t have infinite time and energy, I haven’t yet been able to explain my claim that women have more sexual power. Cut me some frickin’ slack. Do me the courtesy of reading my posts with charity, instead of making assumptions. This request applies to everyone.
Perhaps I will attempt to answer that question in the other thread. First, I should probably explain why females have more sexual power than males…
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Please not again… You already explained it well enough in post 6 in this thread. What do you expect - that everyone should tell you how absolutely right you are (and you are sometimes right)… While you actually refuse to discuss any other topic than the ones you have started, and keep self-quoting and repeating your own posts over and over again. I think you should realize by now that commentors here are under no oligation to discuss only talking points approved or started by you (and they havent, the discussion has evolved from that, I think).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Charles summed it up nicely and more eloquantly.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Or, if you are going to explain how women have more sexual power than men, please explain how in a manner that rebuts all of the arguments that have been put forth about how that sexual power (in your limited and specific sense) is totally overwhelmed by the larger issues surrounding it. Also, on the trivial level, please be sure to rebut cranefly’s “stable marriage” mathematical argument that utterly blew away your “being the passive participant in courtship equals power” argument. Also, Elkins point concerning the severe disadvantages of beauty and clothing as primary modes of communication. Also, please stop treating the category women as equivalent to beautiful women (it makes your arguments even more irrelevant). Furthermore, even within your trivial technical point, you are actually restricting yourself to the even more trivial point that women gain more sexual power (in your trivial sense) from beauty than men do. This is in no way equivalent to what you claim to be arguing: which concerns whether men or women have more sexual power. If you absolutely must address that point again, please be sure that you are fully taking into account all sources of sexual power.
In fact, for the sake of argument, let me grant you the point and ask that we move on: given that you believe that women have more sexual power than men (in the specific sense that individual women on average have a greater choice of mates), how do you think this relates to rape culture?
Oh, and can we continue this discussion here rather than in the other thread for the moment? Unless you are interested in actually being on the same page (conceptually) with the current topics of that discussion, I think this would merely be a distraction from a really good discussion.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2005 at 9:01 pm
No I didn’t. I explained why beauty led to sexual power, not why women have more sexual power.
Tuomas, I have been on topic the entire thread, so lay off. Last thread, I was the bad guy for digressing; now it looks like I am the bad guy for staying on topic. Apparently, I can’t win. Sure I’ve repeated myself a lot… what would you do if you felt that people were misunderstanding your point?
Charles, thanks for being mostly civil. I will attempt to answer your questions, though it will take several posts because I am trying to cut down on my post length.
Sure. First, I should explain why the issue of sexual power is so important. If it is indeed true that women have more sexual power than men, then that gap in sexual power can cause feelings or resentment and powerlessness in men. Those feelings may well translate into misogyny, especially when you add in a few rejections or bad experiences with women. In fact, we know that a lot of misogynist arguments are based on the perception that women have more sexual power than men. If that perception has any basis in reality, which I think it does, then leveling the playing field should be a goal of anyone serious about combatting misogyny.
I used to be very bitter about women (and still has some issues in that area today), and I have felt misogyny developing in myself, and in other males both in real life and online. Sources of this misogyny are difficulties in dating/romance, resentment of perceived female sexual power, and negative experiences with women. Those all reinforce each other. This misogyny fans the flames of a few legitimate issues into a bonfire of resentment. For examples check out:
NiceGuy’s Rant
The Ladder Theory
Both of those sites are a testament to the screwed-up nature of gender roles, and those are only two of many. They identify very real problems, but the mistake they make is blaming women for those problems. My theory is that:
1. The current system of gender roles causes (young) men to lack sexual power, as I defined it above. Certain aspects of male socialization not only fail to give males the tools to find and maintain positive romantic/sexual relationships with women, but actively hinder them from doing so. This lack of sexual power sets (some) men up for rejection and negative experiences with females. In the extreme, an example of this problem has been called love-shyness.
2. Our culture gives these men two options: blame themselves, or blame women (or both), when the real problem is the system. Because of these negative experiences with females, and the (real or imagined) perception that females have more sexual power than they do, some of these men are more likely to form misogynistic attitudes, or adopt misogynstic attitudes that are already floating around (even though they might have rejected such beliefs in the past). Rejection weakens their metaphorical immune systems to the disease of cultural misogyny. Or these males might adopt behavior or beliefs that are damaging to themselves or to women, even if their intent is not necessarily misogynistic.
3. These misogynistic or negative attitudes will manifest in behaviors that are destructive to these men and to the women who encounter them. For example, the psychologist who writes about “love-shyness” claims that some “love-shy” males engage in staring and stalking behavior because they cannot approach the woman. Other negative behaviors that disillusioned males may engage in may be acting like “jerks” to women, believing that women like such treatment. Or they may engage in female-bashing with male friends or on the internet. On a larger scale, the question is, could these attitudes lead to rape? I think most of the time, the answer is “no.” A guy who thinks “no more Mr. Nice Guy, now I am going to be a jerk to women because that’s obviously what they want” is definitely a budding misogynist, but not necessarily a budding rapist. Nevertheless, when these males spread misogynistic attitudes, those attitudes might trickle down to males who actually are potential rapists.
In short, male sexual powerlessness could be contributing to a misogynistic cultural atmosphere where women are more likely to be raped. That is the short answer to your question on the relationship between sexual power and rape culture.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2005 at 10:23 pm
This may be a legitimate criticism. I have intended my arguments to refer to young women, but perhaps I haven’t made that clear enough. When I say that women have more sexual power than men, I really mean something much more complicated like: “Young women on average have more sexual power than young men except possibly at the highest and lowest brackets of attractiveness.”
Btw, comments such as “it makes your arguments even more irrelevant” are the reason why I was only able to thank you for being mostly civil. Your perception of what is relevant is not universal. As I already explained to you in a previous post (though you strangely ignored my explanation), most of my discussion of beauty and sexual power was in response to the direct questions of several of the feminists here. My answer may have been long-winded, but it is definitely relevant to the questions I was asked (or do you think the questions were irrelevant in the first place?).
Cranefly’s argument does not blow away my argument, and it’s not clear that he or she even intended at as a rebuttal to me. Cranefly was careful to qualify that the algorithm failed to correctly model human relationships. I can think of at least several reasons off the top of my head why it doesn’t apply to reality.
1. In real life, women can initiate, even if their ability to do so may be more constrained in some contexts. For this reason alone, the stable marriage algorithm does not apply.
2. In real life, initiating (and to a lesser degree, receiving/rejecting an advance), take effort. If a male lacks the confidence or self-esteem to make advances, then he will lose out, or be forced to settle for females who are less attractive and intimidating. Some females can choose to drop hints or be obviously receptive to increase a male’s chance of making advances on them. Of course, shy females will have trouble too, but not to the same degree as shy men, because they don’t have to make the initiatives. For reasons of shyness or stress, there will be varying limits to how many initiatives a man can make in a certain period of time, but females can receive or reject a lot more initiatives. Of course, this means that a certain subset of males will be out of the game permanently or temporarily while they steal up their courage for their next advance. This will give extra power for males in the upper brackets of attractiveness and social skills, which is why those males may have sexual power that is equal or maybe even greater than female sexual power.
3. In real life, females may not provisionally accept their initial suitors like in the algorithm. If an initial suitor is below a woman’s standards, and she has her eye on someone else, then she might stay single, even if her first choice goes for someone else. Of course, in real life individuals of both sexes might choose to remain single instead of settling for less, though females are more likely to do so because they seem to be pickier about mates in general.
There are probably a few more reasons the algorithm doesn’t apply to our less than perfect world that I haven’t even thought of yet…
Anyway, the norms for male initiation cause more suffering for males than they do for females, because it takes more work for someone to initiate than for someone to receive advances (and because females do have the choice to initiate). An obvious counterargument is that these norms create more suffering for females because they cause rape and sexual assault. In one sense, this is obvious: if males never initiated, they wouldn’t be able to rape. On the other hand, the norm of male initiation seems like a very distant cause of rape. We could say that a whole host of other factors, like a woman being careless or drinking alcohol also “cause” rape, because she wouldn’t have been raped otherwise. Yet in reality, males initiate, and women are careless or drink all the time without rape happening. Clearly there must be other reasons than these why rape happens, such as “rape myths” and the attitudes of the rapist. Yet the idea that males must initiate is not a rape myth on its own; it is much different from ideas like “woman don’t have a right to revoke consent once sex has started,” which can obviously be connected to rape.
Being rejected by someone takes a greater psychological toll than rejecting someone. Perhaps there are some situations where it takes more effort to reject someone than to make advances on them, namely when the initiator is being belligerent and not taking the hint. Neverthless, the cause of such behavior is not simply the norm that males must initiate, but rather other factors such as thick-headedness, or perhaps an attitude of entitlement. Furthermore, a man forcing his attentions on a woman is socially proscribed, while a man feeling hurt by rejection is not only socially prescribed, but encouraged.
Actually, perhaps part of the reason that some men won’t take “no” for an answer is because rejection is so painful for them (although this obviously doesn’t excuse their behavior). Since, men are expected to make all the moves, many men will invest their self-esteem and self-image in their ability to initiate things with women. If men didn’t have to do most of the work of initiating, perhaps rejection wouldn’t be such a big deal because it wouldn’t shatter their self-images, and perhaps they wouldn’t take out their frustration over rejection on women.
Hence, this system where males must be proactive, but females have the choices of being passive or proactive seems to privilege females overall, because it means that males do most of the work. Many men know intuitively that this system is not fair. Who will seem like the obvious scapegoat for this unfairness? Women.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Furthermore, a man forcing his attentions on a woman is socially proscribed
No, it’s called “being persistent” and is heavily approved of, (generally) as long as it doesn’t cross into physical assault or creepy behavior.
You also seem to have this weird idea that women cannot be rejected if they don’t initiate encounters, which is nonsense.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Well, a man “forcing his attentions on a woman” is socially proscribed… but you raise a good point that some behaviors which some might call “forcing attentions on a woman,” other might call “being persistent.” Such behavior is difficult to define and label, and there is some degree of legitimate disagreement about where the line between “persistence” and “pushiness” should be drawn. What I thought of when I mentioned “forcing his attentions” probably corresponds to what you are calling “creepy behavior.”
I don’t think I’ve said or implied anything like this. Yes, women can be rejected even when they don’t initiate anything. Yet I have a hard time believing that being passively rejected and ignored by a the person of your desire is as bad as being actively rejected, where you do a lot of work to steal up the courage and you go through all the anxiety and nervousness of making your advances… only to be rejected outright or find out that you’re seen only as a friend. I could believe that the feelings of rejection are equally bad whether you are rejected passively or actively, but when you make the move, you have to deal with all the effort and anxiety of pulling it off also. If I am missing something here, then please do tell.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 12:15 am
Aegis,
Although I am unclear why you think that the expectation that men will initiate sexual encounters does not connect into the rest of the rape culture mythology (initiating man -> hesitant woman -> persistent man -> yielding woman -> sex is the basic myth of romance, and the basic rape myth), your point that the fear of being unmanned by rejection probably plays a part in men refusing to recognize or accept rejection seems to me to be a valid one. However, that still seems to me to have far more to do with the idea that not being able to get sex is unmanly (and with the romance/rape myth), than to do with any actual power inequalties that benefit women.
I think you touch tangentially on why you have gotten such a negative response on these threads when you talk about the connection between the idea that women have more sexual power and the idea that that justifies taking it from them. While you feel that the fact that women have more sexual power leads to this result, most everyone else here thinks that the belief in women’s greater sexual power itself is part of the problem.
Your last paragraph is seriously flawed:
(trivially) Men only have the need to initiate to the extent that women are prevented from initiating, so it is fundamentally nonsensical to claim that men must initiate, but women can choose either to initiate or not. Every het woman who initiates equals one man who doesn’t need to initiate.
(more importantly) To say that a system of sexual expectations in which approximately 1 in 4 women will be subject to attempted rape is one in which women benefit more than men is simply nonsense. I realize that that is not what you meant to say, but it is part of the problem with over-compartmentalizing the cultural system of sex. Certainly, men may feel that they are disadvantaged relative to women (particularly since the idea that women are the possessors of sex, and the idea that therefore women who fail to get sexual partners are not losing out in any real way - ideas expressed by somebody, although not by you - are still very common in our culture), and I agree that that frequently plays into misogynist feelings of resentment, but that requires exactly that compartmentalization, a refusal to recognize rape as part of the same system.
I think you do a very good job of describing a large part of the structure of resentment based misogyny, and I realize that you are attempting to reject and oppose that structure, but I think that you are still holding fast to some key underpinings of the system.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:30 am
Aegis said:
Probably keep repeating myself (you have a point there)… But still think my point about others talking about things not necessarily related to your posts stands. And it just seemed that you were most keen on attacking those posts that werent much related to your posts and saying things in the effect of “how does that disapprove my theory??” to those posts… As if (and this guessing, I know I cant really know what is in your mind) you have already made up your mind that everyone out there is trying desperately to “win” you. Frankly, not every commentor is that interested in winning or anything. But Ill pop in if I have something more to add, of course you are free to present your arguments… It just seems that youve had plenty of time presenting your (previously unseen and apparently not biased, but completely factual and scientific, according to you) arguments and getting caught in no-I-didnt-say-that arguments isnt really helping your case, and is damned (deliberate?) waste of everyones time. Including yours.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Oh, and my 2 cents on your later post: Being rejected is tough (as anyone who is rejected knows) but for women (stereotypically passive ones, I mean) not being approached by the ones they would like to is probably hard too (and NO I am not saying you have claimed otherwise). All your points are pretty much from young, straight male viewpoint… Thus I can sympathize but women have a different point of view and different problems.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:50 am
And women can be rejected when they make an active move on men too, after working up the courage and all that (and this happens on regular basis). Not just rejected when “passively trying to attract somebody”.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:40 am
Aegis, you know I love you. But when you said this
I had to think… hmm. Are there laws requiring men to do most of the work? No. There are just social norms. But men don’t have to abide by them. They can change the norms if they want, but it requires collective action by men. (I’m not a collectivist, but I think you know what I’m saying.)
And that, I think, is the real problem for both feminism and men’s activism. Most people are content with the way things are.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:55 am
Society to the sexually-frustrated straight woman:
“Rejected, huh? Well, it’s your own fault. You’re just not trying, are you? You know, if you just lost thirty pounds and kept it off by eating poorly for the rest of your life (what do you mean, diets don’t work? Of COURSE they do, silly! It’s just common sense!), and then bought a very expensive new wardrobe which you were willing to maintain for the rest of your life, and then learned to think constantly about how you look and never again have a single relaxed moment–just on the off-chance, you know, that someone might be observing you–and hey! Don’t forget to smile! Watch that posture! Your tits are too big, makes you look cheap–maybe plastic surgery? And how about some make-up? –then you might almost be sexually acceptable. Almost. Not quite, but almost. Oh, and don’t forget: you can never, ever, ever stop thinking about all this stuff. Never. That’s “letting yourself go.” Well. Until you reach the age of 35 or so, that is. Then your currency will drop no matter what you do, so you’d better have a man by then, yeah?
Hey, don’t look at me like that. I’m just sayin’. Did you know that syrup of ipecac can help you to vomit up some of those calories you just took in, by the way? Might be worth a shot. And here, buy some of these magazines They’ll tell you about more stuff you can buy to help you in your new life’s endeavor, and there are also lots of nice pictures to remind you just how inadequate you are. Call it incentive. Why haven’t you done something about your hair yet? YES, of COURSE you need to brush it more than twice a day - what the hell kind of question is that? What kind of a hopeless slob are you, anyway?
“What do you mean, ‘why do I have to worry about all that shit when men don’t?’ Because they’re men, stupid! They’re fine just the way they are. They don’t have to work to be attractive. You, on the other hand…
“What’s that you’re complaining about now? You took my advice, and someone you weren’t interested in just wouldn’t take ‘no’ for an answer? Well, of course he wouldn’t, dummy. Just look at how you were dressed! How the hell was he supposed to know you weren’t interested in him?”
Yeesh. Talk about anxiety!
And this is probably the reason that I’ve been the one to initiate nearly all of the sexual encounters I’ve had. Because in contrast to the above, the anxiety of risking rejection by saying “hey, wanna go out with me?” just doesn’t seem all that harsh somehow.
Not to mention the fact that when you ask someone out, you can pick who the hell you’re talking to, rather than just broadcasting availability to the room and hoping that the right person notices (and that the wrong people don’t).
On the whole, words are a much better way of talking than looks and dress are. That’s probably why we use verbal communication to negotiate most of the important things in life. Why we think it’s a Good Idea for women to be forced to try to negotiate sex through dress and lookin’ pretty — and for men then to try to interpret those cues through liberal application of mind-reading — is really quite beyond me. We’re intelligent mammals who have developed a sophisticated form of verbal communication, so where does this idea that sex is the one thing for which that form of communication is somehow inappropriate come from?
It leads to all sorts of nonsense–some of it possibly sincere but really quite dangerous nonsense, and some of it blatantly self-serving and self-justifying nonsense. (”She said ‘no,’ but I could see that she meant yes!” “If you have to ask, then you just don’t get it!” “But it would ruin the mood if we actually talked while having sex - I should be able to deduce my partner’s desires through mind-reading [and if I get it wrong--like, she didn't really want me to hold her down and force myself on her--oh, well, misunderstandings happen].” “Only beta-male nerds actually have to ask what a woman wants!” And so forth.)
Bleh. Gender roles.
Agreed with everyone else who has said that they overall just plain suck, and make life shitty for everyone.
Not a very trenchant or intellectualized analysis, perhaps. Eh, so sue me. I’m just not feeling all that trenchant or intellectual today.
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
I don’t agree. I think we should attempt to resolve this issue before moving on.
Although the norm that men must initiate everything may create a context where rape is more likely to happen, there is no necessary connection between men always initiating and rape occuring. Conceivably, a world could exist where men always initiated, but rape didn’t exist. Male proactivity only “causes” rape under a very loose notion of causation. By that notion, a woman’s actions can also “cause” her to be raped (because they can also contribute to a context where rape is more likely to happen).
Hence, I think it would be more accurate to say that the norms of male initiation, and the actions of women can contribute to rape (because they can increase the chances of rape happening), but they don’t cause rape on their own, and aren’t responsible for rape.
It seems to me ideas that it is ok to have sex with a woman without her consent, or that “no” doesn’t mean “no” regardles of how it is phrased, or that a man is entitled to sex with a woman for whatever reason, or that women cannot validly revoke consent after sex has begun, are more central underpinnings of a system that leads to rape. Those beliefs will necessarily lead to rape if they are acted upon in a context where a man wants sex but a woman doesn’t. I think there is a big distinction between beliefs/norms that will necessarily lead to rape if acted upon (e.g. “women cannot meaningfully revoke consent after sex has started”), and beliefs/norms that may increase the probability of rape happening, but that aren’t necessary or sufficient causes for rape in and of themselves (e.g. “men should initiate everything”).
No. The expectation for males to initiate is not really responsible for rape (see above), but it is responsible for males being burdened in dating. And I will explain why this expectation creates more work for males than for females, because several people have brought up some good objections to that argument.
Btw, I think it is problematic in general to argue that certain social attitudes “cause” rape or are responsible for it, because that seems incompatible with holding the rapist fully responsible. Rapist: “hey, it’s not my fault, I was just brainwashed by the patriarchy!”
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Aegis, as you made clear in the other thread, your idea of men’s “initiating” things involves making sexual contact without permission. That doesn’t contribute to rape. It is rape.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
So, what you are saying is that rape wouldn’t happen if women didn’t contribute to their own rape by saying “No“? Well, there you go. We can cross rape off our list of worries. Women just have to say “yes” to every man that wants sex . I mean anything we can do to relieve the burden on you poor, poor men.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 4:02 am
Mousehound,
No, actually that isn’t what he said at all.
He said that expectation that men should initiate sexual activity was, in his view, about as connected to rape as the expecation that a woman who goes to the bedroom of a date is signalling an interest in sex is. While he agrees that both of these expectations might contribute to rape happening, he argues that the much more important set of beliefs are those that directly relate to attitudes towards rape:
Your paraphrase simply isn’t in the same universe.
Aegis,
To my mind, while it is possible to conceive of a universe in which men are expected to always initiate, and women are expected to communicate their sexual interest purely through how they dress and whether or not they go to a man’s bedroom, and yet rape doesn’t happen, that isn’t the universe in which we live. In this society, the idea that men should always initiate is strongly tied to the standard romance myth, which is very much about men overcoming the resistance of reluctant women, which is very much tied to women as the possessors of sex, and is very much tied to rape.
While I’ll agree that the ideas specifically relating to “no doesn’t mean no” and entitlement are more directly tied to rape happening, I think that the larger romance concept of male pursuer is fundamentally tied to the rape culture and to all of the ideas you list as more central, and that it remains bizarre to talk about how the idea of the male pursuer inconveniences men while refusing to recognize its part in the rape culture.
I think your ideas about how the standard romantic model leads to resentment in men, which leads to misogyny and rape, are interesting, but I think they need a good deal more work. Your current statements of these ideas tend to be facile and bordering on the offensive (there seems to be disagreement on which side of offensive they fall on), probably becasue they are usally tacked on to the end of a post about how much the idea of pursuing inconveniences men. Also, I think you may be still looking at the structures from the vantage point of a somewhat resentful man, which lends your descriptions a tone of undue sympathy towards men’s resentment. Resentment and hostility towards the standard romantic model seems justified to me (for both men and women), but resentment towards women for the existance of the standard model and for the fact that many people insist on playing it out seems unreasonable and injust, and seems strongly tied to the standard romantic model itself (particularly to the idea of women as the possessors and gatekeepers of sex).
Resentment towards women for the existance of the standard model is part of the maintanence of the standard model.
This comment was written by Charels.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 10:41 am
I didn’t know it was possible to rape someone only by kissing them. Perhaps you mean “molestation.”
Anyway, I’m not sure exactly what your point is. That is not really “my idea” of initiating; I am simply describing the way some men respond to the incentives that some women give.
No, that’s not what I am saying. If you had read my point in context, you would have seen that I was actually condemning victim-blaming attitudes. Simply because a woman’s actions can increase the chances of her being raped, it doesn’t make her responsible for her rape. My larger point is that we shouldn’t say that something causes rape simply because it contributes to rape, or else we would have to say that a woman’s action can be a cause of her own rape (which sounds awfully close to victim-blaming).
mousehounde, if you continue with gratuitous misrepresentations of my posts, I am going to stop responding to you.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Aegis, you’re not making any sense.
It’ s a well-known fact that public housing buildings, if they’re designed with very few open spaces, and lots of blind corners (corners which are not visible from the street), will experience more crime (assaults, drug dealing, etc.). If we design a building in a certain way, it tends to facilitate crime, by providing a context in which crimes are more likely to occur.
In response to this, forward-minded designers and public housing advocates now insist on designs that emphasize open spaces and eye lines and reduce or eliminate blind corners.
But if we followed your logic, we’d have to say those designers are wrong. If you were consistent, you’d respond like this: “Conceivably, a world could exist where there were lots of blind corners in public housing, but crimes did not exist. Blind corners only “cause”? crime under a very loose notion of causation. By that notion, a mugging victim’s actions can also “cause”? him to be mugged (because they can also contribute to a context where muggings are more likely to happen).”
That’s very poor logic. Blind corners aren’t a guarantee of crime, but that doesn’t mean they’re not a contributing factor, and a designer who doesn’t therefore try to avoid blind corners is being horribly irresponsible.
Similarly, the social expectation that women passively possess sex, and men pursue women to get sex, is not by itself a guarantee of rape, in the sense you’ve been talking about. But it’s certainly an important contributing factor, and it therefore makes sense to try and reduce it as part of making rape less likely in our society.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Those statements are talking about two different issues. The second quote was a response to post #157 in the previous thread, where you said:
I thought you were responding to this statement from me:
Notice that I am not claiming that if a man is inconsiderate of a woman’s feelings, that he is being more hurt than she is. Nevertheless, overall I argue the expectation for males to initiate is more of a burden on males.
You and Charles have brought up some valid objections to that argument which I will answer now.
1. Women have to do a lot of work to be beautiful.
Sure. I don’t think this measures up to the work that males do initiating. Most of the work of being beautiful can be done in advance of the interaction in private. Furthermore, it lasts for a decent period of time. In contrast, the male job of being proactive and confident doesn’t let up. Once a woman has made herself beautiful, she can attract multiple men with that beauty in the same evening (in fact, as several posters have pointed out, she has no choice to attract multiple men, even when she doesn’t want to). On the other hand, for a man to interact with multiple women in one evening, he needs to re-initiate with every one of them. Imagine if a woman had to go into the bathroom, change clothes, re-do her hair, and reapply her makeup between talking to guys at a party. If this was the case, then maybe females would be doing as much work as males do. Or if guys could buy Confidence Cream ™ at the store which they could apply in advance to make them confident for the whole evening, then maybe the burdens would become equal.
2. When they play the passive role, women face at least as much anxiety as men do.
Ok, so both people are nervous. But it is the man who is expected to get over his nervousness and initiate things. On top of his anxiety, he must be proactive. And the woman always his the choice to initiate things herself, or drop more obvious hints to remove the ambiguity. Yet the guy usually doesn’t have the choice to be passive and wait for the woman to initiate things.
Furthermore, nervousness and anxiety impair a man’s ability to initiate and be confident. But they do not impair a woman’s ability to be beautiful (unless she is so nervous in the bathroom that she puts lipstick on her ear??). Anxiety causes suffering for both people, but it makes the man’s role much harder to play, while it doesn’t impair the woman’s ability to act out her role as much.
Perhaps I should back away from the claim that the expectations for males to initiate causes more suffering for men that it does for women. Yet I still think that the system creates more work for males than it does for females. And because males cannot always handle this inordinate burden, both males and females suffer. Men being overly passive, men being pushy, and men being creepy are all examples of them not being able to correctly play their role as initiator.
You see, if the man doesn’t understand the sexist tradition, then he doesn’t have the choice to blame it. Though you may still be correct that he chooses misogyny. Still, if he doesn’t think outside the box (and many people don’t think outside the box), then he might not be aware of other alternatives besides blaming himself or blaming women. And yes, it does fit into sexist programming. That is what I am getting at: when males have negative experiences with women, then they are more susceptible to sexist programming. Hence, many aspects of male socialization are a problem because they set males up for negative experiences with women.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
I think the market for that would be surprisingly big, even if it is just a placebo. Stick with that business idea! And there are plenty of placebo confidence stuff for men (I won’t name any brands but expensive watches, cars etc.)
This comment was written by Tuomas.And beauty care products for women are marketed as making you more confident in addition of being more attractive.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Imagine if a woman had to go into the bathroom, change clothes, re-do her hair, and reapply her makeup between talking to guys at a party
Umm, why do you think we take so long in the bathroom? If fact, why do you think so many make-up companies sell travel sized hairspray/hair straighters etc. Okay I don’t change clothes, but I certainly carry a hair-brush/lipstick/eyeliner/mascara/t-zone powder brush with me _everywhere_ Everytime I go to bathroom, I check my hair and make-up and touch-up where nessisary. Everytime I eat, I go to the bathroom and touch up my lipstick. I’m not sure how common this is, but I’ve dressed up then I make sure I keep it up.
Talking about “work in order to attract other sex” (which isn’t quite the point of my make-up, but hey), can I add carrying make-up products everywhere gets pretty heavy.
Tell you what, you cleanse, tone and moisturise twice a day for the next say, five years? And then put on a full face of make-up, and keep it up, and then tell me how much effort it is to say “hey I like you, can I kiss you”. Are men’s vocal cords so difficult to operate?
But it is the man who is expected to get over his nervousness and initiate things. On top of his anxiety, he must be proactive. And the woman always his the choice to initiate things herself, or drop more obvious hints to remove the ambiguity.
And the man always has the choice not to act. Don’t want to play the active role, then don’t.
This comment was written by VK.Please notice, the man’s anxiety is only over whether or not the girl is interested - he doesn’t have the “what if I say no, and he doesn’t listen and rapes me”. I have that even if I like the guy - the paranoid second track on my brain going “I like him, but I don’t know him that well, what if I make the first move and he takes that as permission to do whatever he wants”.
Don’t you think you’d be a bit more “anxious” if as well as rejecting you, you were worried the girl might push you to the floor and sodomise you?
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
…And I forgot to mention the tried and true Confidence Drinkâ„¢, beer. (Okay, these are serious matters, that was the last silly post)
Well, there’s always shyness which might impair the vocal cords slightly (and curiously, some women probably find that very shy way of asking cute) but very good point, VK (as was the rest of your post).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Sure. I don’t think this measures up to the work that males do initiating.
As a woman who did and does the initiating, Aegis, I can confidently say that you are flat-out wrong.
And the woman always his the choice to initiate things herself
We’re talking about men and women who, in your words, “don’t understand the sexist tradition.” Under that tradition, women don’t initiate. That’s call being forward, desperate, and coming on strong, and anyway, initiating means he wasn’t interested in you because if he WAS he’d have initiated.
Sorry, Aegis, but you can’t have it both ways. Saying that the poor men can’t make other choices but the women can is playing poor pitiful me, and that’s a song you’re not especially good at singing.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 2:44 am
Men being overly passive, men being pushy, and men being creepy are all examples of them not being able to correctly play their role as initiator.
Another one for the ‘I’m not saying it’s right, just describing how it goes’ series, I guess. Then why the use of ‘correctly’?
Nevermind. Sounds like someone here needs to take a peek at the world beyond their high school corridors.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 2:55 am
Aegis,
Look, your continued attempts to support an argument you aren’t actually willing to make any more are unconvincing and, frankly, silly.
Paraphrasing:
“It doesn’t cause more suffering, but maybe its more work.”
So what?
“Women just need to buy hundreds of dollars in beauty products and maintain a constant vigil of attention to their appearance, but men actually need to open their mouths and speak, on those occaisions when they feel like it, so men must be doing so much more work in the only instant that matters, which is when a man decides to approach a woman.”
As VK and Mythago said, wrong.
I think if you would stop arguing over your now ridiculous point and look at why you are holding to your position even though it has been cut to shreds, I think you would be well positioned to do some real and serious thinking about rape culture.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 3:27 am
and curiously, some women probably find that very shy way of asking cute
well, as a great man once sang, “shyness is nice, and shyness won’t stop you from doing all the things in life you’d like to… nature is a language, can’t you read? so ask me ask me ask me” =)
Not really that curious or suprising, when we actually observe human behaviour rather than trying to categorise it before we’ve even understood it yet.
For those like Aegis who are so much more interested in categories than actual humans, discussion achieves nothing. They’ll either stick to reinforcing their compartmentalised view, or if they venture out into unnown territory they’ll inevitably bang their head against a reality that’s a little more complex than their minds thought. At which point, epiphanies might dawn or minds lock even tighter, depending.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 3:49 am
I really, really, really admire the contributions you’ve made to this discussion, Noodles. But the above paragraph seems to me to be needlessly personal, insulting comments about another poster.
(Disclaimer: My moderation style is “random spot check,”? and thus a bit arbitrary. I fully acknowlege that other people may have been just as bad and not gotten a comment from me. I’m sorry for that, but I don’t have the time to fully moderate every single comment on “Alas,”? so spot-checks are the only viable alternative to no moderation at all. ““Amp)
Also, I disagree. Just because Aegis has been unwilling to shift his ground in this discussion doesn’t mean that the discussion won’t have a positive effect on his views someday, once he’s had the benefit of more time and distance. Minds rarely change over the course of a single argument; even when people do change their minds, they usually do so as a cumulative result of many arguments, and by gradually shifting their views between one argument and the next. (Perhaps that’s what you mean by saying “epiphanies might dawn.”)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 3:58 am
Nice song, that it is :-)
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 4:43 am
Amp, with all due respect, it may not be a very intelligent move on my part personally to say this, but I myself have been far harsher with Aegis on the other thread than Noodles has been here.
More to the point, I don’t find the section of her post you’ve quoted “insulting”, especially in light of the attitudes Aegis has displayed here.
What I mean is: yes, of course, most of the time if someone writes something that happens to piss you off and you call them, say, a fascist (just to give a popularly misused insult), that is usually out of line and shouldn’t be condoned. But is it wrong if what that person has written actually seems to you to support a fascist perspective? IMHO, if that is the case, you are not making a cheap insult but rather calling it as you see it.
And I honestly, truly do think that Aegis’s posts very much support Noodles’s assertion that he cares far more about categories than real, live humans.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 6:19 am
Ok, Amp, point taken - it was a bit pretentious of me to say that, I guess. But you know, even if I could rephrase the concept to make it sound less scornful or rude or whatever, after all this back and forth I just can’t help getting the distinct impression that Aegis comments show the mindset of someone who really hasn’t had much experience with grown up people with different personalities, and really isn’t that interested in acquiring it.
Is that less insulting? How can I say that without saying it? :-)
Of course I don’t know him, but I know what he’s written here. He’s made caricatured generalisations on women - and men - that do sound pretty insulting to both.
I didn’t expect Aegis to change his mind or shift his positions, no, but maybe that there could have been a non-frustrating discussion that actually moves on; I mean, after all, me and others posting here are part of the human race too and of the female or male gender so when he says things like ‘most women this, most men that, women have told me this, men have told me that’, it’s like everything we’ve said is from some kind of freak margin of reality that doesn’t count.
I can only draw my own conclusions from that. I have my own moments of thick-headedness and I don’t consider myself particularly enligthened, but I do know a bunch of ridiculous, useless stereotypes when I see them.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 6:39 am
In other words, what Crys T said (thanks).
And I don’t despise Aegis, for what it’s worth I think he’s been at least far more straighforward in presenting and arguing his views than Robert is, for instance - sorry AndiF, we’ll have to disagree on that one - but it still does feel like banging your head against a wall. There’s only so many times you can hear ‘men have to do so much more work in approaching women’…
Minds rarely change over the course of a single argument; even when people do change their minds, they usually do so as a cumulative result of many arguments, and by gradually shifting their views between one argument and the next. (Perhaps that’s what you mean by saying “epiphanies might dawn.”?)
Yes, indeed, Amp, but not out of arguments, or not only at least, out of experience, more than anything. Or at the very least a mix of both. That’s what I meant with epiphanies. Real life situations, not hypotheticals, showing us that categories are not very useful.
It’s not like we’re talking of a government policy after all, we’re talking personal human interaction between the sexes, something that we discuss based on our own direct experience and observation, not theories. There’s bound to be a great variety of behaviours and mentalities that people display in their actual life, not just in arguments. I don’t have to ‘agree’ with or like them all to acknowledge they exist, in far more complex terms than case a or case b, initiating man, initiated woman, etc. etc. Anyone who’s not fixed on clichés can see that.
Anyway, I do take your point, that bit I wrote was even a bit of a generalisation of my own.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 7:04 am
AE, you really do spend 4-6 hours a day hitting on women? If not, then you don’t put as much time into obtaining and pleasing a partner as women do. Period.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 7:20 am
I noticed, too, that the guys pushing the “men have it harder” argument like to pretend that sexual relations predominantly occur within the context of one night stands. In reality, most sex happens in marriage and other long term relationships, and I doubt anyone here can put forth an argument that men put more work into their long-term relationships than women do. So even if men have more initial work in obtaining the wife/girlfriend (which I doubt), they can reasonably expect that once they have the relationship, they can shift the workload of maintaining it over to the woman, as well as a host of other duties in their lives like housework and maintaining family relationships. For instance, most men I know, especially over a certain age, expect their wives to do things like call their mother for them and purchase gifts, return RSVPs, and otherwise handle all social functions for the couple.
This is why so many men for so long have resisted women getting jobs and equal wages–without the money to hold over their wives’ heads, it’s hard to convince women to do all the housework and relationship maintenance.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 9:09 am
I’d guess that’s because for them it probably does.
Also, I believe a lot of these guys who complain so much are really after the whole thing of “the chase” anyway. If that is what gets you going, what could be more boring that having sex with someone you’ve already “conquered”?
Of course, if you are into that sort of thing, it does seem more than a bit hypocritical to then complain about “all the work” you have to do to get laid.
Which frequently includes–as most of us in long-term relationships can attest to–initiating sex. And no, just because “the ice has been broken” doesn’t automatically make that easy to do every time. Though I’m guessing some people who haven’t been in a very long-term relationship with all those ups, downs and weird bits in between won’t really believe it, even in a good relationship, there are times when it would be easier to go out and pick up a stranger for sex.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 1:59 pm
“Nevertheless, overall I argue the expectation for males to initiate is more of a burden on males.”
You consistently try to seperate this from the fact that this “burden” easily turns into an excuse for men to simply do what they want, the woman’s opinion and wishes be damned.
Not being able to recognise that “expected to make the first move” and “can’t stop themselves from rape’ are at both ends of the spectrum of “guys are supposed to be more dominant” is an example of saying that “men being encouraged to ignore women’s wishes and autonomy is somehow more hurtful to men than women is.”
You can’t act as if the “burden” doesn’t spring the same well as typical excuses for rape. Trying to argue that the dating scene sucks for men more than women, without taking into account how disempowering and physically dangerous it can be for women, does just that. And what’s the point of arguing that one tiny aspect of dating, in stereotypical situations, hurts one party more than other? Isn’t the real issue how the system as whole works and if we should and how we can dismantle it? Looking at the pieces is useful, but usually only if you tie it to a larger context. Otherwise you are, you know, not seeing the forest for the trees and all that.
Look, there are lots of ways that guys and boys have it rough in modern America. I work at the kid’s section of a large bookstore and I get parents coming in all the time looking for stuff in a desperate attempt to interest their boys in reading; the girls are more likely to be the ones dragging their parents down and begging for the latest Tokyo Mew Mew, Gossip Girls, or Cornelia Funke novel. Parents of boys also have a much harder time finding “self-help” type books for boys on puberty, friends, school, etc., than parents of girls do.
However, you can’t seperate this out from the fact that boys will avoid anything that hints of girl like the plague, while girls gobble up (or at least are less likely to dismiss out of hand) even the most “boyish” of the “boy” books, or the fact that this boy aversion to “femininity” also translates into them being more likely to ignore or reject their mostly female teachers (and that this in turn leads to fewer male high school English and elementary school teachers), or the fact that parents encourage this aversion (I’ve had several parents reject picture books for their toddlers because the character is a girl, but I’ve never had one reject one because the character is a boy). Trying to look at the symptoms without delving into the root causes isn’t going to help in the long run.
You can take small steps to help in the short term without trying to deal with the entirety of the problem. Jon Scieszka’s new book and campaign “Guys Read” is a good example of this: he’s attempting to get more boys into reading by encouraging writers to write more books for boys and creating resources for parents and teachers, and boys themselves. But in the end, until I have fewer boys (and parents of boys) who loved “Kidnapped” and “Treasure Island” dismiss my suggestion of “The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle” simply because the character on the cover is a girl (even as I have girls coming up to me gushing about all of Andrew Clement’s books, even the ones with class-clown boys as the main character), and until more than a handful of boys not ignore any suggestion I make, whether it be “Ender’s Game” “Hatchet” or “Hank Zipzer” either girls are going to be shortchanged by lack of female protaganists and role models, and probably read less than they do now, or boys are going to be shortchanged because they can’t find stuff they like (or don’t think reading is for boys), and will therefore read less than they ought.
What the parents of boys looking for good “life-changes” books seem to forget, or not realise, is that many of these “self-help” books for girls (and their parents) - especially the really good ones, are relatively new and are a direct result of feminism. “Reviving Ophelia” and Pleasant Co.’s excellent “The Care and Keeping of You” are both only a decade or so old and were created by women who came of age during the feminist movement of the 70’s. Even if many parents did realise this, I have the feeling their reaction would be a Christina Hoff Summers “look at how feminism has hurt boys!” rather than the more logical response of, well, maybe we need a stereotype challenging movement for boys and men. It’s not a zero sum game unless we make it one.
Aegis, what I get from your posts overall is not only a need to complain about the stereotypes that hurt you (which in and of itself is just fine - venting and naming problems are both important), but also an unwillingness to actually do anything yourself change them, or even suggest things that others could do. Perhaps in part because doing so requires taking on a certain amount of repsonsibility as well as delving deeper into the roots of such stereotypes. Or it could be that you just don’t know where to start. I don’t know, only you can answer that question. But take your time in doing so, because the answer will determine whether you learn to balance assigning responsibilty with taking personal action, or whether you simply spend your life blaming others.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:57 am
I’m back, after several days of not being able to get on this site due to a hosting error message.
I this is part of where our fundamental difference in assumptions lies. You, and most of the feminists here, seem to see current gender roles as rape, but in a lesser degree (or something like that). This radical critique is interesting and definitely worth discussion, but I am not sure it is correct, and in the least that critique needs more explanation. It seems to me that the reductio ad absurdum of current gender roles would be something like S&M, not rape. Actually, to be fair, I would say that some scripts/norms (like ones that appear in certain types of pornography) might be rape in a lesser degree, but most would reduce to S&M. Btw, this disagreement explains some of the reasons that I don’t believe that society condones rape.
The “standard romantic model” (I like this term so I will keep using it) doesn’t seem to be an allegory of rape, but rather an allegory of something like S&M. The difference is that rape is obviously nonconsensual, while S&M is consensual (even though some types of it may be unhealthy). You summarized the standard romantic model thus:
I think it only looks like a rape myth because you defined it so broadly. I would say that the standard romance model is something like this:
(initiating man -> hesitant woman -> persistent man -> yielding and consenting woman -> sex)
I think part of the point of the standard romance model is that the woman does consent in the end when her “token resistance” has been overcome. Hence, I see rape as a deviation from the standard romance model. The standard romance model seems to operate under the assumption that women are masochistic and only consent to sex when they are “taken” or “swept off their feet” (and that a man who cannot do this is a wimpy, unworthy “beta male”). These dominance and seduction scripts are certainly sexist and lead to unhealthy psychological dynamics for both sexes, but they seem fundamentally different from rape myths because they still maintain the idea of consent.
You are correct: my current discussion has a bunch of holes in it, probably because this is the first time I have presented these ideas, and I haven’t completely thought them through yet. Sometimes the only way to develop strong arguments is to put them on the table and see how others respond to them. Nevertheless, it was a mistake for me to present my ideas in a manner that was not appropriate to my audience. Although the treatment I have received here has been mostly shameful, I should have known better than to present an essentially radical masculist critique to an audience consisting of many radical feminists. I am sorry if some of my claims have been offensive to some people, because that was not the spirit I intended them in. I am glad that you, Ampersand, and perhaps a few others seem to understand that my intent is honest and serious. Because I was unable to resolve some fundamental differences in assumptions (partly from me not responding fast enough due to limited time and smashing my thumb in a door), it made some of my arguments built on those assumptions impossible to hear.
Hence, I have decided to abandon the claim that the expectation for males to initiate causes more suffering for males than for females. I still claim that the expectation creates more psychological effort for males than for females. As for the claim that females have more sexual power than males, I will leave that for later (it makes more sense for me to address the other issues first).
I would like to take an opportunity to reframe my theory:
Gender roles create suffering for both sexes (though not necessarily the same amount, or in the same contexts). Yet in some ways, females are better prepared to play their roles than males are. Consequently, females suffer more extreme disadvantages of gender roles, such as harassment, and rape. In the area of relationships and sexuality, because they are better equipped to play their roles, they also can attain more advantages of those roles, such as greater mate choice and less effort spent in pursuing mates. There are also areas where the female gender role is more flexible than the male gender role: for example, females can play either the passive or proactive role, but for males, the proactive role is the only realistic choice. Also, female socialization is more effective in helping females learn to attract mates than male socialization is in helping males learn to attract mates. This inneffectiveness in male socialization means that some males are set up to be incompetent in the area of relationships with women; that incompetence will lead to rejection, and bad experiences. Rejection and bad experiences can lead to misogyny. This misogyny may translate into negative treatment of females, or into female bashing (which will contribute to a context where other males are more likely to mistreat females).
Of course, I will need to explain these claims in more detail (what do I mean by “effort”? What does it mean for males to be “set up to be incompetent” with women, and how does this happen?). To make sure I don’t procrastinate again, I have already written some of it out and I will post it after I reply to Ampersand.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:05 am
Stop right there, Amp! ;) My logic is not prescriptive, hence we would not have to say that those designers are wrong. I have never claimed that the expectation that males do all the initiating is a good thing!
Yes, I would respond like this, because all of those statements are accurate. Blind corners don’t cause crime, although they are a contributing factor. Yet that response could not be used to argue that we shouldn’t get rid of blind corners. Even if all blind corners do is contribute to mugging, that is still bad enough that we should get rid of them.
I completely agree. I am simply trying to point out ideas like “women passively possess sex” are damaging to males as well as damaging to females (although not as much).
Btw, I think we got on to this subject because I was claiming that the expectation for males to initiate causes more suffering for males than for females. Several people pointed out that the expectation for males to initiate caused rape, hence I should not claim that it makes males suffer more. I felt like this missed my point: rape seems somehow extrinsic to that norm, while males doing more of the work and suffering more from being actively rejected seemed more intrinsic to the norm. I don’t know what I think of that reasoning now, which is why I am no longer claiming that the norm of male initiation creates more suffering for males than for females.
P.S. I emailed you a while ago. Did you not get it?
This actually seems to prove my point. Cleansing, moisturizing, and applying makeup takes work, but that work is manual and mechanical. I will definitely grant that the female role takes more mechanical work than the male role. What I am getting at is that initiating takes more psychological effort and emotional fortitude.
And yes, I think it can be a lot of effort for many people to say “I like you” or “can I kiss you,” because it is so emotional, and it requires you to show vulnerability by putting your ego on the line (when you know there is a chance of you being rejected). For some people, yes, this may translate into difficulty getting the words out, especially if they are male and have some degree of emotional repression, and especially if those people are young.
Imagine a scenario where a guy asks a woman out on a date. He tells her that he likes her, and she responds that she likes him too. It seems to me that in asking her out and saying “I like you,” he has expended a lot more energy and displayed more vulnerability than she does in dressing up and saying “I like you too.”
Anyone agree/disagree?
Come on, this is not realistic. Of course a man has this choice, but it means majorly constricting his choices in women, and probably enduring long periods of celibacy also (unless he is very attractive).
This is actually an interesting point. What I can’t help wondering is this: if a man wouldn’t listen to “no,” then wouldn’t he be likely to date rape regardless of whether the woman initiated or not? It seems to me that “she made the first move so I had permission to do whatever I want” seems more like a rationalization a date rapist might use after the fact, and less of an indication that a woman initiating things would really be putting herself in extra danger (she is in danger already if the guy believes such a rape myth). Thoughts?
Also, if a woman doesn’t want to initiate things, then she doesn’t have to. She can either count on him to initiate, or reject him and count on a future guy to initiate things. Males cannot count on females to initiate things.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:37 am
Wait, so because you find initiating easier than playing the female role, then you know that it’s less effort in general for males to initiate than for females to play the passive role? B.S. I’ve talked to several women who agree with me that the male role takes more effort. Why should I believe your perceptions over theirs? Furthermore, you are making the massive assumption that initiating things as a female with a man (?) takes the same amount of effort as initiating things as a man with a woman.
If a man and a woman are on a date, the man is less likely to refuse a kiss from the woman than the woman is from the man (unless maybe he is super-Christian??). A woman can ask a man for a kiss without risking a good chance of getting rejected for asking, while a man doesn’t have that security. Also, for women there is a much wider margin of error in initiating a kiss. The idea seems to be that if a woman even tries to kiss a man, then he should be grateful regardless of how she handles it. If a man botches a kiss, he risks being rejected not only for the kiss, but being rejected completely. Hence, it wouldn’t surprise me if some females don’t find it terribly difficult to initiate kissing with males.
Actually, under the version of the sexist tradition we have today, it is seen as acceptable (if not always encouraged) for females to initiate things, at least in my area (California Bay Area). The issue is that most females choose not to, which is why males cannot rely on females to initiate things, even though some females may do so sometimes.
So some males will perceive, arguably correctly, that these expectations are unfair.
To answer your previous point about whether energy expenditure is important: yes, it is. I am using energy expenditure as my measure of “work” rather than simply mechanical work (like moisturizing your face). If males perceive, correctly or incorrectly, that they are expending more energy pursuing or initiating things with females than the females are expending being pursued or being receptive, then those males may feel resentful of women and see them as selfish for making males jump through all these hoops.
Btw, are you RadGeek?
Thanks for sticking up for me, Ampersand. I would have loved it if you had done so a lot earlier, and to posters who were being more insulting!
Also, it’s not true that I haven’t shifted my ground. I have backed down from one claim. True, that may not be much, but it shows that I am willing to have my mind changed (which is more than I can say about 90% of the posters here). In a post a while ago, I gave suggestions for changing the minds of non-feminist males, yet only you, Charles, Redneck Feminist, Tuomas and (maybe) Jenny and one or two other people have given so much as a tip of a hat towards those suggestions.
I’m curious, what exactly is wrong with describing how something is with saying that it’s right? If we could only describe things that were politically and socially just, then we really wouldn’t have much to talk about.
And perhaps my use of the word “correctly” was unclear. By “initiating correctly,” I mean “initiating in a way that women feel comfortable with and respond well to.”
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:54 am
Now I will begin the explanations I promised Charles…
Certain aspects of gender roles set males and females up for negative experiences with each other. Because of these negative experiences, individuals will be more likely to develop bitterness towards the opposite sex. When you have a negative experience with a group of people, that experience is likely to color your perception of that group in the future, and you are likely to associate negative feelings with that group of people. Of course, individuals can choose to buy into those perceptions and feelings, or resist them. Yet people are not always rational, and negative experiences with the opposite sex make various sexist beliefs that much easier to believe.
Hence, norms and expectations that cause negative experiences with the opposite sex, or are inherently unfair, pull down the quality of human relationships for everyone, not just for the individuals who have those negative experiences. There are at least several ways in which this occurs.
First, these individuals may blame themselves for their hardships, and develop insecurities/neuroses that will negatively impact members of the opposite sex who interact with them in the future.
Second, these individuals may blame the opposite sex as I described above. Because of this resentment, they go on to make life difficult for members of the opposite sex who interact with them or are in relationships with them in the future.
Third, this resentment may result in male or female-bashing with members of the same sex. This bashing amplifies and spreads sexist attitudes, and both sexes definitely engage in it. Even if the original person doing the bashing might not actually treat members of the opposite sex in a negative manner, his or her bashing may encourage members of the same sex who don’t have such restraint.
Of course, negative experiences with the opposite sex aren’t the only possible source of resentment. Both sexes resent each other for their respective criteria in dating and relationships, because those criteria are difficult (and often damaging) to meet. The main point here is that sexism doesn’t develop from nowhere. Attitudes towards the opposite develop not just from socialization, but from the combination of socialization and concrete experience.
Everyone with me so far?
In my opinion, feminists often ignore this latter aspect in the case of males developing sexism towards females. This tendency is understandable, because feminists want to raise consciousness of institutional and cultural misogyny. Yet it is an error, because it leaves out important aspects of the development of misogyny, and consequently closes off avenues for preventing it. It seems tempting for feminists to overstate the role of social conditioning in the creation of misogyny. Yet if males are so heavily conditioned to become misogynists, how can they be held responsible for their misogyny, or for action based on that misogyny? If misogyny is such a deeply ingrained constant of male socialization, why does sexism vary widely even between misogynists, and why do some men start out with very positive attitudes towards women and later become bitter towards them?
The answer is because, although some aspects of misogyny may be deeply ingrained, and some males receive more misogynistic messages than others, misogyny develops through the combination of social conditioning and negative experiences with women. These negative experiences make that conditioning suddenly believable. Of course, such males still choose misogyny to some extent. But then we must ask the question: why do they make that choice, and what motivates them to do so? The answer: their negative experiences with women bias them to an extent that misogyny seems like the common sense, rational point of view.
…continued…
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:01 am
Now for the end of my posting spree today (don’t worry, I didn’t write it all today… some of it I started a few days ago when I couldn’t get on this site).
When males are set up for failure with women by their socialization, they are more likely to blame themselves, blame women, or blame both than they are to blame the system. For example, some romance/dating scripts foisted on men are not only unhelpful, but can actually cause failure with women. An example of such a script is chivalry. Chivalrous scripts encourage males to court females by doing them favors, paying for dates/drinks, acting like their therapists, doing their homework, being nice to the point of obsequiousness, and in general giving any kind of unreciprocated positive treatment: supposedly if a woman is given enough of such treatment, she will go “ka-ching!!” and magically be attracted to the guy and fall in love with him.
The fundamental assumption behind these scripts is the commodification of female sexuality. In other words, that the romantic attraction of a woman (or at least sexual access to her), can or should be bought. In other words, that female sexuality is something men take or get, and that women give up or give out. As most feminists already know, this view is very prevalent in American culture, and it is often shared by members of both sexes. Yet it is sexist against both sexes. There are several ways in which the commodification of female sexuality usually manifests:
Male entitlement - “if a man gives gifts, does favors, pays for dates/drinks, acts like a therapist, does homework, is nice to the point of obsequiousness, or gives another kind of unreciprocated special treatment to a woman, then he is entitled to sex with her.” In other words, if a male “pays” for female sexuality (and the woman is assumed to be selling it), then he is entitled to get what he paid for, or at least whine if he doesn’t. If he pays, and there is no “ka-ching!” then there must be something wrong with the machine, err… the woman. He will go whine in the corner, kick it and see if it works, or extract his prize forcefully. Like feminists, I abhor this point of view.
Chivalry - “unless a male gives gifts, does favors, pays for dates/drinks, acts like a therapist, does homework, is nice to the point of obsequiousness, or gives another kind of unreciprocated special treatment to a woman, then he is not worthy to have sex with her.” This view either assumes that those actions attract a woman on a sexual level (which they do not, and cannot, because they operate on a material/platonic level), or that women only possess a kind of passionless, platonic love. If a man delivers his “payment,” and there is no “ka-ching,” then he must not have offered enough. Males following this script often complain about how nice they are, but how women never appreciate them (when maybe women do appreciate them, just not in a sexual way, because appreciation is a totally different thing from attraction).
Female entitlement - “if a woman has sex with a man, then she is entitled to some of those forms of unreciprocated special treatment.” In other words, a man is indebted to a woman for sexual access to her. One form of this belief is the notion that the man should buy a diamond ring. Another version is that a woman is entitled to a relationship with a man, or commitment from him, if she has sex with him. (Surely if a man is to have a relationship with a woman, it shouldn’t simply be out of a feeling of debt to her for “giving” him sex, but rather because he likes her as a person?)
All of those views are really different sides of the same coin (if we can have a three-sided coin?), because they stem from the commodification of female sexuality. Feminism has done a good job of combatting the “male entitlement” version of this assumption, because it is the most obviously misogynistic and damaging to women. Yet the other manifestations of the commodification of female sexuality also cause misogyny through the indirect route I described in the previous post: both cause resentment in men towards women, because they are unfair and will set males up for bad experiences with women. For example, many females might consider the chivalrous script I outlined above to be unnecessary, obsequious, manipulative, or otherwise a turnoff (hence the script causes failure). These scripts are based less on what women actually go for, and more on inaccurate stereotypes about what women should want. When males using these outdated scripts fail with women, they are likely to see females as unappreciative, selfish, and manipulative.
Yet the chivalrous scripts still exist. They are enshrined in movies, books, and Romantic poetry (or at least poor interpretations of Romantic poetry). Perhaps they persist because women benefit from chivalry in a material manner, and the damaging effects of the assumptions behind chivalry aren’t understood. Unfortunately, feminists seem to frame chivalry exclusively as sexism against women (for instance, by only noting that chivalry can lead to male entitlement or gestures of possession). This view is one-sided, because it ignore the way that chivalry can also be a gesture of submission and obsequious from the male, and that it causes males to needlessly waste their time and resources only to be rejected (and that such behavior may even cause their rejection!).
Note: my critique is not “why is it that males work so hard to pursue women and get nothing in return?” (because that would assume that female sexuality is something that women “give” and men “get”), but rather “why are males socialized to pursue women in a way that doesn’t work?” Perhaps if it was recognized that chivalrous romantic scripts are sexist and damaging towards both sexes, then getting rid of them would be easier.
The counter-productiveness of these scripts I describe is one of the reasons I claim that males are less prepared for their gender role than females are. (Of course, I am not claiming that being able to play one’s gender role is necessarily a good thing!)
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:31 am
I’d like to make the humble (seriously) suggestion that all of us who are seriously interested in discussing rape culture do so. It is a topic I’d like to see getting the attention it deserves.
I know other people coming in with extreme positions can be distracting and it’s tempting to tear apart their arguments (hell, I’m as guilty of this as anyone else here), but IMO it’s time to quite indulging the pleasure we get from arguing (again, I know this applies to me about 100%) and deal with the original questions.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:01 am
Crys T, this thread was consciously intended as a thread for continuing the debate with Aegis - the opening post even contains an extensive quote from one of Aegis’ posts.
However, if you want a separate thread for discussing rape culture, I’m more than happy to start such a thread. If you like, you could write a guest-post to start the thread, or if you had some other suggestion for starting such a thread (like a particular comment that should be quoted) please let me know.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 6:01 am
Sorry Amp: I’m just getting frustrated that the discussion doesn’t seem (from my point of view, anyway) to be actually going anywhere, and in a lot of ways this thread and the other, related one seem to have become just the same argument being repeated in 2 different places.
Actually, yes, if you wouldn’t mind starting a separate thread, that would be great, though I don’t have a particular comment to start things off in mind. Maybe someone who’s feeling a bit mentally sharper than me right now could suggest what a good starting-off point? I am actually interested in hearing men’s perceptions of how they are encouraged to accept & participate in rape culture. I have my ideas about that, but I’d like to see how males perceive it. I know that’s a pretty extensive topic, but like I said, I’m not feeling too swift today.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 6:56 am
Well, I’m really confused on how you can talk about gender, sex roles and power *without* talking about rape culture. Those are the building blocks of rape culture and to not talk about it in this context means that you are only discussing gender, sex roles and power from a patriarchal point of view. You can’t talk about them as if they exist in a social vaccuum — Aegis tries and all he winds up doing is taking about adolescent male fantasies of how women “really” are or how they “should” be.
*shrug*
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:06 am
I don’t know if this is old news to people here, but reading these threads and the debate brought into mind a (prison) psychological study by Nicholas Groth (damn, I don’t know how to link, but the synopsis would be on http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/menwhorape.html) on rapists:
(and I am certainly not using this to understand the “poor boys” who rape, but more as a dissection of motives to understand the true problem - rape culture)
1)55% “power” rapists (sexual conquest)
2)40& “hate” rapists (pent-up anger and frustration)
3) 5% “sadist” rapists (fusion of aggression and sexuality)
I don’t really know if this study has been refuted since, but just as a starting point to get to the true point here:
It seems to me that 1) and 2) are both bona fide examples of rape culture. (number 3 I’m not so sure)
Let me explain:
1) Privilege as a motive. A man like this feels superior to women in general, and has been brought up believing that “a true man” takes what he wants. This sort of rapist probably even doen’t think himself as a rapist. Classic date rapist.
2) Misogyny as a motive. This type of rapist was probably brought up by traditional gender roles and sense of privilege. However, a man like this uses rape as a weapon against women. Very commonly in situations when the man perceives the woman has been “uppity” - of course this is by his warped standards.
(Of course privilege and misogyny are linked, btw)
Discussion of how rape culture and patriarchy fosters these particular attitudes. Actually, Aegis in his colossal posts ;-) probably provided some insight on “hate” rapist, as misogyny would probably be created by getting hurt after having totally warped views on “how to treat women” - as if women were different species or something. And rape as an expression of power would be quite mainstream feminism on patriarchy.
And again, I am in no way excusing rape by creating sort of “patriarchy made me do it” or “if the women would have only treated me better” - type of explanations.
This comment was written by Tuomas.That would be my contribution as a possible discussion starter. Perhaps needs some work, but anyway.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:08 am
er, Amp, forgot to close the bolding. And hey, the link worked.
[Bolding fixed! --Amp]
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:34 am
On the topic at hand, I would say that
I agree that it might be less likely for the man to turn the woman down. Because men are “supposed” to grab any changes (but then again, she is “not acting like a proper lady” to some men). But however:
Precisely because of this attitude it might even be more hurtful for a woman to initiate (and be rejected). Traditional “wisdom” is that a woman who initiates “scores” always - and thus, if the woman indeed is turned down, it might be more damaging to self-esteem (as it is inconceivable to be turned down by “a sex-crazed, yet rational (?) animal like a man”, therefore something must be wrong with her) .
I hope that made some sense.
And I think another side of chivalry is definitely hip - the bad boy. Of course, I personally think this is very much false dilemma, that men were supposed to act/come in just two personality types: the nice guy/therapist/gift-giver and the bad guy/asshole/uninterested/blah blah. Screw the scripts :-) and treat women like persons. May not work right away on teenagers, but will pay off at least in feeling of righteousness.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:45 am
Aegis, have you read any romance novels? I occasionally (i.e., once every couple of years) read one to remind myself why I don’t read them.
“(initiating man -> hesitant woman -> persistent man -> yielding woman -> sex is the basic myth of romance, and the basic rape myth)
I think it only looks like a rape myth because you defined it so broadly. I would say that the standard romance model is something like this:
(initiating man -> hesitant woman -> persistent man -> yielding and consenting woman -> sex)”
Using the romance novel script as a basis for what a significant segment of the American female audience considers the ideal basis for developing a relationship, I think there are roughly 3 scripts:
Initiating man -> hesitant woman -> persistent man -> overpowered and unconsenting woman -> rape -> persistent man ->yielding and consenting woman -> consensual sex
Initiating man -> interested woman -> persistent man -> yielding and consenting woman -> consensual sex
Initiating woman -> disinterested man -> persistent woman -> interested man -> yielding and consenting woman -> consensual sex
In the last two scripts, the woman almost always needs to be rescued from some peril in order to get it on with the man, which is a disguise for the actual rape in the first script. Which is why we call it the rape myth.
Or you could watch soap operas. “General Hospital” many years ago had a plot line that was the perfect illustration of the rape myth - the Luke and Laura love story. (Which, BTW, I only know about because my grandmother was an avid fan.) Laura is married to Scotty but works with Luke at a disco. Luke is obsessed with Laura. One night, they are working late, and Luke rapes Laura on the dance floor (after first turning on “romantic” music and turning on the glitter ball and persuading her to dance with him). This eventually leads to the breakup of Laura’s marriage and she discovers that she really loves Luke after all. Although my grandmother thought this plot line was a crock, she thought that their romance was one of the great relationships on the show. Go figure.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:48 am
‘a thread for continuing the debate with Aegis’
Erm, which ‘debate’? He’s just reposting his 99 theses on men and dating. He’s built a model. He’s not been taking in anything that contradicts that model - it may exist, but it’s marginal, so it can be disregarded. He responds to women who say things that don’t fit that model by citing ‘many women’ who do confirm his model. He’s now described his position as masculist and in response to criticism just says, oh I should have known better than to argue with radical feminists - again, presumably defined as any view or behaviour or preference that doesn’t fit his model. He’s describing the romantic model with terms like ‘beta male’ which last I recall were nowhere to be found at the actual beginnings of romantic literature. He says sorry if he comes off as offensive but he really didn’t mean to be offensive, his intent is serious and honest. Good to know! I guess that makes a non-debate an actual debate.
Ok then, if I’m allowed to get just as serious, I will happily accept the terms of that debate, embrace the 99 theses and go even further, to say that not only men have it harder, and their psychological suffering from dating is deeper, but each of their efforts at getting laid are such a monumental expense of energy that could power the New York subway for an entire week, it’s hard to imagine how men can even keep a job at all, with all the amount of time and psychological effort they invest in getting women to fuck them. Meanwhile, women are happily lounging back in their deckchairs, smoking cigars and picking the olives from their daiquiris as they count the money in their trust fund, they sit there watching all these men go by and waiting for one of them to come up and start his own cumbersome task in this mating ritual, and if his efforts are repaid, he will know because the woman will raise an eyebrow, swallow the olive, call the butler and tell him, James, please prepare the bedroom for our guest for tonight I have decided I shall mate. She will then turn a scornful gaze on the initiating man and tell him, you, there, lick my toes and give me all your money. And the man shall be happy. If his efforts are not repaid, however, the woman who has the power to turn the initiating man into a wretched reject with the flick of a finger, and knows it, and thus wields this power with absolute carelessness and cruelty, will call her personal security guard and tell him, Burt, please escort this pathetic specimen of the male gender to the rejection room, where he will be flogged and hung upside down from the ceiling, then the words ‘beta male’ will be burnt on his forehead and he shall be released back into the world, to suffer the scorn and humiliation of more fortunate suitors.
Mind you, no, that’s not what anyone was saying here, it’s just my own slight embellishment of a reality that anyone, anyone can see, but few dare to denounce, because radical feminists have cunningly managed to disguise the tremendous power women yield over the male sex under talk of rape culture, victimhood, whining, blaming it all on the patriarchy, it’s all very slick and sly and only to hide the fact women, really, are the ones who are in control of this cruel darwinian competition of sexual reproduction that’s at the root of advanced human societies in the third millennium.
Now I’ll go back to my daiquiri if you don’t mind, it is such a life of leisure and pleasure, and the only thing I have to worry about all day is, which initiating man am I going to allow into my secret chambers. Oh, little do men know, how weak and powerless they are, because again, the cunning feminist plan that has been secretly ruling the world since Reagan’s death involves leaving them under the impression that they’re privileged and pampered bullies, when in reality that’s what we do. Don’t tell anyone, or the whole scheme may collapse, and I’d have to find myself a real job.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:57 am
Go, noodles! Go, noodles! LOL.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:27 am
Aegis writes:
No, Aegis. Read what we fucking write:
Jenny writes
There is a big fucking difference between “expecting men to be the dominant partner leads to rape as well as having to make the first move” and “men doing the asking is rape” I dare you to find anything that anyone else has said that means the latter and not the former. And the fact that you can’t see any type of connection between men kissing women without asking permission first, on a regular basis, and “rape culture” is just….I don’t have words for it. It’s not “radical”, unless you still think that the majority (rather than the fringes) of feminist theory is “radical.”
Who is disagreeing with this? Last I checked, we are disagreeing with the fact that you seem to think that this perception is correct, or that, once that’s said, that’s all there is to do on the matter. Because, seriously, if you ever “gave suggestions for changing the minds of non-feminist males” I missed it.
And as far as the fact that you still are going on about the fact that guys expend more emotional energy: I’d like to aks how that fits into the stereotype that women overanalyze everything a guy says, and challenge how you describe putting on makeup as mechanical, as if feelings of inadequacy never, or rarely, creep into the act of covering up your real face (or even something as simple as choosing underwear - seriously, watch Bridget Jones Diary, ask yourself why its so popular, and then come back and tell me guys expend more emotional energy), but I give up at this point.
I really don’t understand how you can spend post upon post talking aboout how guys have it worse, and we just don’t understand, and that we are radicals for saying current gender stereotpyes foster rape and then turn around and say that we are blind to the fact that that the current system creates mysoginists? HUH?!? Or wait, maybe I do, sounds like a stereotypical guy thing to do. Ignore what other people are actually saying, and then claim it as your own idea once it sinks in. Seriously, if you want us to respect you, try giving us some.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:31 am
Oh, I second Crys T’s request, although I do warn you, it’s likely only going to feed my need to vent about boys reading habits and parents who encourage their bad behaviour.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
June 3rd, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Aegis is from the Bay Area? Oh dear, I’m embarrased, there goes the neoghborhood.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Seriously, though, why is everyone spending so much time trying to refute one boy’s juvenile dating theories? If he appeared to be listening maybe we might be serving an educational purpose, but since he just keeps repeating the same theories over and over again what’s the point continuing the conversation? It’s like watching someone on vacation in another country who thinks that since the people they’re talking to don’t speak English, the best thing to do is repeat themselves SLOWLY and LOUDLY, but still in English.
So yes, can we have another thread where the grownups can talk please?
Report this comment to the moderators
June 4th, 2005 at 10:18 am
Wait, so because you find initiating easier than playing the female role, then you know that it’s less effort in general for males to initiate than for females to play the passive role? B.S. I’ve talked to several women who agree with me that the male role takes more effort. Why should I believe your perceptions over theirs?
The same reason anyone here should believe your own, absolutist, generalizations about how the male role is harder than the female role. Why is it OK for you to say “the male role is harder than the female role,” yet when I say it’s the reverse, suddenly you throw a tantrum and cry BS?
By the way, you’ve talked to several women here who agree with me that the female role takes more effort. Why should I believe your perceptions over theirs?
Unless you have spent time playing both roles–and the same goes for your anonymous female sources–then you have no basis for comparison. And you have zero basis for your double-standard crap, by which the perceptions and biases of Aegis are true of all, but everybody else’s are unique and individual only to them.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Ok, ok, I’ll do a quick response to this…
That’s a valid question, regardless of your uncharitable way of posing it. The answer lies in the way we both supported our claims. My argument that the male role takes more psychological effort is not just based on my direct personal experience, but stems from the nature of the male and female roles. Even if the claim that the male role takes more effort is wrong, I think it still needs to be discussed, so I would appreciate it if people stopped trying to make me out as a bad person just for raising the issue.
Your counter-argument was not an argument at all, but a blanket assertion:
If you had given any kind of argument besides just your personal experience, I would not have called B.S. on you. I know that to some degree, everyone can only really make arguments on this subject that stem in some way from their personal experience. But I think in making arguments based on personal experience, we need to offer more than “my personal experience proves X” (which is what you are doing). Nobody can know what experiences you have had, or how you are interpreting them. Hence, claims like that are useless, because someone who doesn’t know you has no way of qualifying them.
The other problem I had with your claim is how you assumed that initiating is the same experience for a woman as it is for a man. As I explained, initiating may be easier for women in many ways.
You shouldn’t. I’m not asking you to trust my experiences, but rather my arguments. In fact, I’m not even asking you to trust my arguments, only to think about them and consider the ways in which they may be true.
Btw, when I refer to my anonymous female sources, I am not claiming that their perceptions prove my argument. I simply bring up what they have told me to combat generalizations made by several female posters here who seem to think they are qualified to speak for all women. For instance, Amanda claiming that a man asking for a kiss would wow the ladies every time. That is just total B.S. I’ve talked to several females who claim that they can’t stand it when a guy asks permission, hence her generalization is false.
Feminists need to acknowledge that a certain amount of females do not have politically correct desires. If males want to have sex/relationships with those females, then those males will have to act in a way that is not politically correct. I argue that there is a serious shortage of women who do have politically correct desires, hence a least some males will have to cater to females who don’t. Several people here have the mistaken assumption that women who don’t have politically correct desires are somehow uneducated or not conscious of gender issues. As if once a woman’s consciousness is raised, she will (and can) change her desires.
Just as male dominance perpetuates a system of female submission and masochism, female submissiveness and masochism perpetuate the system of male dominance. The two go hand in hand. Before you are anyone else jumps on that last statement, remember that many feminists have made similar arguments, so I’m not just pulling it out of my ass.
I have played some aspects of the female role. It was dead easy. I’m afraid I’m not going into any more detail. Of course, I don’t rest my argument that the female roles take less psychological effort just on that experience. There could be many reasons why the female role is easier for me.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
My argument that the male role takes more psychological effort is not just based on my direct personal experience, but stems from the nature of the male and female roles.
Which led you into the absurd argument that hours of direct preparation, “please notice me” mind-reading, and a lifestyle centered on being attractive 24/7 is more difficult than the short time it takes to ask a person out.
What did you base this on? Nothing, not even personal experience: you simply presented it as a fait accompli. That’s not an argument, Aegis. Nor is using “politically correct” as a shorthand for…what? You don’t explain, but we’re apparently supposed to understand that some men and women have “desires” that aren’t “politically correct” and that backs up your arguments about what male and female roles are like for all.
I have played some aspects of the female role. It was dead easy. I’m afraid I’m not going into any more detail.
I’m afraid I can’t really evaluate your arguments on that basis.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Btw, when I refer to my anonymous female sources, I am not claiming that their perceptions prove my argument. I simply bring up what they have told me to combat generalizations made by several female posters here who seem to think they are qualified to speak for all women. For instance, Amanda claiming that a man asking for a kiss would wow the ladies every time. That is just total B.S. I’ve talked to several females who claim that they can’t stand it when a guy asks permission, hence her generalization is false.
Aegis, out of curiousity are you even considering the age ranges of the women you talk to versus the age ranges of the women on this blog?
Do you honestly feel a sample of 18 to 21 year old women is going to yeild the same level of introspection and experience as a sample of women nearly all 25+ years in age (in fact I’d say that the majority are older, though this blog does have a good handful of very sharp younger women as well).
As for Amanda’s generalization, I think that ‘in general’ what she said is true, I know it’s true for me and the women I’m around regardless of whether they are feminists or not.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
ack, yield, not yeild. Stupid fingers got ahead of me :(.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
Just as male dominance perpetuates a system of female submission and masochism, female submissiveness and masochism perpetuate the system of male dominance. The two go hand in hand. Before you are anyone else jumps on that last statement, remember that many feminists have made similar arguments, so I’m not just pulling it out of my ass.
The difference being, you seem to be contending that it’s justifiable, hence okay. When I’ve seen the argument made by feminists, it’s been within the context that it’s something that needs to be changed because the system is perpetuating a culture of rape, which you don’t particularly like discussing, hence narrowing the scope of the debate to minutia that only works for you.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 12:25 am
My argument that the male role takes more psychological effort is not just based on my direct personal experience, but stems from the nature of the male and female roles.
As established by who?
That’s not argument, that is a typical blanket statement. Apparently you seem to take personal accounts as blanket statements when they come from others, but your own obvious blanket statements are supposed to be truths inscribed in Nature, no less.
Give us a break, Aegis. Your “arguments” have been treated far too charitably, considering they consist of nothing but that kind of absolutist assertions.
Btw, when I refer to my anonymous female sources, I am not claiming that their perceptions prove my argument. I simply bring up what they have told me to combat generalizations made by several female posters here who seem to think they are qualified to speak for all women.
Ah, is that so now. Hmm. You must have missed the parts where people said behaviour and preferences are individual and not cut across gender lines, doh. You’re the one who thinks you are qualified to speak not only for all women, but for all men - about the “nature of male and female roles”. Really, you’re so deep in contradiction you don’t even see it.
Feminists need to acknowledge that a certain amount of females do not have politically correct desires
Straw man. *you* see the most normal behaviour such as being annoyed by a sexual advance that’s not welcome as “politically correct desire”. I can assure you my illiterate grandmother who didn’t even know about feminism had the same reactions as me to obnoxious jerks who think they are entitled to attention just because of making a move.
I have played some aspects of the female role. It was dead easy. I’m afraid I’m not going into any more detail.
Hahaha… oh please. This one is so brilliant it takes the prize. :)
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 12:27 am
How old is Aegis, can he at least grace us with that information?
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 12:32 am
Last thing - again you repeat and repeat the thing about how your special sources from the female corps disclaim what Amanda said about asking, like no one’s replied on that already, like you didn’t even take in the meaning that “wow” had. You keep defining things in your own terms.
Once again, that “asking for a kiss would wow the ladies every time” does not mean, “will *get you laid* every time”. Ok?
I’ve talked to several females who claim that they can’t stand it when a guy asks permission, hence her generalization is false.
And yours is true, because of your “several females” friends? Try asking your “several females” if they prefer being asked, or having the tongue of a stranger they did *not* fancy or flirt with at all shoved into their mouth.
That’s what we were talking about, unwanted advances, and the difference between making a move out of the blue and engaging in reciprocal flirting behaviour.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 1:33 am
He did in the first thread, Noodles. I can’t recall exact, but he’s either 19 or 20 (I’m thinking 19 if I recall correctly as he and I got into a bit of a spat about the disparity in experience on the prior thread).
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2005 at 2:03 am
Thanks Kim, I’d missed that.
Well I’d guessed it was about that age. Not suprising :)
I guess that makes it all more understandable. I mean, if I think of all the bullshit I believed when I was 19. Not about these matters, specifically, but about society in general. Like, I really believed there was such a thing as meritocracy and that was really how things worked, now I know better. ;)
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators