[…] is a comment left by Shiloh on a previous thread. I’ve edited it a bit to make it “stand-alone,” rather than […]

Is three years the record for the longest delay in the appearance of a trackback?

We’re at the stage in history where perceptions and actions about who we are and what is our place in society are not just influenced by society, culture, religion, politics, family environment, childhood, education, experience, etc. but also mass advertising, and it’s everywhere and its influence can hardly be denied - whether it’s a reinforcement of existing stereotypes or creation of news ones, or a loop of both, we are surrounded by it.

And yet, there’s still people talking like mentalities and behaviour are simply things we’re born with and the differences have to be biological.

It’s like what someone said about, if you’re a fish, you don’t even notice you’re surrounded by water, cos you’ve never been out of it.

I would have a whole family to divorce if I ever wanted to do that, and that seems kinda petty to do over something such as differing belief systems. I make comments here and there but mostly I let you folks handle the rest. Being a ‘moderator’ and commenting a lot in threads–especially those that are mine–still feels “awkward” to me. I just enjoy watching you people go back and forth. Really entertaining.

Oh and I maybe nineteen but looking back on my SAT and ACT scores, the last thing I would ever consider myself to be is a “genius.” ::shakes head:: Horrible, horrible. But I still got into a good college, made honor roll my first year (this past year), and earned a GPA way above the freshmen average. Ha-ha! Take that Princeton, New Jersey who makes those damn SAT exams, that supposedly determine all your life’s future successes and failures!

Marge was involved in lots of high school clubs and whatnot, and was finally asked to the prom by a guy considered to be the smartest person in the school. There were hints that Marge was actually more intelligent than he was, but didn’t realize it. Homer, meanwhile, had a hopeless crush on Marge. Marge and the “smart guy” were elected king and queen of the prom, and the “smart guy” gave an arrogant speech on why it was a good thing that the other students, instead of electing a jock, recognized his “intellectual superiority.” He didn’t, of course, say a word about Marge. Shortly afterwards, he tried to sexually assault Marge, insisting she was obligated to respond to him. Marge managed to escape him, and found Homer moping around; Homer gave her a ride home, and treated her with respect.

There are conventions about portraying high school students; one of those conventions is contrasting the poor, picked upon smart kid (male) with the popular dumb jock (male). There’s the message, implicit or explicit, that in the long run, the smart kid wins wealth and prestige. Oh, and the picked upon smart kid is almost always white, male, heterosexual, and middle class.

On another blog — Mousewords, I think — someone pointed out how in elementary school, reading books is treated as effeminate. As it came out in discussion, there are a lot men who feel they were hassled all through school, and deserve the rewards they eventually receive — they see themselves as victims. And they believe they get to ignore the privileged treatment they’d received because of their class background, their gender, their ethnicity, and so on. It usually doesn’t occur to them that they were designated “smart kids” because they met the profile: white boy, middle class.

This is what makes me wince whenever I read someone talking about how wonderful “meritocracy” is. It misses the underlying problem that “meritocracy” is all about the belief that middle class and otherwise privileged individuals deserve their privileges — and to Hell with everyone else. Say, someone like Marge, who is treated as simply a trophy, a prize the poor, picked upon smart kid is entitled to. The myth of meritocracy is an underpinning of class system, and it’s closely related to sexism and racism.

When I was 19, I thought I was a genius — my teachers and counselors in high school told me I was. In college, I tried the “Nice Guy” gambit several times — whining that women picked “jerks” instead of me, when of course I was entitled to their attentions. It took a while for me to realize that I was surrounded by people who were smarter and more capable than I was — and it scared me. I don’t think I would like the person I would have become had I not flunked out of college.

Some –ahem !– novelists have made a virtual cottage industry out of rape fantasies. See, for example, Beatrice Small.

With certain publishers of romance novels, “rescue from peril” is their code for rape. I agree that, up to a point, this overlaps protection fantasy with rape fantasy, but just because the rape is implied doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. I highly recommend you read a few romance novels to see what I mean. You could probably knock of 4 or 5 in a couple of days, since most of them are not very long.

Aww, poor Aegis, now I feel so guilty… here, you want a chocolate cookie? or maybe a glass of pernod? ice, lemon, an olive? want some slice of ass with that, too?

Dude, you’re so full of yourself it’s unbelievable. Several people including the undersigned have already, repeatedly, patiently, politely explained what’s wrong with your view - what’s wrong even if it was merely descriptive, which it isn’t - across more than one thread, so spare us the bullshit about asking for a response after all that tiresome back and forth. If you want to pretend there was open-mindedness on your part and you got no dialogue, feel free to whine on but you’re only making your it even clearer that you’re only here to have an audience for your own egotistic ignorance.
Please do go on believing what you like and behaving according to it, as long as you’re happy with it. You can believe in aliens for all I care. Do you want acknowledgement and approval with it? Well go look elsewhere. You said it yourself you chose the wrong place to spout off your ideas. Well, draw the necessary conclusions. If you think everyone here is biased or thick or dishonest and mistreated you instead of gracing you with far more opportunities for discussion that you deserve, then what are you still doing here?

Tuomas said:
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.

Thanks for actually reading my post and thinking about the implications.

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.

I agree that it is a false dilemma, although the bad boy type is more successful with women sexually. The problem is that, as you say, the bad boys don’t treat women as persons, but as sex objects. Paradoxically, that is the reason for their success: a surprisingly large amount of young women respond well to being treated as sex objects. It seems that just as some males have a madonna-whore complex where females are seen as either asexual or hypersexual, many young females have what we could call a “bad boy - nice guy complex,” where males are only placed at one of those poles.

noodles said:
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.

Wow, you really like making accusations don’t you? Yes, I suppose I’ve built a model. But there is nothing inherently wrong with models: the social sciences use models of human behavior, and so does feminism. Please explain exactly what problems you have with my model.

You totally missed my point about radical feminism. My point was that it was foolish for me to argue certain positions here, because there was no way they would be understood, because the people here would have such fundamentally different assumptions (regardless of whether those assumptions are correct or not). A feminist going to a radically masculist forum would encounter a similar reaction. I should have instead stuck to simpler claims that don’t require so much explanation so as to avoid so many fundamental differences in assumptions.

That was the reason for my incredibly long posting spree. I was trying to back up, establish some common ground, and adapt to various criticisms from the feminists here. Do I get any appreciation for this, or even acknowledgement? No, only more straw man attacks and childish sarcasm.

Here is the main summary of what you call my model. Please explain exactly which claims you have problems with.

Aegis said:
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).

My lol was in response to ginmar, in case anyone was confused.

I’m just amused (and annoyed) to no end that a 19 year old guy thinks that the subjects he has the most authority on are dating and sexual desire (in both sexes).

Not having been a 19 year old guy, and not having a whole lot of guys as friends when I was 19, I think that there are some things a 19 year old guy could teach me - at least about what it’s like to be a boy in modern America. This is, after all, one of the reasons I like Scieszka’s Guys Read campaign.

But I’m also giggling at the idea that romantic relationships explain why one of my coworkers was told by one elementary school boy that he “couldn’t read Lemony Snicket. Yes, one of the main character’s is a guy, but two of them are girls.”

Of, course I’m sure my assumption that Aegis will simply use any opportunity available to change to topic back to dating norms, is just that; an assumption, - not at all based on his actual actions, and that I must have misread his meaning and intent. (rolls eyes)

This makes no sense at all; how can a man “get rejected” if neither he nor the woman initiate?

Your argument is clumsy and doesn’t work by throwing numbers in. Let’s try it this way: if only 10% of women initiate, it means that a man who does not initiate has a smaller pool of available women. And the answer to that issue is not “OMFG!” but “Thank god!” Because, really, you’re after quality, not quantity, aren’t you?

This socialized male aversion to femininity is definitely a problem. But why does it exist in the first place? Because gender roles, in many ways, are more restrictive on males.

No. It exists because sexism presumes that male > female. A woman who “acts like a man” may be unattractive, or gettin’ above her raisin’, but at least she’s trying to elevate herself; that’s why ’she drives like a man’ or ’she does that as well as any man’ are compliments. Whereas a man who acts like a woman is debasing himself. Worse, it suggests to other men that they, too, could be debased; it’s a threat.

It has nothing to do with ‘more restrictive’ and everything to do with what going outside the gender lines means.

And I have given some suggestions, such as feminists recognizing the romantic expectations of (some) women are one of the largest pillars of the “patriarchy”? (I wish I could take credit for thinking up that idea, but Dworkin and many others beat me to it).

Did you read this before you posted it? First you say ‘feminists’ should do something, then you admit that feminists have in fact ALREADY done this.

That’s supposed to be “Even if you are” (doh!)

I’m also more than a little steamed at they way that you held me up as an example to the other posters on how they should behave. I’m too tired to find exactly what you said, but the gist of what you were saying seemed to be that I was being reasonable, but posters like mythago and noodles weren’t. Bull.