I want to touch on something that I did a report on in my environmental science today that partially relates to this. I see something mentioned about magazines, newspapers, and media in general and their effects on women. Here is the exact quote: I as a man feel the media in general tells me what I should do, what I should buy, how I should look and how I should act. The topic my report focused on was http://isitlowt.com/. I would like everyone commenting on this thread to view that commercial if they haven't already and take a look at the little quiz they have. Look at the bolded parts. This isn't about getting being diseased, it's about preying on people's insecurities. Every day my inbox is filled with spam about Cialis, Viagra, and all natural "male enhancement", quick ways to six pack abs and home remedies for whiter teeth. According to the media I'm supposed to be educated, financially stable, be a great father and spend time with my kids, a devoted altruist, monogamous, have an Adonis like figure, married, always make my "love making" about my wife and try to last forever (and have a 9 inch penis), have good fashion sense (because guys should take pride in their appearance), be able to work on my car, be able to fix shit in the house without consulting anyone, be able to cook a five course meal on command, make time to call my mom and go to church on Sundays. I know I can't be the only guy who feels this is the way people want him to be. Do you believe this is similar to what women go through? I'm not going to focus on the issue of sexual harassment or assault because although I'm a heterosexual male I've been sexually harassed by both sexes and know it's still nowhere close to what women deal with. I was recall something about 1/3 women have been violated in some way shape or form. I can't imagine what that's like.
The situation we have today between the sexes is almost of Gordian knot proportions, because of some chicken and egg type action. To oversimplify it: - men dominated from early times; - after reaching a certain point of societal development, women began obtaining increased power. In some quarters, especially at the beginning, this was co-created with outright aggression towards the male of the species; - younger males began to bear some of this animosity, simply because they're "male" or to an extent because they're still being indoctrinated into a male dominant society. They feel they're being punished for the sins of the fathers. - this creates a backlash as males seek to retain status or retaliate against the animosity they feel they don't deserve. - females respond accordingly... ..and down the spiral we (may) go. That's not the totality of it, or probably even close, but I think it's a viable way of looking at it. There's no real way of gaining a fresh start because each gender is thrust into gender roles from birth. It's not even a conscious thing, because there needs to be something there. Hopefully, the swing back and forth becomes a little less severe each cycle. A good start would be getting everyone's chips off their shoulders, such that they're there. It doesn't matter who points the finger first, just know that there will be a response. And a response to that response and so on. Both sides are touchy about the subject. I would guess that women are sensitive about losing the ground they've gained, and men are sensitive because the women are sensitive and there's some conditioned response to feeling like they're being collectively attacked. I don't think we're ever going to achieve gender equality, and probably shouldn't. Because, the genders are not equal... except in the aggregate. We're different, biology demonstrates that. Hormones dictate it. In most cases, it is wrong to say that men and women are equal at X, or they're just as good as each other at Y. Trying to do that is only succumbing to politically correct bullshit. To tangent off what pinkcup was saying, we're pre-programmed differently. I believe, at base, that men are programmed to find the fittest looking female and mate with her. This ensures the best chance of the offspring being strong and healthy, surviving to birth and beyond and in turn mating when their time comes. Conversely, women are the gatekeepers and are programmed to find the best providing male and keep him from mating with any other females; thereby ensuring protection for her and the young and ensuring her line survives while the others falter. Then, all sociological advancement is piled on top of that; but it's still there. I would wager that, on some level, every straight man makes a decision about every female he bumps into: would I mate with her? That doesn't mean he's going to act on it, but on some level that occurs. Then, add in the factor of how much successful mating he's done. A powerful man who has his pick of women generally won't look twice at the average girl, because he doesn't have to. The average man might, because his imperative to mate is higher because it is not as satisfied. I could be very wrong, but to me it kind of fits. It certainly explains a lot of general things about the way men treat women. Are women only there to be breeding machines? Biologically, probably yes. But, by the same token, men are just there to impregnate the females. At its base, aren't both genders really being used? This doesn't excuse modern behaviour, but I think it adds some background to the discussion. Maybe things would be better, for example, if it was realised that a man's desire the screw everything with two tits, a hole and a heartbeat was more of a genetic condition than a conscious choice to be a dickhead. That's not saying make excuses for them being a dickhead if they are. Rather, realise than some sections of feminism attacking men for this predisposition is going to create problems because when you can't change something there's very little opportunity to do anything other than fight back or take the punishment.
Fuck it, I'll go ahead and say it. I do this. A lot. I'm currently only dating one woman and I enjoy her company very much. I've made a conscious decision to be monogamous (I have zero tolerance for cheating) but yet every time I go out I still look at a particular type of woman. Although I enjoy a woman for who she is as a person and have had many different types of girlfriends, the size of her hips and ass have almost never deviated (big hips and big ass). Out of the 30+ women I've been with, I can think of only three instances where this was not the case. This is not something I can control and have TRIED to control since I could think logically. I'll give you three guesses why. I'll wager that any guy who says he doesn't do this is a fucking liar. There is zero doubt in my mind that every guy does this to at least SOME extent. If we're talking about biology, there is no probably about it. At the core, organisms are wired for reproduction and continuation of their genetic material and exist for no other reason. I want to make it absolutely clear there are infinitely many other reasons for existing and living, but we're talking about a scientific and biological point only.
The key here, I think, is the level. When you just say he "makes a decision," it sounds like a deliberate process. Let me devote my mental faculties to deciding whether or not I would want to mate with this new female... But, I don't think that describes what's going on. What happens is you look at a woman and just one of the many things you perceive is overall attractiveness. You "decide" whether you want to have sex with her the same way you "decide" if she has blond hair. [Note I'm talking about just whenever you look at someone casually, or even creepily. But, this isn't meant to describe what happens in an extended interaction, like on a date.] Edit: This doesn't say anything about how women should or do feel about being constantly having their attractiveness perceived and interpreted. But, it makes a difference if we're talking about the propriety of such decisions, and what can be done to improve society. I can't stop seeing attractiveness any more than I can stop seeing race. Sorry, I'm no Stephen Colbert.
That would be something like a "rapist range", where you shouldn't try to pinpoint exactly whether a particular man is a rapist, but rather understand that there's a variety of options (based on a variety of factors and "tells") that blend into a percentage. Here's the thing, though: it's not the acting. There are thousands of women champing at the bit to get good parts, who want to play substantial roles not revolving around men. However, there are some impediments: -By and large, actresses have to be conventionally attractive or willing to present as such. While this goes both ways, it's a bigger hurdle for women. -Most major movies are directed/written by men. Men run most studios. Men are the majority of producers, and most men can't produce realistic female characters. Most women can't produce realistic male character; it's not malice, it's just a function of an imbalanced system. I thought the male characters in The Social Network (for example) were well-written, but all of the female characters were terrible. Do I think Sorkin is a misogynist? I have no reason to believe that. I just know that he can't write women. -Consumers are used to women being objectified, and there's a demand for it. People want to see hot chicks do stuff, and they don't really care what the character is. What a woman looks like, and how sexually available she is is what a lot of audience members care about. Movies are a business after all! All of these issues are connected. These aren't nameless, faceless entities making these movies/running these companies/governments; they're people. People who live in the same culture as the rest of us; feminism is a cultural statement, and both the government and the media are part of it. I was simply giving irrefutable proof that at least in this one small segment of popular culture, women are poorly represented. That they're reduced to accessories. It's not just about making movies with more women. It's about changing the way femininity is performed and consumed so that a.) people will WANT to go to a movie where women are people and b.) those movies will be available. It's not an easy task.
But you see, the feminists like cats. A lot. Ladies don't usually participate in this fancy-schmancy thing called "science" because it's too hard for our ladybrains to comprehend, but this particular concept has a cat in it! Woo! So we're using that one. Audreymonroe: Where do you buy your brave-girl panties? Because I think I need a pair or two. I think most men would be horrified to learn about the amount of harassment, assault, rape, and demeaning treatment that most women experience on a daily basis. It's easy to scoff at feminism when you think that it's "only assholes who do that- can't blame society for a handful of jagoffs." Or when you think that it's a negligible minority of women who experience such things, and even then..."some of them must've done something to provoke it." But when you really start looking, and I mean really start considering the experiences of others to be more valid than your preconceived notions about how society works...it's impossible not to be a feminist. Really. Once you see it, it can't be unseen. Feminism is so, so much more than equal opportunity in the workplace/equal pay. Both of those things are important, but I think it's extremely telling that most of the posters on this thread against feminism have used those two goals are "proof" that feminism is irrelevent, misguided, or made up of whiners. Think a little bigger, think beyond white/upper-middle class/cis/able-bodied/straight women, and think beyond America...then you'll come close to understanding the goals and aims of modern feminism.
Oh boy. I was hoping you wouldn't go there. Jesus, I was hoping you didn't go there. But I read all of those blogs, regularly, and the fact that you conflate them with "discussing men's issues" in a positive way shows me that there's a long way to go. But don't take my word for it. Try Roissy's word! How about The Spearhead's word? Lets go to Exposing Feminism! Do I have to go on? Because I could, I really, really could. The sites you listed range from regressive to straight up misogynist. That's not the same thing as men talking about men's issues. Don't pretend it is.
You're right, I'm tired of all these faceless men being killed in action movies. Save the men! Most men don't rape. I would say upwards of 90% of men do not rape. So is it more effective to teach strategies (stay in lighted areas, stay out of sketchy areas, etc. etc.) or is it more effective to blast a bullhorn back in a random guy's face and say "Hey you! Quit raping!" The first question is, would such education stop a rapist? I doubt it - if he hasn't learned that rape is bad, he doesn't want to learn. The second question is, does it get your typical non-rapey guy on your side? I don't think so - if anything it antagonizes men who could be potential allies. Getting called a rapist (or a "potential rapist") tends to have a chilling effect on the possibility of cooperation. Of course, if feminists need or want that cooperation is another question entirely.
One thing that struck me while reading this is how much you've been harassed and catcalled in public. I don't doubt the truth of what you're saying, but while reading it I started thinking through my experiences walking through malls or public transit or what have you, and only one example pops up of a guy approaching a girl on a bus and saying he really liked her fashion sense. I'll grant that this would fall into the category of something at least mildly annoying, but I wonder - if this happens as often as you say, what am I not seeing? I can't recall a single instance of someone being catcalled walking down the street or an apartment hall. It's either a function of where I live, or the milieu I inhabit, or when you talk about catcalling, it's not what I see on TV or movies.
I must be the only one who sees the irony. The question is, should we be keeping discussion like this out of the public spotlight? Are these opinions taboo? Is it thoughtcrime to say that American girls are fat, or Vietnamese girls have nice asses? Because I don't think it helps anyone to bury these opinions under a layer of "don't say that in public".
Most rapes are acquaintance rapes. Besides having a bitter after-taste of victim blaming, your "strategies" wouldn't actually help. Here's the good news though: I fully believe that most men have no intentions of raping anybody. Many don't even realize they have, which means that we can do two things to help stop situations like am's. 1.) Help men understand what clear, full consent is. If you don't have it, having sex puts you at the risk of being a rapist. 2.) Help women understand how to clearly, fully indicate consent. Consent is a two-way street; I'm recalling that Louis CK joke where a girl keeps saying no, then later gets pissed at him because he didn't "just go for it." He was shocked, and said "I'm not going to rape you, on the off chance that you MIGHT be into it."
Nobody is trying to shut those sites down, I promise you. They're free to write whatever they want, just like stormfront is, just like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are. That doesn't mean they're free from criticism, or that they're comparable to good feminist websites. They're not. Read that roissy quote about rape out loud and tell me it doesn't give you a creepy vibe. They deserve to be criticized, and they are. You think a discussion about how women want to be infantalized should be given equal time with feminists who want to end rape? Fallacy of balance, much? Again, nobody is arresting anyone. You complained that men get excoriated when they talk about these issues, and listed sites where the writers deserve to get excoriated. And I didn't even get into the comment sections, where the actual "discussion" happens. Suffice to say that you might want to find a couple better examples, because I barely scratched the surface of why those blogs deserve scorn.
I find the almost obtuse conflagration of counsels of prudence and moral judgments really obnoxious. Young women should be taught how to avoid rape. It's prudent. Try not to walk down dark, deserted streets alone at night. Does that make you morally culpable if you ignore this counsel and get raped? No! It makes you a rape victim. A stupid rape victim, but no one is denying that the person morally responsible is the rapist. I've been told, as a man, to avoid walking alone at night in bad parts of town. I've been told to park my car in well-lit or attended areas. I keep my wallet in my front pocket. It'd be great if someone would teach all the moral degenerates and desperately poor to stop stealing wallets, but I don't get offended at being told how to protect myself. I don't see what's so offensive about telling girls not to take drinks from strangers, or to not go home with a guy they just met.
It's because it's tied up in the same sort of language that makes rape women's fault and an affront to the woman's father/husband etc. Sometimes, the history and context behind an argument changes how its perceived. As an example: I'm a black guy. I happen to have a certain degree of eloquence, and I took a shower today. If somebody at work called me "clean and well-spoken", I'd probably be pretty pissed.
I agree with both of those things. But I don't think avoidance strategies should be taken off the table either. I don't think using common sense is "blaming the victim". BL1Y covered my point pretty well.
Common sense isn't so common. It seems to me that many women believe they are at a disadvantage in most scenarios and this makes them vulnerable. I am a very confident woman and while I watch out for potential hazards, I also establish myself as anything but a victim.
I should point this out (which I should have started with, but whatever): I totally get why it sucks. You, BL1Y, Aetius, etc.: you're smart, logical guys who want to be able to engage these issues on a rational level, and don't want to be vilified. The feminist internet can seem like an unbalanced place, a place where being male at all is seen as some admission of crime. It's annoying to be patronized because you were born with balls, especially because you respect women as equals and you'd never hold them down. I've been there. Hell, I still get annoyed at radfem blogs. But sometimes, you have to accept that there's a context, and a long history associated with these arguments, and it might be hard for you to jump in immediately. I promise you, all the concerns you're raising are raised in basically every discussion of feminists that includes relatively uninitiated males, and it's difficult to drop everything and explain immediately. I don't think that feminism is a sacred cow immune from criticism. Just know that your critiques aren't at all new or unanticipated, and that they've already been addressed at length. Should audrey avoid standing in crowds of men? Going out on dates? Walking around? Part of the reason that the "avoid dark alleys" argument is so frustrating is that it derails from the actual threats. Also, most women aren't walking in dark alleys in short skirts just for shits and giggles, anyway. So it's both slightly offensive and patently unhelpful.
When I was talking to my uncle, a former motorcycle rider, about possibly getting a bike in the future, he told me about being dead right. You wind up dead right when, for example, you take the right of way through an intersection and some idiot drives into your path because they didn't see you. Sure, the other guy's at fault and you were completely right, but you're also dead. It's more important, in the long run, to be alive than to be right. So now, you have to decide if it's more important to teach college freshmen that it's better to pour out an unattended drink than take the risk (something that applies to men just as much as women), or if it's more important that everyone should pretend to live in la la land where bad things never happen. I also have to ask - what about this is couched in the language that makes rape an affront to a woman's husband or father rather than an affront to her?
I had the same reaction. I don't think I've ever seen someone have the reaction of "She was raped? Oh my God! How could she do that to her father/husband!"
OH FUCK YOU. Now I'm mad. Really?! You would say that upwards of 90% of men do not rape!? Based on what, precisely? Your handy-dandy estimation machine that isn't at all influenced by your preferred world view? No. It is fucking statistically inconceivable that ~9% of the male population is continually raping ~30% of the female population. There simply isn't enough time in the day to stick your penis into that many unwilling women. You are grossly underestimating the amount of male rapists in any given population. It's nice and pleasant to think that this horrible crime can be restricted to "the fucked up dudes" and that "fucked up dudes" are a very small minority, but thinking doesn't make it so. Try again. Did you even take the time to read audreymonroe's sweet-ass Rape Culture 101 list? No. I mean, I'm sure you read it. But comprehension takes a little longer than darting your eyes over some words and overlooking the meaning in favor typing up yet another response that showcases your ignorance of rape/rape culture. Women already learn strategies for doing our utmost to prevent rape- that's part and parcel of rape culture. We're constantly socialized to act, think, walk, carry our purse, watch our drink, etc. in order to prevent rape...more focus on prevention tactics is really NOT effective. Really. And it contributes to a culture of shaming that happens when a woman does fall prey to a rapist- what was she wearing? Where was she walking? What time was it? Who was she with? What specific environmental/behavioral factor can we point to as the reason for her rape? How could she have done things differently in order to avoid being raped? How could she not see that doing XYZ at XYZ location at XYZ time would lead to her rape? If she hadn'tve done that, she wouldn'tve been raped...let's add XYZ to the long list of Do Not Do This Unless You Want To Be Sexually Violated. And then let's circulate the tale of Poor Raped Woman Who Did Not Consider XYZ Factor when we teach our friends, daughters, sisters how to protect themselves from rapists. No. Education and changing patriarchal values held in society are key. And I don't really give a shit if I gain your "support" on this or not- we do not have to make this discussion a warm, welcoming space for your participation. There is no discussion to be had if we're constantly having to convince you that these issues exist to a greater extent than you're comfortable imagining/why placing further anti-rape burdens on women is a bad thing. Fuck that noise. And fuck your "men's issues" blogs. I'm totally cool with mens issues blogs- in fact, Good Men Project and Hugo Schwyzer are two men's issues blogs that I follow regularly. And they're both awesomesauce. Your blogs- the ones purportedly about "men's issues"- were ranking women's body types, advocating for the submission of women, and bitching about why women weren't in the kitchen. Really? You're telling me that men's issues are really about......women? Color me shocked.