» Manliness and Feminism: the followup

aych December 9, 2009 at 5:00 am #

I’m still not sure how to attract lots of men to feminism, to convince them to identify as feminists — or even if we can.

No, it’s very easy– LABEL THEM EVIL OPPRESSORS! That’s what you’ve always done, and that’s worked so well, so why quit?

Sheesh, do I need to do ALL the thinking around here?

Daran December 9, 2009 at 8:18 am #

Replying here just to the parts that were responses to me.

Daran over at Feminist Critics wrote a response to each segment (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Although there are a lot of aspects to these responses that irritate me, particularly the failure to — you know — even try to answer the vast majority of my questions.

No, My Part 1 was a response to the first question only in your Part 1. My Part 2 was a response to the second question in your Part 1. I had intended to work through them all, one after the other in order, as many as time would permit. But then I hit a stumbling block.

Daran at Feminist Critics accused me of hypocrisy, saying that some of my statements show that I’m not “really” interested in finding new perspectives or making space for them in feminism.

I have accused you of no such thing. Are you sure you’re not confusing me with someone else?

For instance, … Daran responded, How much is Clarisse’s demand that the men she addresses agree that men have it better than women a real requirement for finding common ground, and how much is it a shibboleth she’s using to distinguish between those she might be able to find common ground and those she thinks she’s likely to view as assholes?

That’s a question, not an accusation.

I do disagree that men have it better than women. So now what? The two remarks by you I quoted in my post read to me as follows:

“I don’t think I can seriously communicate with [people like Daran]. I’m more interested in talking to [other people].”

And that’s why I suspended my series of replies. I didn’t want to invest a huge amount of time and effort in replying to someone who seemed to have written me off in advance.

I say “seemed to”, because I always held out the hope that this might not be the forclosure it looked to be:

It’s also not at all clear what her intentions are … It remains to be seen whether there is room in her world-view for [men] who neither think that [men are generally better off than women], nor are assholes.

I’m not assuming that this is her final word on the matter. The post asks a question….

And:

I’m trying to ascertain whether there is any possibility that you might regard me as someone you could maybe find some common ground with, or whether I’m going to be presumptively consigned to the “not” pile. Based upon what you said, the answer is “not”. But I’m still hoping that maybe there is some wriggle room there

.

Daran December 9, 2009 at 8:48 am #

TPHMT … I don’t know what the acronym means

The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too

Clarisse December 9, 2009 at 9:19 am #

@Daran — No, My Part 1 was a response to the first question only in your Part 1. My Part 2 was a response to the second question in your Part 1. I had intended to work through them all, one after the other in order, as many as time would permit.

I see. I didn’t realize that. From the way it was framed, I thought each post was a response to each of my posts. In fairness, I don’t think you made your intent entirely clear.

The general tone of your posts and the way you framed your questions felt accusatory. I guess I am wrong that you meant to make them accusations. I guess I could have been more charitable in the way I interpreted you. In fairness, you tended to interpret most things I said in an uncharitable way.

You seem to still be waiting for a response to the question you asked — whether I’m willing to communicate with “people like Daran”. But I thought this post answered that question. To wit, quoting myself:

In other words, I think we can make spaces to discuss these things that are open to everybody, and we can still make feminism only available to people who agree with the basic tenets of feminism. I do not think these things are mutually exclusive. Sure, there are issues that I want people to agree with me about before I invite them to feminist events or define them as a feminist ally, but that doesn’t mean I consider it impossible to have any conversations about sex and gender with them. We just create the open-discussion spaces focused around issues that aren’t “automatically” feminist, and we keep them light-hearted, allowing feminist input and perspectives but other perspectives as well.

In other words, no, I wouldn’t necessarily bring you into a feminist conversation (depending on the feminists in that conversation). But I’d happily bring you into other conversations, and I am asserting that the masculinity conversation fits under the umbrella of “other”. Is this still unclear?

TS December 9, 2009 at 11:48 am #

Clarisse,

I do not think the discussions can occur without addressing the tension between feminists and men because it will always hover in the background. Both sides want recognition of their experiences and views, so anything that seemingly avoids that will eventually result in a heated discussion. That said, while I agree that toning done the feminist slant would help, I am unsure whether many feminists would willingly engage do that. For example, Richard Jeffrey Newman’s comment suggests that not only is non-feminist criticism of feminism invalid, but also that feminist theories like rape culture, male privilege and patriarchy are beyond criticism and must be taken as fact. What if a non-feminist person wants to participate in a discussion with feminists, but does not accept the above views as inherently factual or accurate? Why should we treat that person’s arguments and positions as red herrings rather than giving them the same weight we give to feminist positions?

That is the underlying issue.

As for the other issue, I do not think it is a matter of feminists being unable to define the terms of the masculinity discourse due to perceptions about them, but that feminists should not define the terms of the discourse at all. Masculinity is not about feminism; it is about men, and it makes no sense for feminists to expect to be allowed to create or influence the discourse or define masculinity for men. It is up to men to define their own identities, and if we choose to include feminist concepts that is when feminism should play a role in the process. Feminists should not dictate what men’s identities should be.

Sam December 9, 2009 at 11:58 am #

“I go by Clarisse”

Love the name. I’d like to say that I am enjoying reading this blog and communicating with you quite a bit :)

“Famous German feminist Alice Schwarzer once said, “Female masochism is collaboration.””

But saying that this kind of sexuality – or any kind of heterosexuality – is “unfeminist” is prevalent in this kind of radical feminists – and whatever you say about different strands of feminism and their ideological conflicts, it is *this* kind that is usually publicly identified with the label.
And it is this kind that has framed most of feminisms ideological frames and epistemological concepts – particularly with respect to sexuality.

Sexual politics is the main point of the gender debate, as you are experiencing yourself, when your sexuality is put in the “personal is political” context and when your free willed decision are rationalised as Stockholm syndrome by an ideology that is largely attempting to frame the world in terms of their answer rather than asking questions before attempting to understand – personally, I think it’s a huge advantage for this debate that you haven’t been molded by academic feminism. Look at the aggressive reception even someone like Judith Butler got from
Feminsit academics, simply because she followed their thoughts through to a logical rather than a political end.

“The personal is political” isn’t just a problematic concept, it’s also an attempt to determine which dimensions of power are admissible to challenge and which not. To exclude female sexual power as a dimension of analysis and power with respect to men , it had to be reframed in terms of violence, something clearly unacceptable.

Looking at what I know of the “third wave”, there is no real attempt to renounce second wave approaches and myths, just a tendency to water them down where they are absurd and generally make them more agreeable to heterosexual women, whose disinterest in sex with men was not just slightly underestimated by earlier radical feminists.

In the end, the sex wars in the early eighties weren’t real sex wars, just intellectual quarrels – but by now many of the ideas proposed by radical feminism have been integrated into a mainstream discourse – male (and other) sexualities have been branded violent.

As this is the status quo of “accepted knowledge” that’s where any debate will have to start from.

“So what comes clear from that correction is that, yeah — if we want to boil this down to the Oppression Olympics, I do think women have it worse than men and that America is still more centered around and gives more aggregate power to men. But the whole point of those posts was to evade the Oppression Olympics!”

I doubt this can work. What is “aggregate power”? What are admissible dimensions of power? Economic, political, sexual? ” Is it possible to create an aggreagte index out of those and all others? This is why social epistemology cannot be applied to individuals.

Who has it worse” is about the worst place to start from if you’re actually interested in asking, not answering your question. This is, more often than not, “the grass is greener on the other side”-territory.

See, from my point of view I’m not getting a lot from having the same gender as most CEOs, but most women I meet has considerable advantages by being allowed to be more open about their potential sexual interest and by being allowed to be physically up-front without being considered potentially dangerous or sexually harassing. To be clear, this is just an example of “the grass is greener on the other side”.

The point is that we cannot assign epistemological a priori privileges to some perspectives and still claim we want an honest discourse. It is certainly more difficult, if not impossible, to have an honest discourse about male problems if the starting point is that they’re an afterthought – PHM*T*.

And, of course, there’s the general problem that women, including, feminists, do expect men to be “strong”. And that implies that it’s hard to ever use an oppression based argument in a real life discussion.

Sometimes it is that very palpable expectation that makes me think of gender issues as a test – admit that you are even thinking about this kind of thing, and you’re either an MRA, not getting laid, weak or have a whole lot of other problems. A lot of (online) feminists are only too happpy to direct the very same stereotypes at men that were previously directed at them.

You don’t want your sexuality to be entirely public. This is similar – I wouldn’t want most women I meet to know about my questions about this issue (it’s hard enough to deal with their expectations given what I’ve written in the other post).

That’s part of the problem – to be a man, I can’t even openly question what it means to be a man, I sort of “have to know”. It’s just something that’s expected by everyone and changes are negotiated implicitly rather than explicitly, as with women.

That said, this is among the best discussions about this issue I’ve seen.

And I’m looking forward to your reply on the other post – which I think may be valuable in this respect as well.

typhonblue December 9, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

The more you control, the less you desire.

Women can define masculinity but the cost will be their (hetero)sexuality.

I guess the choice depends on whether or not they consider their sexual desire for men to be something valuable to them.

I also find it interesting how men really are at ground zero for rights. Trying to argue for their right to define themselves, themselves, and even their right to the natural male body as a starting point for defining masculinity.

Imagining how people one hundred years from now will view conversations like this is a fun exercise!

TS December 9, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

That’s part of the problem – to be a man, I can’t even openly question what it means to be a man, I sort of “have to know”. It’s just something that’s expected by everyone and changes are negotiated implicitly rather than explicitly, as with women.

I suppose this is mildly off topic, however, the notion that men must “know” what it is to be a man is a recent thing. It appears to have worked its way into Western culture around the late 19th century, but it made its impact following WWII. It is particularly reflected in the films of that period, specifically westerns.

This is atypical of what one would find in older forms of masculinity, especially among ancient and medieval cultures. Those cultures expected men to be able to articulate what being a man was, which is probably a result of the male initiation processes in those cultures(Sparta and the Samurai had what could actually be called initiation rites).

It is the lack of guidance and the lack of models of masculinity that puts modern men at a disadvantage and prompts many, particularly Gen X and Gen Y to bumble along and guess — or “know”– what it means to be a man.

Daran December 10, 2009 at 6:36 am #

Daran at Feminist Critics accused me of hypocrisy, saying that some of my statements show that I’m not “really” interested in finding new perspectives or making space for them in feminism.

I really must protest. I have never accused you of hypocrisy. I have never said that your statements show this. Such views are a 180 degree reversal of what my blog stands for, and so problematic that they would be among those relegated from the “No Hostility” threads (or whatever will replace them) if we had a proper grip on moderation.

It is outrageous that such views be attributed to me on a blog where I am currently banned, and cannot correct the record. Please arrange for this to be retracted over there. The other errors concerning what my three posts were in response to, I can live with, but not this.

I don’t think you made your intent entirely clear.

I don’t think you made yours clear. The passages in question (yours, and my responses) made no reference to “making space for them in feminism”, whoever “them” is, which is a non-issue for me anyway. They did, however, raise serious questions about whether you were willing to talk to me or men like me at all.

On the other hand, I don’t see how I could have made it clearer that the issue was whether or not you would be willing to talk to men like me than by saying “perhaps Clarisse doesn’t want to talk to men like me at all”.

In fairness, you tended to interpret most things I said in an uncharitable way.

In fairness, I think I was charitable in holding out the hope that, perhaps you would after all speak to me for so long, as those subsequent comments quoted above showed.

As for my other interpretations being uncharitable, well, ordinarily I’d sy that interpreting “How men can be supportive and non-oppressive while remaining overtly masculine?” as ““How can men be supportive and non-oppressive and still be hot?” would indeed be exceedingly uncharitable, but go look at the paragraph that preceded the question. The interpretation is spelled out explicitly.

I’d happily bring you into other conversations … Is this still unclear?

No. I’m happy to proceed.

Daran December 10, 2009 at 6:39 am #

…so problematic that they would be among those relegated from the “No Hostility” threads…

I’m referring of course, to views expressed in the comments by guests who aren’t bloggers.

Other Motley December 10, 2009 at 11:32 am #

Clarisse, glad to read this.

A bit of background: I’m one of those who only heard about this after it was reposted or referenced all over the rest of the Internet, so it was my introduction to you. I’ve read the three posts, this one, and the post and comments over at Toy Soldiers (from the pingback link in the comments on Part 3; first time I’d read anything there, too). Apologies in advance for not knowing something you or others have said in posts other than those.
I’d identify myself as (at least) somewhat liberal, non-feminist-identifying male. Straight, white. I’m not entirely certain what “cis” means, but I’m likely that, too. Other important bit of background–I’m never entirely serious. But I’ll try to be, for a moment.

With that out of the way: I was happy to find that someone in the feminist community seems to be genuinely interested in making an attempt to broaden the base. My primary interest in this (as in other civil-rights movements) is tactical, rather than philosophical. I’m not a feminist, I think (though I’m not entirely clear on what one is) but I don’t think I’m an MRA (with the same caveat). So there’s a chance that I’m in your target audience–though not for this specific piece, I think. But, well, you probably know what I mean.

Reading the Toy Solders thread, I think that most (not all) of the opinions expressed over at Toy Soldiers seems to be directed at feminism in general, rather than at anything you wrote. That said, it’s still useful as a (perhaps exaggerated) example of the perceptions of feminism in non-feminist circles.

Anyway, in an attempt to be helpful, in communicating to a target audience of the “doesn’t really know what you’re talking about, but isn’t inherently hostile” crowd (to wit, myself, and guys like me) I can make a few suggestions; take ‘em for what they’re worth.

If you’re writing to non-feminist guys, it’s probably worthwhile to try to refrain from feminist terminology (same as with technical writing to a non-technical audience; if they don’t know what your words mean, there’s less chance they’ll understand). And beware sarcasm and irony (as the comments reveal, people don’t “get it” without context or tone–and the not-into-gender-studies audience doesn’t have the context, and written text doesn’t carry tone). But you probably know all that.

A big problem is the men-are-all-oppressors perception. People don’t like to be called oppressors (and men expect feminists to call us oppressors, so avoiding giving that impression is a challenge). Oppressed classes really don’t like to be called oppressors–and everyone is probably oppressed in some way.

Judging from the other thread, the “rape-vs.-false-rape-accusations” argument seems counterproductive. Both are horrible, life-destroying injustices. Rape almost certainly happens more often (I’m assuming), and is probably worse. (I obviously don’t actually know; useful though it might be for the purposes of discussion, I hope that nobody’s so godawful unlucky as to have sufficient life experience to be able to actually compare the two).
But is arguing about which is worse useful? Heck no. Maybe later–when we all agree on the big issues, we can discuss the details of the “Oppression Olympics”–but it doesn’t seem like a good way to start. So it’s probably a good idea to avoid being drawn into minimizing the consequences of false rape accusations (and yeah, your opponents will totally try to draw you into that). The grass is always greener, and so on.

If I can think of anything genuinely useful, I’ll post it. You seem to be sincerely looking for a masculinity that doesn’t oppose feminism (or a feminism that doesn’t oppose masculinity, or both).

Thanks for trying–and I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

Clarisse December 10, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

@TS — Masculinity is not about feminism; it is about men, and it makes no sense for feminists to expect to be allowed to create or influence the discourse or define masculinity for men. It is up to men to define their own identities, and if we choose to include feminist concepts that is when feminism should play a role in the process. Feminists should not dictate what men’s identities should be.

I agree with the last two sentences, but only because I think everyone is entitled to define their own identities and I don’t think anyone should dictate that, full stop. I’m not sure masculinity is only about men. What about genderqueer people, for instance? What about cis straight women who like to play with masculinity in the bedroom? Do you believe that they automatically ought to have no voice in this discussion?

@Sam — “Who has it worse” is about the worst place to start from if you’re actually interested in asking, not answering your question.

True. But I think I may need to occasionally take a stand on it if I want to keep myself “established as a real feminist” (although I increasingly am less interested in this). I also sometimes find it to be a helpful shorthand in gauging whether I consider someone to have a realistic viewpoint on existing gender issues — i.e., I don’t usually find it easy to grasp or agree with the other gender views of someone who doesn’t agree with certain basic concepts of feminism. One of the things that actually really impresses me about Feminist Critics is the list of things feminism got right, which makes me feel like I’ve got a solid starting point for conversation at least with the people who developed that list.

That’s part of the problem – to be a man, I can’t even openly question what it means to be a man, I sort of “have to know”.

Interestingly, another southern African HIV/AIDS masculinity campaign that I heard about recently uses the tagline “A Man Knows” (mentioned here; I’m having trouble finding other information on it through Google, though … I believe it’s being run by PSI). I seem to recall that one of the slogans even says, straight up, something like “A man knows he’s in the right.” I find it much more problematic than the other campaign I highlighted, for reasons that are probably obvious.

@typhonblue — The more you control, the less you desire.

This is demonstrably false. Do you know any BDSM dominants?

Women can define masculinity but the cost will be their (hetero)sexuality.

Some women may identify with this statement, but I think a lot won’t.

@Daran — Please arrange for this to be retracted over there.

I posted a comment. I hope it expresses what you wanted to say.

The interpretation is spelled out explicitly.

The reason I talked about masculinity being an aspect of attraction for me was that I was trying to acknowledge my biases, not set the tone for the entire discussion or demand that men be hot for me. As I just noted elsewhere, masculinity actually isn’t too high up on my list of priorities when evaluating a man as a potential mate.

Looking back over this post, I may have been too mean to you … I meant to include more of the criticisms you leveled that I actually liked, but I ultimately eliminated most of them because the thing was too long and I didn’t want to go in too many different directions. For instance, you were right that I didn’t have a firm delineation between “masculinity”, “male sexuality” and “masculine sexuality”, which I conceive of as interwoven but didn’t define very well as terms. And still haven’t. Would be interested in getting feedback on how people read those terms, in fact.

@Other Motley — If you’re writing to non-feminist guys, it’s probably worthwhile to try to refrain from feminist terminology.

This can be really hard. Feminism is one of the only fields that’s bothered to come up with detailed terms for gender. “Cis”, for example, basically means “not trans”, which may not sound useful to you but actually gets incredibly useful surprisingly fast. But, point taken … when I write about BDSM for a vanilla audience I try to remember to at least define terms like “kink” and “squick” and “scene” and “hard limits” and so on, if not avoid them entirely. Do you think I can use specific “jargon” as long as I define it, or is it alienating in itself?

Other Motley December 10, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

Regarding terminology (and I ABSOLUTELY understand how hard it can be to explain something technical to people without the technical background–and I’m here including anything with its own established terminology under the heading “technical”)–you’re probably on safe ground as long as your audience knows the meaning of the term. In this instance, I get the impression that the demographic to whom you’re looking for ways to reach out is the set of “guys who haven’t thought about gender issues very much” (who therefore, almost by definition, don’t know any of the jargon).

Things like “cis,” I can’t see really being a problem (as long as you’re comfortable putting up some kind of brief definition the first time you use it in a post… yeah, that’ll get tedious, but it’s an unfortunate necessity. Probably a result of the fact that there’s no way of knowing if the people reading a given post have read any others.)

An exception might be terms that the target audience is probably going to find inherently alienating. Unfortunately for the purpose here, “feminism” might be one of those terms (a lot of guys aren’t actually anti-feminist, but think that “feminist” means “militant anti-male.” Sucks.)
Other things to watch for might be (off the top of my head) “patriarchy” and “male privilege.” Synonyms, sure. Just like “equal work, equal pay” gets a better response than something like “affirmative action.”

This is probably another symptom of that “the most obnoxious people in the movement get all the attention…and every movement has it’s jackasses” problem. When trying to introduce non-movement-members to a movement, the hardest (and most important) part is always (I think) avoiding looking like the movement’s invariably better-known noisy jerks. Whenever I disagree on politics with a conservative, the hardest part is always the prove-I’m-not-Michael-Moore stage; arguing with liberals, I always have to first demonstrate that I’m not Rush Limbaugh.
Interestingly–but unfortunately irrelevantly–I can’t actually think of any actual person who’s the feminist equivalent, which suggests that perhaps it’s just a strawman caricature of “The Feminist.” Wonder if that’s true, or if I just don’t know anything about the history of feminism (well, possibly both, though certainly the latter).

Back on point, something else occurs to me. Avoiding using jargon makes one seem less like a member of a movement, and more like a normal person, if you know what I mean. I’d probably have better luck trying to talk (hypothetical) you into trying, say, hang gliding, if I came across as a guy who happened to have gone hang gliding, than if I came across as Hang Gliding Enthusiast. Dunno if that makes sense.

TS December 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

I agree with the last two sentences, but only because I think everyone is entitled to define their own identities and I don’t think anyone should dictate that, full stop. I’m not sure masculinity is only about men. What about genderqueer people, for instance? What about cis straight women who like to play with masculinity in the bedroom? Do you believe that they automatically ought to have no voice in this discussion?

Yes and no. I think there is an explicit difference between role playing or viewing masculinity as a fluid social construct versus a living, functional, concrete identity. The situation is akin to that of people who tie their identities to their ethnic backgrounds. While some people role play with or adopt behavioral characteristics associated with other ethnic identities, no one would suggest that suburban white people who adopt behavioral characteristics associated with Mexican culture should necessarily participate equally in the discussion about Mexican-American identities. This does not means that non-Mexicans should not participate in the discussion, only that since such discussions typically pertain to defining various identities, non-group members should not necessarily possess an equal presence or voice in those discussions. I say that because, for example, most men are not playing at being masculine. For them being masculine is being a man, so the participation of those who treat masculinity as a role or construct, especially if it is an exaggerated portrayal, could cause a host of problems, specifically to men’s perception of themselves and their identities.

Sam December 10, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

Clarisse,

“True. But I think I may need to occasionally take a stand on it if I want to keep myself “established as a real feminist” (although I increasingly am less interested in this).”

As long as you remain open to accepting that this kind of comparative suffering may not lead anywhere as we’re actually talking about completely incommensurable experiences and merely use this as an identity shorthand, fine with me. Charity begins at home ;)

typhonblue December 10, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

Do you know any BDSM dominants?

What I do know, which is admittedly limited, is that BDSM dominants take pains to provide a submissive the experience s/he would like to have.

Women can define masculinity but the cost will be their (hetero)sexuality.

Some women may identify with this statement, but I think a lot won’t.

If women define masculinity, then there is no ‘masculinity’ separate from femininity. I don’t know about you, but I want a man who defines himself(or is defined by his relationships to other men) not a man who has been defined entirely by femininity.

Not only am I not sexually attracted to men who define themselves through femininity (and I see this just as much in Christian men as feminist) I don’t even particularly want to spend time with them. I see this in guys who have an over-identification with lesbians and who are terrified of naked men. They ‘float’ a foot behind their own bodies, never really occupying them.

typhonblue December 10, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

I’d also add that men who define themselves by controlling or pleasing women are both equally female-defined men.

Sam December 10, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

Typhonblue,

“If women define masculinity, then there is no ‘masculinity’ separate from femininity.”

This, of course, assumes that women are entirely responsible for defining femininity, which I don’t think is the case. Feminism may be seen as an attempt to increase women’s authority about feminity, but male desire for women is certainly still the more important determinant of what is considered feminine by both women and men, don’t you think?

typhonblue December 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

Feminism may be seen as an attempt to increase women’s authority about feminity, but male desire for women is certainly still the more important determinant of what is considered feminine by both women and men, don’t you think?

No. I think the more important determinant of what is considered femininity is biological. Femininity is centered on the processes of motherhood in our society. Masculinity isn’t centered on biological processes exclusive to the male body

How often have you heard someone say ‘you’re not a real woman’ to a woman and not mean something along the lines of ‘you’re a male to female transexual thus not biologically female’. I’ve often heard the ‘you’re not a real man’ leveled at men without implying that the man in question is not biologically a man. Thus manhood is something a man can have or not have irrespective of his biological functions as a man. Womanhood can’t be taken away in the same fashion.

After that we seem to get grades of desirability which form a hierarchy among women as to who is top dog. I’m not sure if men really have a strong affect in our culture on how an alpha female is determined. In every highly male-dominant culture I’ve traveled in, lived in or researched the preference is distinctly different then our own; tending towards larger and more overtly female women.

In our own culture men’s attitudes towards beauty tend to lag women’s. For example, men always prefer a woman with a higher BMI then women do(in fact women prefer a lower BMI then they even think men prefer) and if you chart men’s preferences over the last thirty years, they lag behind women’s preferences. As women preferred thinner and thinner models in their magazines, men gradually began to prefer thinner women.

But this doesn’t really relate to female-defined masculinity. I personally would(and do) find a female-defined man boring.

typhonblue December 10, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

As an addendum to the whole femininity-defined-by-men thing.

I think what we’re seeing in the west is feminine beauty as defined by women and not the reproductive urges of men.

I highly doubt that neolithic man would find the average super model anything but repulsive. He’d be on the look out for a robust, well-fleshed woman. And that’s the feminine ideal we see in societies that are more male-dominated.

Sam December 11, 2009 at 12:43 am #

Typhonblue,

I think it generally relates – whatever the actual contents of masculinity and femininity, they are logically defined by a certain mutual exclusivity. You can’t be both masculine and feminine, at least not at the same time, if either concept is to have a specific content. Thus the definitions come about as a process of negotiation – as women claim a different space for feminity, masculinity necessarily needs to react to retain distinct features. Hence this discussion.

“Womanhood can’t be taken away in the same fashion.”

Agreed. That’s because of the centrality of reproduction for human procreation, and the male peripherality. In this view, patriarchy is affirmative action, a way to give men something that allows them to be on par with women. Best. Link. Ever. About this. Post by a radical feminist evolutionary biologist – believe me, interesting. But long. Great comment thread.

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2006/05/07/the-origin-of-male-dominance/

I would like to add that I have read something today that, for me, truly captured much of the entire gender debate in a short story – David Foster Wallace’s “Brief Interviews with Hideous Men — What They Talk About When They Talk About Themselves” from 1998.

I won’t copy it here because of copyright and all that, but here’s an online version

http://theknowe.net/dfwfiles/DFW_by_title.html

It’s a bit tricky to find on the page, look for the title above and then click on expand and search for “#28″ or “Ypsilanti” in the text that appears. Then I’d copy everything down to “B.I. #51″ because the online version is not really legible.

Again, I think there’s a lot of truth in the short story about feminity, but also about masculinity, because that’s the double bind the two guys in the story are implicitly discussing.

Clarence December 11, 2009 at 8:26 am #

Sam:

I read that thread over there that you linked to, and I do have a few bones to pick with it.

A. It assumes men don’t have an actual interest in reproduction. Actually the selfish genes want to be reproduced – which is, in part why cuckoldry is so bad and damaging to men and why violet sock’s selfish considerations of only her own sexual interests have never really worked in human societies.

B. It assumes that all women value all men the same. The fact is that what the majority of females desire in their men will tend to dominate the sexual marketplace and thus men will be compelled to live up to that standard or go without.

C. She misses the point in that human social adaptations are constrained by innate biological urges. In other words “society” can only come out of biology. It cannot arise out of the aether. Now we may not perfectly know what all the constraints are, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. To her, I suppose Anthropology proves free will. I could only wish. She’s also willing to accept biological propensities for human behaviour but only if men get to keep all the “bad” ones such as violence.

D. I believe her idea that women as a group possess all abilities to the same extent as men as a group to be naive and incorrect. In fact, men’s abilities tend to show a larger bell curve for things such as intelligence, and other mental attributes. In other words, there are more males as outliers at both the very low and very high ranges. This has implications as to whether, for instance, there’d be enough female engineers to build and maintain a modern industrial civilization without the help of men. It also tends to say that a “woman only” civilization would be more peaceful though I can guarantee you violence would not be unknown.

E. She assumes that modern civilization is stable and reproduceable. In fact, it looks like it may very well collapse if not due to energy issues (peak oil) or climate issues, or financial issues then due simply to the fact that the majority of ethnic groups are no longer reproducing at replacement level and that those who are reproducing the most are illegal immigrants and evangelicals – and as we all know feminists don’t -on average- tend to get along with highly religious people.

In any case, that’s my take on that essay you linked to and the comments attached to it. I don’t really want to take this off topic any farther -since the discussion here actually seems to be moving forward- so feel free to respond to me at my email if you are so inclined. cd_woodworth@hotmail.com

Sam December 11, 2009 at 10:14 am #

Clarence,

well, discussing antrhopology in this respect is largely projecting one’s own convictions about certain things. She does that as do most commenters on the thread.

I do find it relevant to this issue though, because it makes two important points whatever one thinks of them: a) Female centraliy for a group’s reproduction and male peripherality (a point you underscore in your reply) resulting in the need for a “male jojo”, something cultural that’s elevated mythologically to make men equal (hypothesis: religion->polis – patriarchy as “affirmative action” to counter the female dominance of the oikos private sphere/reproduction) and b) the changing nature of reproduction and its reduced importance for any community having gone through the demographic shift (caused by the industrial revolution).

So these are the basics of the tension of mutually dependent definitions of masculinity and femininity.

MER December 11, 2009 at 10:21 am #

There’s a lot of talk and speculation around the feminist-interested blogs now on men/masculinity’s role in feminism, but there’s something I feel is missing.

Everyone’s trying to extrapolate men’s perspective from second or third hand sources (with some notable exceptions)

Maybe you should, oh I don’t know, ask/listen to what men/males have to say?

I think this discourse would benefit from more understanding of how things look from the other side of the fence. It’s hard, because there aren’t a lot of good resources.

If you haven’t guessed, I’m a guy. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I’d be happy to lend any insight I can as a male trying to navigate life and feminism.

typhonblue December 11, 2009 at 11:17 am #

I think it generally relates – whatever the actual contents of masculinity and femininity, they are logically defined by a certain mutual exclusivity.

If we look at masculinity and femininity in terms of opposites, yes.

However that’s not the only way to look at masculinity and femininity. Apples and horses are distinctly different, but they’re not defined in opposition to one another.

Other Motley December 11, 2009 at 11:32 am #

MER–far as I can tell, that seems to be part of the point of this thread. Hang around, answer questions as they come up–though try not to offend anybody. At least, that’s what I’m trying to do.

Guys seem to be coming into this with the perception that feminists aren’t serious when they say they have questions for men or would like male input. Don’t know if that perception’s correct or not, but I figure that a good start to it is giving Clarisse the benefit of the doubt.

And it’s been worthwhile so far (though admittedly I only got into this due to a slow day at work).

typhonblue December 11, 2009 at 11:42 am #

hat’s because of the centrality of reproduction for human procreation, and the male peripherality. In this view, patriarchy is affirmative action, a way to give men something that allows them to be on par with women.

I disagree.

If men were actually peripheral to reproduction then we would have a radically different society in which males and females had little to do with each other.

Marriage or some form of partnership between men and women is the most common social institution on the planet. That is an extremely unlikely outcome if men really were peripheral to reproduction. The more likely outcome would be a situation in which women and children lived very separate lives from men.

Our species is the most high-parental investment species on the planet. Other bi-parental species show deficits in offspring raised without fathers. Saying human males are peripheral to reproduction is akin to saying male wolves are peripheral to reproduction.

You can say it. But take them out of the picture and you’re either left with pups that don’t make it to adulthood or pups that are deficient relative to their peers.

Finally if men are peripheral to reproduction, why is it that they go through hormonal changes during pregnancy that mirror their pregnant mate’s? They are being keyed for evolutionarily-relevant parenthood just like the mother of their children.

Men can be *made* peripheral to reproduction, that doesn’t mean they are.

How much of your beliefs stem from actual fact and how much stems from having lived in a Christian society that has a rich mythology surrounding female parenthood and a complete absence o mythology surrounding men as biological fathers?

Motley December 11, 2009 at 11:55 am #

Typhonblue–I hadn’t heard that about the hormonal changes in expectant fathers, and it sounds interesting. Got a link?

(And I’m not just making fun of you for making a factual claim without backup linkage, and then calling out someone else for doing that… I mean, I am a little, but I’m not just making fun :)

typhonblue December 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

Motley,

I wasn’t aware that I asked for a link or cite for someone else’s facts, at least not on this thread.

Here you go:

http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/19164/2815/8

typhonblue December 11, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

Here’s an abstract and cite for the Canadian study:

“Little is known about the physiological and behavioral changes that expectant fathers undergo prior to the birth of their babies. We measured hormone concentrations and responses to infant stimuli in expectant and new fathers living with their partners to determine whether men can experience changes that parallel the dramatic shifts seen in pregnant women. We obtained two blood samples from couples at one of four times before or after the birth of their babies. After the first sample, the couples were exposed to auditory, visual, and olfactory cues from newborn infants (test of situational reactivity). Men and women had similar stage-specific differences in hormone levels, including higher concentrations of prolactin and cortisol in the period just before the births and lower postnatal concentrations of sex steroids (testosterone or estradiol). Men with more pregnancy (couvade) symptoms and men who were most affected by the infant reactivity test had higher prolactin levels and greater post-test reduction in testosterone. Hormone concentrations were correlated between partners. This pattern of hormonal change in men and other paternal mammals, and its absence in nonpaternal species, suggests that hormones may play a role in priming males to provide care for young.”

Storey AE, Walsh CJ, Quinton RL, Wynne-Edwards KE., Hormonal correlates of paternal responsiveness in new and expectant fathers, Evol Hum Behav. 2000 Mar 1;21(2):79-95.

Motley December 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

Hey, thanks. I’d never heard of couvade syndrome before. Interesting.

Anyway, I was just teasing about that last sentence “How much of your beliefs stem from actual fact…”

Because it’s a paraphrase of something I’m often tempted to yell at people. (As is Wikipedia’s [citation needed]) No offense intended.

Sam December 11, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

Typhonblue,

“If we look at masculinity and femininity in terms of opposites, yes.

However that’s not the only way to look at masculinity and femininity. Apples and horses are distinctly different, but they’re not defined in opposition to one another.”

How would you look at them, then, if a certain mutual exclusivity is not the only way? Do you think masculinity and femininity are actually to each other like horses and oranges? And what would that mean?

typhonblue December 11, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

How would you look at them, then, if a certain mutual exclusivity is not the only way? Do you think masculinity and femininity are actually to each other like horses and oranges? And what would that mean?

I think if you removed femininity masculinity would still exist in and of itself.

It is different then but not in opposition to femininity.

Clarence December 11, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

Typhon:

It would be more accurate to say masculinity is shaped by feminity as well as the other way around, but to a lesser extent.

What “Masculinity” is biologically to a normal heterosexual male is a conglomeration of emotional states and preferences for various traits that also exist in women but that because of hormonal and other non-societal influences are differentially preferred between the sexes.

In other words a man placed in an empty field absent anyone else would have a different cognitive state than a woman in similar circumstances. Precisely what this “biological” masculinity is has yet to be discovered.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 12:51 am #

It would be more accurate to say masculinity is shaped by feminity as well as the other way around, but to a lesser extent.

I have lived in far more male-dominated cultures then the west. I would say that in those cultures femininity is defined to reduce male vulnerabilities; whereas masculinity is defined to reduce female vulnerabilities in our own.

A ‘real man’ does not hit women; a ‘real man’ provides for and protects women; a ‘real man’ is strong for women; a ‘real man’ solves women’s problems, etc.

What “Masculinity” is biologically to a normal heterosexual male is a conglomeration of emotional states and preferences for various traits that also exist in women but that because of hormonal and other non-societal influences are differentially preferred between the sexes.

Interesting that you mention a ‘normal heterosexual man.’ Having traveled and lived outside of the western world as well as having studied historical societies I would say the conception of men as heterosexual–and by that I mean the concept that our sexual behavior says something about us above and beyond our sexual behavior–is actually pretty unique to western culture and also unique to our particular time and place.

So even that conception is social in origin.

Precisely what this “biological” masculinity is has yet to be discovered.

I’ll take a stab at it. Masculinity is the tendency to making oneself vulnerable and navigating vulnerability through intuition.

desipis December 12, 2009 at 1:03 am #

That’s because of the centrality of reproduction for human procreation, and the male peripherality.

I’m not sure peripheral is how I would describe it. The female role is to provide a stable population base, while the male role, through disposability, is to facilitate genetic and cultural evolution.

desipis December 12, 2009 at 1:13 am #

Clarence:

What “Masculinity” is biologically to a normal heterosexual male is a conglomeration of emotional states and preferences for various traits that also exist in women but that because of hormonal and other non-societal influences are differentially preferred between the sexes.

Is “masculinity” just about what differentiates males from females, or does it also include elements of being a desirable male mate (and vice versa for “femininity”)? As we age there is a perception of losing masculinity/femininity despite the differences between the sexes remaining. I’ve always seen masculinity/femininity as, at least in part, cultural mechanisms for advertising fertility.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 1:19 am #

while the male role, through disposability, is to facilitate genetic and cultural evolution.

How do you reconcile seeing male disposability as a biological feature with societies that practice female disposability? For example, female infanticide.

Male disposability is likely another social construction related to masculinity… In the same way that being imprisoned and forced to give birth every nine months is related to femininity.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 1:21 am #

In other words masculinity may have features that make men prone to being exploited as disposable. In the same way that femininity has features that make women prone to being exploited as baby machines.

But being disposable is not innate to masculinity, just as being a baby machine is not innate to femininity.

desipis December 12, 2009 at 1:40 am #

typhonblue, the societies that practice female infanticide are typically highly populated thus would presumable value the male role of ‘advancement’ over the female role of population stability & growth.

I guess you comments on disposability being innate to masculinity would depend on your views of my comment at 38. Do masculinity and femininity draw their purpose from the biological reproductive function, or is there a broader role for two distinctive sexes/genders?

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 1:46 am #

Do masculinity and femininity draw their purpose from the biological reproductive function, or is there a broader role for two distinctive sexes/genders?

Even if we just look at a reproductive role, our species is bi-parental. Which means both men and women are evolutionarily wired to tend to their offspring. How do you reconcile that with male disposability being an biological inevitability? Obviously men are not disposable _to their offspring_.

desipis December 12, 2009 at 1:52 am #

Perhaps males are disposable up until the point at which they reproduce, or at least more disposable? I think it could be argued that males looking for a mate and fathers form two different masculinities.

Clarisse December 12, 2009 at 3:29 am #

@Other Motley — Interestingly–but unfortunately irrelevantly–I can’t actually think of any actual person who’s the feminist equivalent, which suggests that perhaps it’s just a strawman caricature of “The Feminist.” Wonder if that’s true, or if I just don’t know anything about the history of feminism (well, possibly both, though certainly the latter).

I think examples of Really Annoying Feminists tend to be pretty old at this point. Probably partly because the feminist movement has gotten so big and fragmented. I mean, how many famous “feminist commentators” are there now — full stop? Feminism is too huge to have any representatives anymore; instead you have “feminist BDSMers” or “feminist politicians” or whatever — people in other groups who are known for a feminist bent.

@TS — While some people role play with or adopt behavioral characteristics associated with other ethnic identities, no one would suggest that suburban white people who adopt behavioral characteristics associated with Mexican culture should necessarily participate equally in the discussion about Mexican-American identities.

Okay, but the thing is that a lot of female masculinity-users (I don’t know how else to say that) aren’t “playing”; it’s a question of their identity. Again, the thought of the butch comes up. If it “really” affects someone’s personal identity, do they get to participate? And I’m not sure I’m comfortable drawing that line myself.

@typhonblue — What I do know, which is admittedly limited, is that BDSM dominants take pains to provide a submissive the experience s/he would like to have.

Sure, but all lovers take pains to provide their partner the experience s/he would like to have. Ideally, anyway. That doesn’t prove that the dominants in question aren’t attracted to the control, it just proves that they are being good lovers. In my admittedly limited experience as a domme (I’m more of a sub), I can definitely say that removing my control from the picture would also remove a lot of my desire. And this isn’t even getting into questions like “how much control do submissives have, anyway, and how much do some submissives get off on their implicit control?”

@Sam — I loved Brief Interviews With Hideous Men. I don’t have much to say about it because deconstructing that book would take the rest of my life. But damn, it was good, even if after I finished it I (to steal a friend’s description) felt like I’d been kicked in the gut the whole time. And I agree that it brings a lot of masculinity points into high relief.

@Clarence — This has implications as to whether, for instance, there’d be enough female engineers to build and maintain a modern industrial civilization without the help of men.

This is if you assume that engineers have to come from the really high end of the bell curve, which I don’t. As you say, the bell curve is bigger for men, but there’s still an awful lot of really smart women out there.

@MER — Maybe you should, oh I don’t know, ask/listen to what men/males have to say?

What exactly am I doing right now? Seriously, the men who have been coming to these posts and telling me that my problem is that I’m not listening to men are really starting to piss me off. I get that men feel like they don’t have space to talk about these things, but the solution is not to tell the people who are making space that we aren’t doing it. This seems to be a pattern … I noticed recently that TS got banned over at the Curvature for doing something similar, in fact.

For the rest of you, I am enjoying the discussion of what masculinity is and what defines it, though I don’t have much to contribute right now. I would agree with Clarence that “masculinity is shaped by feminity as well as the other way around” and, of all the definitions I’ve heard, typhonblue’s “Masculinity is the tendency to making oneself vulnerable and navigating vulnerability through intuition” compels me the most.

Tamen December 12, 2009 at 8:26 am #

I’ll give you credit for asking and listening to men. But you seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps MER includes you (singular) in the notable exceptions category while pointing out that you (plural) (meaning feminists) perhaps should ask/listen to men when discussing masculinity. That would be more in line with my perception of these discussions.

I came here by the way of Alas where this is posted with a comments-by-feminists only policy. I don’t know why that is or whether that’s yours or someone at Alas’ choice. But it serves as an example of feminists not asking/listening to what (most) men/males have to say as men not regarded as feminists by the blog’s moderators are not even allowed to talk there. Although I am a feminist by the dictionary’s definition I would most likely not be considered one at Alas.

Clarisse Thorn December 12, 2009 at 11:11 am #

@Tamen: I came here by the way of Alas where this is posted with a comments-by-feminists only policy. I don’t know why that is or whether that’s yours or someone at Alas’ choice.

Alas isn’t my blog. They wanted to implement a tighter moderation policy in response to the first three threads, which got kind of out of control. This was suggested and run past me, and I said I didn’t care what they did over there as long as they also noted that my blog is unmoderated. I thought it was an interesting choice for a moderation policy on this subject matter and I think it’s also interesting to see the different direction the thread here has gone as opposed to the thread over there.

As for MER, whatever … I’m just saying, it’s unlikely to motivate people to give you more space when you aren’t granting them credit for the space they already give.

desipis December 12, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

Clarisse:

it’s also interesting to see the different direction the thread here has gone as opposed to the thread over there.

I’ve just read through the comments over there, and there’s a disturbing and somewhat misandarist assertion that masculinity is centered on violence. I think it’s a shame that some people have such a limited understanding of masculinity. I did find the comment by sylphhead, that masculinity should be defined by the shared experiences of men rather than an expectation of an ideal man, to be an interesting thought.

Clarence December 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

Typhon:

As is usual you are very articulate and passionate about your beliefs and as usual I will have to disagree somewhat with you.

Most cultures that I have seen and have knowlege of did make a distinction between those who liked other males exclusively and those who liked females exclusively. Some cultures did not. Most cultures did not have a word for bisexuality.

That being said, I believe that the tendancy to have sex with others of the same sex is largely inherited and that this proclivity has never made up a majority of males in any society.

The reason I say that no one knows what biological masculinity is precisely is because in order to do such an experiment one would have to take 100 or more male infants, raise them to adulthood with robots (as presumably even other men would have some female influence in their psychology which could be passed on)keep them all physically isolated from other human beings and each other (talking, teaching, touching etc would be done with the robot and any animals in the environment) check them out physically and then somehow read their brain patterns to see what they think and feel. At that point, one could define an average number of traits of both body and mind. One would also have another group of 100 or more boy and girl infants, raise them together, isolated from other humans, and test them the same way as the proceeding group. Lastly, one would have a group of 200 or more boy babies that would be paired up and trained/tested exactly as the other two groups.
This would be the closest to true “biological masculinity” one could get, and I trust you see the ethical objections to any such study.

Clarence December 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

desipis:

You didn’t miss mandolin’s assertion that masculinity is composed of patriarchy and little or nothing else did you?

Clarence December 12, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

Clarisse:

My belief would be that while a women only civilization would have some technology the rate of change would be much slower than that of an equivalent all male society. This is partly because even without the alleged pernicious male influence, I simply don’t think as many women are interested in technical subjects as men. And while you are right that engineers don’t have to be the very tail end of the normal distribution, they do tend to have higher than average iq. So thus I’d expect there’d be significantly less female engineers. If I had to guess I’d guess 1/3 to 1/4 per capita , and possibly as low as 1/5.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

Most cultures that I have seen and have knowlege of did make a distinction between those who liked other males exclusively and those who liked females exclusively. Some cultures did not. Most cultures did not have a word for bisexuality.

There’s a difference between making a distinction between preference and saying that that preference is a component of manhood.

Sexual behavior between males is very rarely seen as a comment on their manhood in other societies. It’s irrelevant to who is or is not a man. And it’s not just bisexual that other cultures don’t have a word for, the words homosexual and heterosexual are of very recent and specific coinage: they’re only 150 years old and they only came into mainstream western use in the last 75 years. No other cultures besides our own have native terms for bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual. it’s a western construct. And it’s a western construct because we believe that choice of gender says something more about men then simply who they choose to have sex with.

Extremely militaristic patriarchal cultures often considered sexual behavior with women to have a feminizing effect on men (Samauri, Ancient Greek, Roman, Paupa New Guinea, etc.) whereas sexual behavior with men was often a compulsory component of their initiation rituals for young men. (Interesting that, compared to these highly patriarchal cultures that considered sex with women to be a feminine influence on men, our culture considers it a prerequisite to manhood.)

Most cultures don’t understand the western concept of gay and as they become aware of it, it’s having interesting effects on men’s social behavior. For example, homosexual behavior between men is very common in the middle east (I don’t know the percentage, but from what I’ve seen, it’s almost universal) but a homosexual identity is very much frowned upon. As the homosexual identity is becoming more widely understood, men are starting to stop their intimacy with other men for fear of being labeled homosexual-or aberrant non-men.

That being said, I believe that the tendancy to have sex with others of the same sex is largely inherited and that this proclivity has never made up a majority of males in any society.

You may believe this, but that doesn’t make it so. Homosexuality is very common among social mammals. And it’s also very common in societies which use other criteria besides sexual object choice to determine who is and isn’t a man.

Also, homophobia in our culture is even more baffling to biologists then the contradiction of hereditary homosexuality. Sex between men should be neutral stimuli to straight men. It means they have fewer sexual competitors. The fact that they can generate so much emotional heat over something that really should be irrelevant (or beneficial to them) is the real question.

Clarence December 12, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

Typhon:

I dare you to find a society where the majority of men could be classified as homosexual. What you are likely seeing is that other societies are more open about its existence than ours is with it’s strange and hurtful prejudices largely inherited from judaism and christianity.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

I dare you to find a society where the majority of men could be classified as homosexual.

I would say Saudi Arabia with it’s extreme limitation on heterosexual behavior would be one.

A majority of men will not marry(which is what happens when you have a polygynous society where men can take up to 4 wives) and since there is almost no heterosexual sex happening outside of marriage, these men’s sexuality will be limited to other men.

In other societies I would say the majority of men are functional bisexuals.

What you are likely seeing is that other societies are more open about its existence than ours is with it’s strange and hurtful prejudices largely inherited from judaism and christianity.

Oh I agree. Our prejudices also tend to reduce the incidence of such behavior as well.

In societies where pre-marital sex is very stigmatized, and sexual object choice is not related to manhood, young men tend to have sex with other young men.

And many of these young men will go on to be exclusively heterosexual in their later years.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

Adding another thought. It’s pretty clear from examples such as prison and other same-sex situations that the male sex drive is not contingent upon having women around to have sex with.

It exists in the absence of women.

Clarence December 12, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

Typhon:

Of course the male sex drive exists in the absence of women. However, I wonder if any former prisoners have any clue if the majority of men are having male/male intercourse in prison (forced or otherwise. ) I rather doubt it, as I have read many letters from male prisoners here over the years and with the exception of a few that mention forced rape or their fears thereof, most don’t mention sex at all or if they do they mention how much they miss sexual contact with their wives or girlfriends or sometimes even being able to hug somebody.

I tend to divide men sexually into three types: straight, bi, gay. I suppose it’s possible under the right circumstances that the majority of men are somewhat bi (though I’ve never gotten a stiffy over another man) but I doubt that male/female attraction is social in nature. Thus those poor Saudi men, if you are right, are doing what they are doing more out of desperation than choice.

Tom Nolan December 12, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

Typhon (talking about ‘homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual’ etc.)

they’re only 150 years old and they only came into mainstream western use in the last 75 years

The words may be, the the concepts are not: Plato deploys them in ‘Symposium’, with the full expectation that they will be understood.

Homosexuality is very common among social mammals

Sexual gratification and sexual preference are different things, aren’t they? Dogs, for example, can sexually gratify themselves with other dogs of the same sex, a human leg, or even the leg of a chair. They aren’t sexually attracted to them – any more than a human being who masturbates is sexually attracted by his/her own hand – but they can get off on them.

It seems to me that the very widespread homosexual behaviour you’re talking about is really just a matter of gratification: mutual masturbation, effectively. Sexual attraction is a different matter, and it is this latter that is regarded as incomprehensible in the conservative societies you mention.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

The words may be, the the concepts are not: Plato deploys them in ‘Symposium’, with the full expectation that they will be understood.

You’re talking about his concept of people being descended from eight limbed hermaphrodites who were split apart at the navel.

This supposedly explained why some men preferred to seek out their ‘other half’ among men and others among women. With the ultimate conclusion that men who seek it out among men were superior to men who seek it out among women. (And, of course, vastly superior then the degenerate women who sought their other half out among women.)

The Ancient greeks didn’t have a word for men who were attracted to men, but they did have a word for women who were attracted to women. Tribades.

As I said before, sexual preference isn’t the issue, it’s the concept that sexual preference says something about a man’s manhood that’s very unique to our culture.

Sexual attraction is a different matter, and it is this latter that is regarded as incomprehensible in the conservative societies you mention.

Have you ever watched ‘generation kill’? The last episode illustrates the overall attitude I’m talking about in the middle east.

An Arab man, who is hitting on one of the American soldiers in the middle of the street in front of a crowd of other men from his neighborhood(in the book it makes it clear that being hit on was not limited to this one Arab man but a common occurrence and due to ‘cultural differences’) says to the soldier ‘do you like girls or boys’? The soldier replies ‘girls’ and the Arab man makes an expression of disgust and says ‘boys are better.’ I think that speaks to sexual attraction. (Or at least ignorance.)

Sexual attraction between heterosexuals is arguably incomprehensible in these societies as well. Or at least stigmatized. After all, you’re sexual not with the opposite sex person you’re sexually attracted to but the opposite sex person your parents decided to pair you with.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

Another observation. Even in prisons, inmates preferentially target young, attractive men. You see the same pattern in non-western cultures. That suggests some element of sexual attraction.

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

Sorry about the triple post but I wanted to add something to the ‘evolutionarily inexplicable homophobia’ thought.

Homophobia is negative pressure placed by men, on other men, to be heterosexual. But as a phenomena it provides negative evolutionary benefit to men by encouraging _more_ sexual competition for females rather then less.

Tom Nolan December 12, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

Typhon

You’re talking about his concept of people being descended from eight limbed hermaphrodites who were split apart at the navel

Some were hermaphrodites, some double-men, some double women. But anyway, that’s a joke he puts in the mouth of Aristophanes. The concepts ‘men who prefer men’ ‘women who prefer women’ and ‘men and women who prefer members of the opposite sex’ are all present, however, and not a single drinker present denies their validity or asks for an explanation.

The Ancient greeks didn’t have a word for men who were attracted to men

They have one for men attracted to members of the male sex, however: paiderastes. The implication being that older men feel attracted to youths and not vice-versa.

it’s the concept that sexual preference says something about a man’s manhood that’s very unique to our culture

Perhaps that’s right – I’m not enough of an anthropologist to say.

Sexual attraction between heterosexuals is arguably incomprehensible in these societies as well. Or at least stigmatized

I can’t, off hand, think of a single such society. Can you?

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

The concepts ‘men who prefer men’ ‘women who prefer women’ and ‘men and women who prefer members of the opposite sex’ are all present, however, and not a single drinker present denies their validity or asks for an explanation.

But what wasn’t present was the idea that a man who prefers men has his manhood compromised. If anything they believed the reverse.

I hope I don’t get accused of moving the goalposts, but perhaps I wasn’t clear.

It’s not that other societies aren’t aware of preference, it’s that they don’t consider preference relevant to manhood.

Imagine there were two countries at war with each other. One is a culture of apple growers, the other a culture of orange growers. In the apple grower culture men who eat oranges are seen as non-men. The orange growers see the reverse.

Lets say a man from our world took a trip through the two countries and found himself questioned about his preference for oranges or apples. And, bafflingly, finds if he gives the wrong answer he’s mocked or beaten up for being effeminate.

To him, the preference is irrelevant to whether or not he’s a man, although he will recognize that there are men who prefer one over the other.

Perhaps that’s right – I’m not enough of an anthropologist to say.

I don’t think you necessarily have to be an anthropologist, just be aware of how in these other societies manhood is conceptualized.

I can’t, off hand, think of a single such society. Can you?

Yeah. One hundred and fifty years ago the word ‘heterosexual’ was used to define a mental illness in which a person was attracted to anyone of the opposite gender but their legal spouse.

In conservative societies you are supposed to be sexual with your spouse in order to produce offspring. Sexual attraction is irrelevant to marriage and any sexual attraction outside of marriage is stigmatized.

Tom Nolan December 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

One hundred and fifty years ago the word ‘heterosexual’ was used to define a mental illness in which a person was attracted to anyone of the opposite gender but their legal spouse.

Where and by whom?

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexuality

Take a look at the entymology section.

Tom Nolan December 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

So ‘heterosexuality’ was used to mean morbidly interested in coupling with the opposite sex (heterosex-mania). That in no way implies that an erotic interest in members of the opposite sex was stigmatized, does it?

typhonblue December 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

So ‘heterosexuality’ was used to mean morbidly interested in coupling with the opposite sex (heterosex-mania). That in no way implies that an erotic interest in members of the opposite sex was stigmatized, does it?

At the time it referred to any sexual interest in the opposite sex outside of your legal spouse. And, at the time, your legal spouse was often chosen for you by other people and the relationship might include but was not founded on sexual desire.

Anyway, as I mentioned in a previous post there have been societies that have stigmatized an erotic interest in the opposite sex as effeminate. The Samurai is one. Romans and the Ancient Greeks considered _excessive_ desire for the opposite sex (in men) to be a sign of effeminacy.

TS December 12, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

Okay, but the thing is that a lot of female masculinity-users (I don’t know how else to say that) aren’t “playing”; it’s a question of their identity. Again, the thought of the butch comes up. If it “really” affects someone’s personal identity, do they get to participate? And I’m not sure I’m comfortable drawing that line myself.

I suppose it depends on how one defines an identity. I would define an identity as a set of characteristics and behaviors practiced by a group of people. In other words, the distinction is not the characteristics (which are universal), but who displays the characteristics. For example, to be patriotic is a universal characteristic, yet a person’s patriotic identity would change based on the country the person is from. Likewise, men and women are capable of courage, but when it is displayed by women it is femininity and when displayed by men it is masculinity.

I think the questioning of characteristics comes up because of cultural norms and also because of the human tendency to overgeneralize based on a small set of examples, meaning that a person might associate assertiveness with masculinity because she only sees males behaving that way even though the characteristic is universal. Essentially, masculinity how males display assertiveness; it does not represent assertiveness itself. In this sense a butch lesbian is not adopting a masculine identity. She has a feminine identity, but she is displaying characteristics culturally associated with men.

Clarisse Thorn December 13, 2009 at 3:58 am #

@desipis — I’ve just read through the comments over there, and there’s a disturbing and somewhat misandarist assertion that masculinity is centered on violence.

That’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying that masculinity is culturally associated with violence.

@Clarence — You didn’t miss mandolin’s assertion that masculinity is composed of patriarchy and little or nothing else did you?

That’s not what she’s saying. She’s saying that masculinity is heavily influenced by patriarchy.

If you guys want to argue against them here, that’s fine, but please try to be charitable in your readings of their words.

This is partly because even without the alleged pernicious male influence, I simply don’t think as many women are interested in technical subjects as men.

Why? Removing the loaded words from what you’re saying, do you disagree that there is a cultural influence at work that discourages women from following technical interests?

@TS — I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. I’m trying to take it apart and figure out whether I agree, but I’m having trouble determining how you answered my question. Could you rephrase it another way?

Tom Nolan December 13, 2009 at 5:40 am #

Typhon

At the time it referred to any sexual interest in the opposite sex outside of your legal spouse. And, at the time, your legal spouse was often chosen for you by other people and the relationship might include but was not founded on sexual desire.

In other words, it meant ‘adultery’ – something disapproved of to this day. You still aren’t making good on your claim that heterosexuality – in the sense of being erotically interested in the opposite sex – was an object of disapproval when Webster wrote his dictionary.

Romans and the Ancient Greeks considered _excessive_ desire for the opposite sex (in men) to be a sign of effeminacy

Likewise an excessive desire for the same sex. It was the uninhibited yielding to Eros in any manifestation that was considered effeminate. But anyway, that’s too general a judgment for an extremely complicated situation. Have you read the Satyricon? Did it give you the impression that effeminacy was more or less associated with homosexuality than heterosexuality?

As for the Samurai – well there you have me.

Tamen December 13, 2009 at 6:49 am #

@Clarisse: Well, the commenter Jake Squid said:
“It seems to me, however, that masculinity – not just the training – is centered on the idea of abuse and violence. Most of what is commonly understand to be masculine is either violence or a result of violence.”. Silenced is Foo said: “I don’t think masculinity is about violence and abuse. It’s about power.”.

Mandolin didn’t use the word influenced, she used the word ‘part’: “Patriarchy is part of the defining condition of male masculinity…”. Mandolin didn’t say how big a part so maybe Clarence was a little uncharitable in his reading of Mandolin, but on the other hand Mandolin didn’t mention any other parts of masculinity as far as I could see, and s/he also stated that discussing masculinity without accepting the feminist principle of patriarchy can’t be productive. That doesn’t leave much room for anything else in masculinity that patriarchy. So I think maybe you’re reading them too charitable…

As to the number of female engineers. Would you agree that the cultural influence discouraging women from following technical interests has decreased the last 25 years or so. I’m from one of the Nordic countries and as long as I recall there has been a push for getting more women into non-traditional careers. Everything from the school books which had stories with a single mother working as a janitor to our school having visits from female students from a technical university. On the other hand we never had any visits from male nurse students for instance. And this has changed perceptions. When a girl chooses to work in a field traditionally dominated by men we call her tough, gutsy. On the other hand, when a man chooses to work in a female dominated field he tends to be called a wuss, whimp, gay. On would expect that this reflects in the statistics, but it doesn’t. It showed that from 1996 to 2006 women in a greater degree than men (not by much, but noticeable) continued to choose traditional studies. Women had no increase in traditional male fields while men had an increase in health and social studies. During these ten years I would think there has been a decline in the cultural influences that discourages women, at least there has been a conscious push to decrease it, but it doesn’t reflect in the choices made by women. Clarence’s hypothesis that fewer women than men are interested in technical subjects is probably a part of why, but how big a part or if it’s even significant I don’t know.

It should also be noted that 56% of students were female in 1995 and 60% were female in 2005. So the push has at least managed to increase the number of women taking a higher education.

Sam December 13, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

An attempted answer, more questions.

Three quotes from David Foster Wallace’s Brief Interviews with Hideous Men #28, and how I think it relates to the question at hand. In the short story, two men, E. and K. discuss behavioral double binds for women in a feminist/post-feminist world. Implicitly, of course, they also discuss double binds for men. I think there’s a lot of truth in this -

A Double Binds for Women.

The expectation to be sexually liberated and assertive.
The expectation to honor the “good girl vs slut” dichotomy partly due to a still slightly different biological risk/reward ratio due to position in human procreation, placed in an age-old and feminist reinforced discourse of male sexuality as latently sociopathic in which sexuality for a woman means being taken advantage of, at least on some level. All sexual pleasure with men is thus tainted (as being at least potentially exploited), not liberated.

Quote: “Meaning that what they’re really going to want is some way out of these responsibilities. … experience a passion so huge, overwhelming, powerful, and irresistible that it obliterates any guilt or tension or culpability they might feel about betraying their perceived responsibilities.”

Creates a Double Bind for Men.

The expectation to be sexually liberated and assertive.
The expectation to be aware of the now socialised discourse that both individual and social risk of the assumed latent male sexual sociopathy is to be gender-internalized, not socially internalized – managed *only* by men, not women and men – reinforcing the perception that male sexuality *is* generally taking advantage of women, thus tainting all sexual pleasure with women (as being at least potentially exploitative). “Men *are* like that” is no longer accepted as a justification for either women or men, meaning both will feel the pressure of behavioural expectations individually without any socially mediated behavioural discourse).

Quote: “What today’s woman wants, in sort, is a male with both the passionate sensitivity and the logical firepower to discern that all her pronouncements about autonomy are actually desperate cries in the wilderness of the double bind.”

This, of course, is just as well true for men – we constantly act in the paradigm that our touch is potentially poisenous, that we are taking not giving when we’re sexual. That we need to contain ourselves rather than express ourselves sexually.

And that, at the same time, we need to be able to see through all this and understand that she still expects us to initiate and create the passion needed for *her* to get through the double bind barrier allowing her the kind of passion and radical acceptance of our sexuality, which seems to be the only way it can be liberated from being considered exploitative.

The problem is thus the sequencing. I/men need to be ok with my/their sexuality in spite of my socialised perception that it is not ok in order for it to become ok.

Quote: “This, of course, is because today’s postfeminist era is also today’s postmodern era, in which supposedly everybody now knows everything about what’s really going on underneath all the semiotic codes and cultural conventions, and everybody supposedly knows what paradigms everybody is operating out of, and so we’re all as individuals held to be far more responsible for our sexuality, since everything we do is now unprecedentedly conscious and informed.”

The big question, in my opinion, is, whether it is possible to create passion despite explicity, or whether this cannot work. Can a performance of passion be passionate when everyone knows/assumes that it is a performance?

For masculinity, I think the basic question is thus whether it is possible to liberate male sexuality as such from being a priori tainted with sexual violence – allowing men to re-embrace their sexuality without feeling guilty for their desires on some a priori level, allowing men who *ARE* reflected in this sense to develop the kind of passion needed for the sequencing outlined above to work.

In a way, this is largely a reformulation of Clarisse’s initial question, but I think it’s offering some additional context regarding the social setup in which we are asking the question.

May crosspost this at Alas, a blog.

typhonblue December 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

As for the Samurai – well there you have me.

We’re sort of having our own conversation here. Let’s see if we can correct this.

To be honest, what do you mean by ‘heterosexual stigma’?

I would say that the dynamics identified in Sam’s post, in which male sexuality is seen as exploitative of female sexuality qualifies as a heterosexual stigma.

Other cultures, like the Ancient Greek, Roman and Samurai considered sexuality with women to be feminizing. In other words, female sexuality exploited and poisoned male sexuality. Now they would recognize that heterosexuality is necessary for reproduction but, like a Victorian lady maintaining the sexual mores of her time, they would deny and stigmatize any erotic interest in their opposite sex partners.

HAH! I’ve tied the two threads together! GO ME!

typhonblue December 13, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

Jake Squid:

It seems to me, however, that masculinity – not just the training – is centered on the idea of abuse and violence. Most of what is commonly understand to be masculine is either violence or a result of violence.

Trotting out that tired, old stereotype? Can’t we move past these misandrist, female-infantilizing concepts?

Incidentally violence doesn’t define the men I know. Whereas non-violent doesn’t define the women I know either.

Ugh. When guys like this tell me how men are defined by violence (and women are defined by non-violence) it just makes me want to punch the crap out of them and break their kneecaps.

typhonblue December 13, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

Sorry for the triple post. This stuff gets under my skin.

Jake Squid:

It seems to me, however, that masculinity – not just the training – is centered on the idea of abuse and violence. Most of what is commonly understand to be masculine is either violence or a result of violence.

One of the things that really bugs me about attitudes like this is that it removes my ability to be bad(violent). My ability to be _responsible_ for my badness. And if you remove my ability to be responsible for my badness, I can’t choose to be good. Any goodness I have I stumble into, guided by goodness seeking genitalia.

This guy’s essentially turned me into an armless, legless, faceless and voiceless WOMAN(tm) with no existence outside of his own ego-projection. It’s exactly the same dynamic as turning a woman into a sex object except worse because the man in question thinks he’s doing me(and other women) some sort of twisted favor.

Both are part of the same dehumanizing dynamic.

Sam December 14, 2009 at 12:16 am #

Oh, before I forget…

“The big question, in my opinion, is, whether it is possible to create passion despite explicity, or whether this cannot work. Can a performance of passion be passionate when everyone knows/assumes that it is a performance?”

Talking about masculinity is *not* an aphrodisiac. Talked to a girl at a party on Friday, who asked me to keep talking to her to fend off some guy. Figured she may be interested in this, since I had been thinking about it all week. Turns out she wasn’t. A couple of minutes later, the other guy pushed her against a wall and kissed her – that’s what she wanted. So much for the immediate effects of a masculinity discourse on a quite intelligent woman. In a way, it’s what I wrote above. And as a consequence, I promised myself, I’d keep this subject thing on the internet (and it became a fun evening after all…).

MER December 14, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

I want to apologize; I wish I was more clear in noting this as an exception (You’re awesome!).

I don’t necessarily think that violence is core to our notion of masculinity, but more that energy and assertiveness, which ends up sometimes getting confused with violence and aggression.

Clarisse Thorn December 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

@Tamen — Firstly, you’re ignoring the ones who said milder things, and secondly, I still think you’re being uncharitable. If you assume that by “masculinity” they mean “the social performance of masculinity” and not “masculinity in itself”, then things fall into place.

It’s sort of interesting to see the vehement reactions to their words, but I’m starting to think that it actually won’t be at all productive to encourage discussion of that thread here … I figured it’d be okay as long as people played nice, but I’m starting to change my mind based on the vitriol that’s been unleashed in just a few comments.

Would you agree that the cultural influence discouraging women from following technical interests has decreased the last 25 years or so.

Maybe, but cultures change slowly. And even if there’s overt “encouragement” of the type you’re describing, it’s often worked against by workplace culture, parents’ expectations, etc. You can point to all the “women can do whatever they want to!” public school initiatives in the world, but they won’t make a difference as long as engineers keep making misogynist jokes around the office, you know? I used to work in a very male-dominated field (gaming) and although I’ve got some great friends in it and great memories, one of the reasons I left was that I really was tired of being treated like a booth babe at pro conventions. For example. Oh, I’ve got stories. And so do women who work in engineering.

@Sam — It’s impossible to evaluate your story since I wasn’t there, but I would be cautious about judging it the way you seem tempted to. Firstly, (I’m assuming this wasn’t a gender/sex-oriented gathering) most people outside these circles get bored by our geekery (as is normal with geekery). Secondly, your account of her behavior (asking you to help her keep the guy away, then giving in when he pushed her against the wall) is just as compatible with someone submitting out of social pressure or personal anxiety (which happens all the time even with women who have good boundaries) as with someone submitting out of desire.

I’m not trying to develop your anecdote into a full-on subthread (that probably wouldn’t be productive), just noting some alternative interpretations based on admittedly limited information. If you want to talk about geeky gender stuff, the key is probably to do it in geeky gender circles, you know?

Can a performance of passion be passionate when everyone knows/assumes that it is a performance?

Yeah, dude, this is what BDSMers do all the time. And really, it works. No, really, it does. Sometimes it takes a bit of getting used to, but it does. There are porn stars who really get into their jobs, too.

@MER — Fair enough.

TS December 14, 2009 at 2:39 pm #

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. I’m trying to take it apart and figure out whether I agree, but I’m having trouble determining how you answered my question. Could you rephrase it another way?

I will try. I would define an identity as the way a group of people behaves. No behavior is limited to one group of people. Everyone can behave in every way possible. It is just that certain groups of people behave in ways they think is best for them, which we then call an identity. Lots of other groups can behave the same way, but that does not mean they share the same identity. Again, the distinction is not in the behaviors themselves but in who does the behaviors.

To use a different (albeit more egregious) example, the African American identity is distinct to black people in the Americas who are descended from slaves. There are specific behaviors associated with black cultural values. If a white person decided to adopt the behaviors associated with the African American identity, that would not mean the person now shares the African American identity or that the person should have any say in defining it or necessarily participate in discussions about it because the African American identity is the way black people in the Americas who are descended from slaves exhibit those behaviors. In other words, one must actually belong to a group in order to claim that group’s identity.

Does this make slightly more sense?

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

I figured it’d be okay as long as people played nice, but I’m starting to change my mind based on the vitriol that’s been unleashed in just a few comments.

From what I can see, the vitriol is all mine. I just want to clarify that so no one blames it on the men.

Sam December 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

Clarisse,

“@Sam — It’s impossible to evaluate your story since I wasn’t there, but I would be cautious about judging it the way you seem tempted to.”

Not really anymore, I actually see it just as you do. I thought it was just something that fit in with the meta-masculinity-discourse/performative-masculinity thing as well as the sequencing issue I mentioned in the DFW inspired comment about male passion as a way to over female double binds and the problem of being able to develop that passion from within the male double binds.
At least in the way it keeps me from being the guy who is bold enough to do what the other guy did.

“Secondly, your account of her behavior (asking you to help her keep the guy away, then giving in when he pushed her against the wall) is just as compatible with someone submitting out of social pressure or personal anxiety (which happens all the time even with women who have good boundaries) as with someone submitting out of desire.”

Yeah, it was desire to be pushed against a wall, not necessarily being pushed by that guy, but being pushed in general. She told me later, when she *asked me* whether she should stay or leave with him…

“I’m not trying to develop your anecdote into a full-on subthread (that probably wouldn’t be productive),”

No. Certainly not. Although my inability to act in such circumstances absent full postivie knowledge of her desire to be pushed against the wall by me (inspite of this being the most plausible explanation for her behaviour) is exemplary of the double binds/behavioural issues related to masculinity that I outlined above (and that I think you referred to in your initial question).

“If you want to talk about geeky gender stuff, the key is probably to do it in geeky gender circles, you know?”

Sure. So, as for that – do you have any thoughts regarding the double bind thing I mentioned before?

Sam December 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

Clarisse,

“Yeah, dude, this is what BDSMers do all the time”

I reckoned that you would say that. Maybe this is really just hard to understand for people who haven’t experienced this kind of thing.

I have no experience in this whatsoever, so all this is speculative, but I suppose that there is also a tension between safety and a certain transgression – I mean, any interaction with a woman starts by making her feel safe. For sexualised interactions, she needs to feel so safe that she feels she can let go. But – at this point, any kind of initiation implies moving out of safe, known area, into the unknown. It must be safe, safe enough to let go, but “unsafe enough” to still be exciting – all at the same time… do you know what I mean?

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

I mean, any interaction with a woman starts by making her feel safe.

Why is that? I imagine it presupposes a cultural context in which men’s sexuality is somehow more dangerous then women’s sexuality.

It must be safe, safe enough to let go, but “unsafe enough” to still be exciting

Interesting. I have to say that sometimes anecdotes like this make me feel like a separate species entirely.

I’ve always approached sexual situations with clear verbal boundaries, what’s likely to happen, what’s not likely to happen and with concern over my partner’s welfare as well as my own(for example, with men, I know that they usually come into a sexual situation with an intimacy deficit–thus are vulnerable to feeling teased.)

For me the excitement lies in exploring another person’s body; that’s the unknown territory, finding out what s/he responds to, what s/he enjoys and finding out how we connect.

And, to be brutally honest, I find the dynamic you outlined with your acquaintance to be extremely unappealing, even boring and depressing.

Sam December 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

typhonblue,

as I have introduced a personal story, I should probably add a bit of background – I’m a true late comer to the physical realm, I am by now quite successful in attracting women to me, but I am still often unable to initiate physical intimacy when she doesn’t. So what I’m talking about is more about the *initiating* element, less the actual physical intimacy and discovering the unknown there.

“And, to be brutally honest, I find the dynamic you outlined with your acquaintance to be extremely unappealing, even boring and depressing.”

Yeah, I can see why it would seem that way.

Motley December 14, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

@typhonblue

I’ve always approached sexual situations with clear verbal boundaries,

Oddly, that does make you sound like a separate species entirely. :) (Well, a statistical outlier… but since most people don’t post to blogs like this, we’re probably all statistical outliers here)
Sam’s comment matches my experience pretty exactly. Anyway, in response to why “any interaction with a woman starts by making her feel safe” I’d refer to the Schrodinger’s Rapist post (which was largely my introduction to feminism). In general, my experience indicates that (warning: huge overgeneralization incoming) a woman who doesn’t feel safe won’t even talk to you–and a woman who feels too safe won’t find you interesting at all.

@Clarisse: Thanks. (Can you tell I don’t really know anything about feminism? …hence I’m trying to avoid talking out of my ass, probably with limited success). I mostly was just saying that it’s important (and difficult) to avoid seeming like the subject’s more-familiar caricature of a movement when trying to convince a subject of a movement’s validity.

@Clarisse/TS: I’d just like to second what TS is saying, though with the caveat that he might mean something completely different by the term “masculinity” than you do. For instance, when you mention women who like to “play with masculinity in the bedroom,” I have absolutely no idea what you actually mean. Could you explain?

@Clarisse/Sam (re: BDSM)–I think what Sam is saying is that spontaneity seems to be an essential ingredient in the “average person’s” idea of sex. (Yeah, I know there probably isn’t any actual “average person.”)

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

Sam:

Yeah, I can see why it would seem that way.

It seems like this idea of seduction has layers of misdirection that have nothing to do with sexuality.

Why does a man have to make a woman feel safe anymore then she has to make him feel safe? Why do women have to be cajoled into sex?

I don’t think these dynamics would exist in a society that removed all heterosexual stigma and didn’t see male sexuality as damaging to female sexuality or vice versa.

Motley:

Oddly, that does make you sound like a separate species entirely.

No doubt. I also have a problem seeing myself as sexually attractive to men. It seems a very arrogant thing to assume. Likewise I see the expectation that men always approach to be arrogant and exploitative.

I believe sexuality is a mutual experience, not something that’s ‘bought’ from one person by another either explicitly or implicitly.

Sam December 14, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

Typhonblue,

I wish the world *were* like you describe it. But, as I think I mentioned in the double-binds-comment above, that’s not the case. And while I think we’re all agreeing that feminism has helped a little in making people aware of such, previously unexpressed, dynamics, we’re also here because we do realise that we haven’t yet found a way to remove the double binds for both women and men (and – we haven’t even attempted to answer the big looming nature/nurture conundrum behind all this – whether different positions in procreation and differences in sexual biology/psychology are some kind of *essential* limit to social modifications in this matter, however complicated and long-term even the social elements are).

“Why does a man have to make a woman feel safe anymore then she has to make him feel safe?”

I don’t think a man has to make a woman feel safe anymore than she has to make him feel safe. It’s just that there are usually physical differences between women and men that – while usually a part of sexual attraction – are also part of a potential threat. Women usually don’t have such a physical threat-potential. And there are, of course, socialised beliefs about male sexuality… as per above.

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

I wish the world *were* like you describe it.

My world is. Because I have chosen to approach sexuality in that way.

whether different positions in procreation and differences in sexual biology/psychology are some kind of *essential* limit to social modifications in this matter, however complicated and long-term even the social elements are.

Technology has brought about a world in which reproduction is divorced from sex for women. It may yet bring about a world in which paternity uncertainty is a no longer an issue for men and a world where _their_ sexuality is finally divorced from reproduction.

Women usually don’t have such a physical threat-potential.

Anyone who actively desires to hurt/exploit another human being will find a way regardless of physical limitations.

Sam December 14, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

Typhonblue,

“My world is. Because I have chosen to approach sexuality in that way.”

Well, in that case – doesn’t that imply you have solved the masculinity issue we’re discussing here. I would have to say, though, that I am not able to influence others simply by making my own choice. I have a say, but I’m not the only one who has a say, as the activity in question is involving more than just me.

And yes, technology is changing a lot, but until technological changes will actually have behavioral rather than technological impact, it will take quite a while longer.

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

Well, in that case – doesn’t that imply you have solved the masculinity issue we’re discussing here.

When I say ‘my world’ I mean just that. My world, my experience.

I would have to say, though, that I am not able to influence others simply by making my own choice.

Actually you are. You chose the people who are allowed into your life.

I have a say, but I’m not the only one who has a say, as the activity in question is involving more than just me.

Unfortunately I think I have more influence in this situation as a woman then the average man. If I set the rules of engagement, men will tend to meet them as set. That’s the way courtship seems to work in our society.

For example, if your acquaintance had decided clear and honest communication of desire was her rule of engagement, she would have ended up with you. Instead she chose the typical pursuit and capture rule of engagement and got a man who has learned to push in the face of reluctance.

Personally I wouldn’t want to associate with a person who can’t be honest about what she wants or a person who has learned aggressive pursuit as a strategy.

Sam December 14, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

Typhonblue,

I wasn’t aware that you’re a woman. That evidently changes the perspective.

“Actually you are. You chose the people who are allowed into your life.”

Yes, to a degree.

“Personally I wouldn’t want to associate with a person who can’t be honest about what she wants or a person who has learned aggressive pursuit as a strategy.”

Most people can’t be honest about what they want because they don’t really know what they want, and even if they did, they’d want someone to help them make a decision for them. That’s the whole point of the “overwhelming” passion, that allows to get rid of double binds. She wanted to be pushed against a wall and make out, but she did not want to have to be the initiator. She wanted someone who *understood* what she wanted and gave it to her. That wasn’t me.

Again, the three quotes from Foster-Wallace -

Quote: “Meaning that what they’re really going to want is some way out of these responsibilities. … experience a passion so huge, overwhelming, powerful, and irresistible that it obliterates any guilt or tension or culpability they might feel about betraying their perceived responsibilities.”

Quote: “What today’s woman wants, in sort, is a male with both the passionate sensitivity and the logical firepower to discern that all her pronouncements about autonomy are actually desperate cries in the wilderness of the double bind.”

Quote: “This, of course, is because today’s postfeminist era is also today’s postmodern era, in which supposedly everybody now knows everything about what’s really going on underneath all the semiotic codes and cultural conventions, and everybody supposedly knows what paradigms everybody is operating out of, and so we’re all as individuals held to be far more responsible for our sexuality, since everything we do is now unprecedentedly conscious and informed.”

See what I mean?

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 10:40 pm #

That’s the whole point of the “overwhelming” passion, that allows to get rid of double binds.

I see what you’re saying of course and, yes, it does apply to a lot of women I see around me.

A woman doesn’t want to be responsible for her desire(possibly because male sexuality is seen as tainted), so she makes a man responsible for it.

I imagine many women also get a thrill out of pursuit because it makes them feel valued as a person.

For me, personal responsibility is a value I hold very highly. It frees me to be me whenever and wherever I want. Because of that I would rather take responsibility for myself and my desire by being honest about it. Also I don’t think other people are responsible for valuing me. I am responsible for valuing myself.

Other people are responsible for presenting mutually enjoyable social opportunities.

See what I mean?

Yes I do. And I feel really bad for all the men who have to navigate this dehumanizing nonsense. *hugs*

BTW, very deep, compelling insights.

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

@Sam

lol @ how you must have parsed my comments when you thought I was a guy.

typhonblue December 14, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

Most people can’t be honest about what they want because they don’t really know what they want.

How do men manage to be honest about their desire for women?

Sam December 15, 2009 at 12:16 am #

Typhonblue,

“I imagine many women also get a thrill out of pursuit because it makes them feel valued as a person.”

I wouldn’t say that’s limited to women.

“How do men manage to be honest about their desire for women?”

Good question. I would say that there is a certain honesty in the pursuit itself because it is an overt signal of interest. From that point of view, aggressive pursuit could even be seen as a particularly honest, uncoded, communication of desire. Of course, too much aggression will be in violation of a lot of other rules, most importantly the safety-rule. So, well, I guess there’s a reason “seduction” is called an art ;).

As for myself, due to my often experienced inability to initiate physical because of my fear to have misinterpreted her signals and become “that guy” (It took me too long to start to like my sexuality to risk starting to feel bad about it again), I have often not been particularly honest about my desire and instead attempted to increase hers to extent where she was no longer able to contain it. So, on a meta level, I reckon that could have been what DFW referred to, but on an honesty scale it won’t score particularly highly. There must be a different way, and I will eventually find it. Hopefully.

Tamen December 15, 2009 at 3:17 am #

@Clarisse: I certainly acknowledge that there were several milder comments than the ones I highlighted. On the other hand I tried to illustrate a support for the assertion made by Clarence that the thread at Alas had some assertions stating that masculinity is centered on violence. Neither Clarence nor I stated that all comments at Alas had this point of view. Of course I higlighted those comments (including one by one of the moderators at Alas) which I read as stating that masculinity is centered on violence and I outlined why I read them that way.

You still think I’m being uncharitable and suggest that I read “social performance of masculinity” instead of “msculinity in itself” when they say “masculinity”. It’s possible I don’t have a clear enough grasp on these concepts, but can you separate these two enough too make a difference in how I should read the statements from Jake the squid and Mandolin? I though it’s a common feminist theory that gender is not much more than a social performance and if a biological component exists it is small to insignificant. Of course not all feminists subscribe to that theory and you may not. I myself think that gender is a social construct to a much larger degree than a biological construct and thus I don’t find that exchanging “social performance of masculinity” with “msculinity in itself” give much insight as the focus should be on the first.

I am sorry that you had bad experiences when you worked in a male dominated field. And sure, the culture push back and resist change, but I believe that your experience would be worse 25 years ago. Although I think that the change should be larger and that there still is a way to go when changing culture in this aspect I would expect that the change which have been should be reflected in some way in the number of females in male dominated fields. But it’s not.

I, however, have a theory on why that is. When polled significantly more women than emphasized the possibility to work part-time when choosing occupation/job. Typically male dominated fields usually don’t allow part-time work. There are as an example many more 50% job positions for nurses than there is 50% positions for a system developer.

The driving force behind this is of course the desire to spend more time on familiy and children combined with the expectation of men to be the main breadwinner.

Clarisse Thorn December 15, 2009 at 6:12 am #

@TS — In other words, one must actually belong to a group in order to claim that group’s identity.

The comparison to race is interesting … I’m not sure how I feel about it. But if we can bring it back to gender, then I guess my question comes back to: at what point is a female-bodied person “allowed” to influence discussions of masculinity under your model? If butch lesbians aren’t welcome, then what about trans people?

@Sam — At least in the way it keeps me from being the guy who is bold enough to do what the other guy did.

This might come off as trying to dictate your identity (which I’m really not trying to do) but it seems at least possible to me that this might not be a “problem” of you “not being bold enough”, but rather a consequence of a non-normative sexuality for you. e.g. If you were a submissive (and I’m not trying to necessarily say you’re a submissive, just using an example), you’d have similar reservations, right?

So, as for that – do you have any thoughts regarding the double bind thing I mentioned before?

I think it might be worth reading the book Yes Means Yes. I love this book and promote it at every opportunity; it directly takes on the double bind.

In terms of action rather than theory, I think it might be worth it for you to hang out in more gender-theory-oriented spaces, or at the very least in non-normative spaces (cooperatives are a really good example of this), and possibly to investigate some sexuality communities. (It might be harder for you to integrate into public sex communities because you are male and women are frequently in short supply — therefore a lot of these communities can be tough on male newcomers. On the bright side, men are typically in short supply in gender-theory spaces.) These are the kinds of places that are actively trying to at least discuss stuff and (for the sex communities) to de-shame sex in all possible ways. Which is not to say that they’re perfect, but at least they’re trying.

But if you live anywhere besides a major city, all of the above could be hard to find. In which case my advice is, move to a major city :P

Oh, another media resource: Comstock Films makes incredible docu-porns that show real couples with really healthy relationships discussing their relationships and then having sex. This might help give examples — though said relationships still don’t tend to be very explicitly negotiated, it’s a start.

As someone who prefers and has experience with open sexual communication, discussion of gender influences on sex, and clear setup of sexual encounters … I am not going to say having relationships with these characteristics is always easy, especially when I date outside the BDSM subculture (like now). You have to work at it, and have a partner who wants to work at it …. I’ve been told by guys I’ve dated that I might as well be “a different gender” from other women. And I’ve had relationships where I was much more willing to get into this stuff than my boyfriend … in fact I’ve had several relationships in which my boyfriend would get really anxious and bothered if I tried to explicitly discuss our sexual situation, boundaries, actions, etc.

This is rambling and I’m not sure it’s answering your question, but I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s really hard to change expectations around sexuality and it’s really hard to find other people who want to change expectations around sexuality; so I’m aware of the existence of your double bind (and many others), but I just don’t know what to advise other than (a) try to date people who are just as interested in these issues as you are, and work it out between you and/or (b) try to go find communities who at least sometimes think about and want to deal with the issues — they definitely exist.

It must be safe, safe enough to let go, but “unsafe enough” to still be exciting – all at the same time… do you know what I mean?

I do. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that different people have different requirements/preferences for safety …. And those can change based on where a person is in his/her life.

@Motley — a woman who doesn’t feel safe won’t even talk to you–and a woman who feels too safe won’t find you interesting at all.

Yeah …. So, okay, I find the general tone of and assumptions behind the seduction community to be really gross, but this is one of the areas in which I think they’ve got something to offer. Feminist Critics has a really great post about this.

For instance, when you mention women who like to “play with masculinity in the bedroom,” I have absolutely no idea what you actually mean. Could you explain?

Strap-ons, for example. Lots of heterosexual couples use ‘em.

I think what Sam is saying is that spontaneity seems to be an essential ingredient in the “average person’s” idea of sex. (Yeah, I know there probably isn’t any actual “average person.”)

It definitely is — but there are ways of negotiating spontaneity too. Granted, though, in a society where talking about sex is taboo even with our partners, and where a “magically perfect effortless relationship” is held up as the ideal, and where most people don’t even know what they want sexually and therefore have a double hard time communicating it … negotiating spontaneity gets a million times harder.

Obviously when I talk about BDSM I’m talking in generalities. Obviously, there exist kinksters who are terrible at communicating, and there do exist lots of vanilla people who are great at it — even some who use “our” terms, e.g. safewords and “kink” and “squick” and “hard vs. soft limits” etc. etc. etc. But the BDSM subculture obsesses about communication to a truly spectacular extent, and teaches it well; one fascinating sample tactic is the checklists some partners use to gauge each others’ interest in every conceivable discrete sex act. I distribute a vanilla-ified version of said checklists at my sexual communication workshops. Those checklists are a fantastic enabler of both spontaneity and solid understanding of a partner.

@typhonblue — So have you read The Book? by which I mean Yes Means Yes?

I don’t think these dynamics would exist in a society that removed all heterosexual stigma and didn’t see male sexuality as damaging to female sexuality or vice versa.

Maybe. The question is how to remove all heterosexual stigma — where to start.

Unfortunately I think I have more influence in this situation as a woman then the average man. If I set the rules of engagement, men will tend to meet them as set. That’s the way courtship seems to work in our society.

Yeah … I’d say that women start out at a disadvantage in terms of figuring out what we actually want, but once we know, we’re at the advantage in demanding it. But again, Oppression Olympics = lame … just making an observation.

@Tamen — It’s possible I don’t have a clear enough grasp on these concepts, but can you separate these two enough too make a difference in how I should read the statements from Jake the squid and Mandolin

I think there’s a difference between saying that “masculinity is usually constructed as X by the whole of society, not just men” and “masculinity is definitely and intrinsically X”. The former isn’t aggressive, and is the charitable reading. … Am I making sense? this comment has gotten long, and it’s Africa-hot today, so maybe I’m not.

The driving force behind this is of course the desire to spend more time on familiy and children combined with the expectation of men to be the main breadwinner.

So would you say that society still discourages women from those fields, then? Because saying that there are cultural expectations for women to spend more time with their kids, and then saying that some careers allow women to do this better than others, reads to me like an assertion that there are still pressures on women to have certain jobs and men to have certain jobs and the playing field still isn’t level.

desipis December 15, 2009 at 8:47 am #

Clarisse,

at what point is a female-bodied person “allowed” to influence discussions of masculinity under your model? If butch lesbians aren’t welcome, then what about trans people?

I don’t think females should be “allowed” to, at least not directly. If we consider the concept of masculinity to cover a broad range of context, then the influence from trans male would depend on how well they line up with cis males in the particular context.

That’s not to say that females can’t identify with particular masculine subcultures, or describe themselves as masculine (meaning like male, rather than is male). Rather that the use of the term masculine is incidental to the correlation of behaviours, motivations, etc rather than the cause behind them. I don’t think it’s reasonble to claim that your identity is “to be masculine, whatever that happens mean” or “to be like all the males, whatever that happens to mean” and drive your behaviours from an association with a word or vague collection of other people.

If masculinity isn’t only defined by males then it basically loses its meaning to be a generic identity that anyone can claim membership of.

Motley December 15, 2009 at 9:00 am #

Oh. In that case, I’d have to come down on the side of TS’ race analogy; I don’t think that liking to play with a strapon gives a woman a vote in defining masculinity. On the other hand, I’d say female-to-male-trans-people (assuming that means what I think it means) might be almost more qualified than the average actual male–since the average guy has probably spent maybe twenty seconds in his entire life trying to figure out what masculinity is, and I imagine someone switching genders from female to male has probably put a lot more thought into it (I hope!).

Similarly, anime-fans don’t really get a say in defining the Japanese cultural identity. Might have some interesting things to say about it, but I don’t think people should get to define identities other than their own.

So, in sum, I’d say that they’re not actually unwelcome in the discussion, but their voices don’t have equal weight when it comes to defining masculinity as an identity. Does that make any sense?

Sam December 15, 2009 at 10:56 am #

Clarisse,

“This might come off as trying to dictate your identity”

no worries.

“but rather a consequence of a non-normative sexuality for you. e.g. If you were a submissive (and I’m not trying to necessarily say you’re a submissive, just using an example), you’d have similar reservations, right?”

Well, I reckon that goes back to the question of how to cluster whatever is seen as masculinity (different extents vs. different versions vs. mixes of the two). To be honest, in my case, I don’t really think it’s about being submissive, it’s more about not having had the opportunity to “grow into” my sexuality. Lots of sexual shame issues, both feminist and religious, plus a tendency to overthink things led to being a true latecomer to all this. So, I don’t think it’s that I’m different, but rather afraid to express what is probably seen as the current standard version of masculinity if it exceeds a certain point of escalation. One very good female friend told me that she thinks it’s actually a bit unfair to “talk almost all the women I meet wet and then not follow through” because I’m to afraid of having misinterpreted her signals.

“In terms of action rather than theory, I think it might be worth it for you to hang out in more gender-theory-oriented spaces, or at the very least in non-normative spaces (cooperatives are a really good example of this), and possibly to investigate some sexuality communities.”

To be honest, I have no idea what cooperatives are. I’ve been active in incel forums online when I was a real incel, not merely sexually inhibited due still being a little afraid of my sexuality (and still suffering from a significant relative inexperience (compared to peers, male and female)).

“But if you live anywhere besides a major city”

I do live in a major – European – city now.

“This is rambling and I’m not sure it’s answering your question, but I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s really hard to change expectations around sexuality and it’s really hard to find other people who want to change expectations around sexuality;”

But isn’t *that* the key to the masculinity question you’re asking? I think it is.

As for the seduction community, I think there’s the good, the bad, and the downright ugly. These days, most of it is telemarketing. I think if there was a valuable core at some point, market processes have certianly almost killed it by now. For a guy trying to become more attractive to women, I certainly would recommend reading, say, the game, but only alongside a whole bunch of other stuff about dating conventions, general self-esteem and overcoming-shyness self-help-books, etc., and with a considerable grain of salt. Hugh Ristik’s post is pretty good, as is Elana Clift’s (feminist) dissertation about “the community”.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/ejc329/ElanaCliftThesis.pdf

“I distribute a vanilla-ified version of said checklists at my sexual communication workshops.”

I suppose you wouldn’t want to post those here?

“Maybe. The question is how to remove all heterosexual stigma — where to start.”

I think there is an increased interest in these issues since there seems to be an increased desire to discuss masculinity related issues. Naomi Wolf was way ahead of her time – the feminist sex wars were way ahead of their time. I have the impression that we are only now entering that debate on a true social level. So, where to start? You did. Right here.

Clarisse Thorn December 15, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

@Motley (and desipis): So, in sum, I’d say that they’re not actually unwelcome in the discussion, but their voices don’t have equal weight when it comes to defining masculinity as an identity. Does that make any sense?

Sure. I guess I just feel uncomfortable with the idea of telling someone else who they are.

On the other hand, we are acting as if there will ever be some grand tribunal that defines masculinity — clearly there won’t — and as if some grand consequence will occur if we manage to define it — which there probably won’t be.

@Sam — To be honest, in my case, I don’t really think it’s about being submissive, it’s more about not having had the opportunity to “grow into” my sexuality.

Submissive is just an example. It could be any number of things, also … I just picked a non-normative one as a hypothetical. I think that my “submissive” example actually is in line with what you’re saying: being able to grow into your sexuality.

One very good female friend told me that she thinks it’s actually a bit unfair to “talk almost all the women I meet wet and then not follow through” because I’m to afraid of having misinterpreted her signals.

Unfair and HOT!

I told Chastity Boy when we started dating that I actually thought it was really hot that he wouldn’t have sex with me. (I have this thing for denial.) He did not know what to make of that.

I do live in a major – European – city now.

Europe! I’m jealous. By “cooperatives” I meant places like housing cooperatives (a Google search will explain them), but I don’t know how prevalent those are in Europe. On the other hand, it will most likely be easier to find sex subcultures in Europe.

I suppose you wouldn’t want to post those here?

They’re pretty easy to extrapolate if you look at the BDSM version, but ping me by email and I’ll send you one.

To everyone: I will be off the grid for the next few days, and unable to respond to comments or email.

Tamen December 15, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

@Clarisse: Again, I have this feeling that you’re understanding what I am writing. Why do you imply that I think there is no cultural expectation on women (and men) to choose traditional occupations?
I have made no claim that the “playing field” is level. I thought I had made that explicitly clear in my previous comment where I said: “Although I think that the change should be larger and that there still is a way to go when changing culture in this aspect…”.
To elaborate further:
I’ve only stated that the “playing field” is more level now than it was 20-25, even 10 years ago and that this haven’t lead to any changes in female participation in male dominated fields the last 10 years. While at the same time there has been a small increase of men in a traditionally female sector (health and social services). Since I believe the cultural expectations on women and men still exists (but to a lesser degree) I don’t expect parity in career choices, but I would expect an increase reflecting the change in cultural expectations which has occurred the last 20 years or so.

The country where I live was ranked as world no. 1 on gender equality in the World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report 2008. But we still have a more traditional divide on gender in occupational fields than many country rating far lower than Norway. The paradox seems to be that the more choice women have the more traditional they choose. The welfare state makes it possible to work part-time while in other countries scoring lower on the Gender Gap report there are more women working in male dominated fields. Because they have to to make a living I guess and don’t have the same luxury of choice.

Luckily for me we have a quite good maternal/paternal leave system where the parents get a total of 50 weeks leave after birth (the state pays 80% of your ordinary salary during the leave – there is a certain upper cap so a high earner like a CEO wouldn’t get 80% from the state). 10 of those weeks are reserved the father and 10 are reserved for the mother. The remaining 30 can be split between the parents as they see fit. However, the remaining 30 weeks tend to be taken by the mother. Polls have been done and they show that a large number of men would want a longer leave, but they didn’t because the mothers resisted. There has been a push to make the leave either a 50/50 or even a 30/30/30 (Icelandic model) but this has been resisted by women (also feminists). So here we have an example of men pushing for a less traditional role, but women and even feminist women resisting.

This combined with the fact that the only increase in untraditional occupational choices is an increase in men in the health and social services sector seems to paint men as the progressives in pushing gender expectations while women don’t. I find that interesting.

In the Nordic countries housing cooperatives is quite common – at least in cities, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative#Nordic_countries

Tamen December 15, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

Correction: The first line in my previous comment should read: “Again, I have this feeling that you’re NOT understanding what I am writing…”.

TS December 15, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

The comparison to race is interesting … I’m not sure how I feel about it. But if we can bring it back to gender, then I guess my question comes back to: at what point is a female-bodied person “allowed” to influence discussions of masculinity under your model? If butch lesbians aren’t welcome, then what about trans people?

Depending on people’s position on whether transmen are male, yes, transmen’s behaviors would count as a masculinity identity. As for the other question, you stated that you are not comfortable with the idea of telling someone else who they are. I would argue that if women actively participated in discussions about masculinity they would, in effect, tell men who men are. In other words, I cannot see a way in which women could play an equal role in the discussion without them essentially defining masculinity for men. That is not to say that women should not share their opinions about masculinity, only that their voices should not carry equal weight in the discussion.

What exactly am I doing right now? Seriously, the men who have been coming to these posts and telling me that my problem is that I’m not listening to men are really starting to piss me off. I get that men feel like they don’t have space to talk about these things, but the solution is not to tell the people who are making space that we aren’t doing it. This seems to be a pattern … I noticed recently that TS got banned over at the Curvature for doing something similar, in fact.

I did not go to her blog and state she failed to listen to men or tell her to do anything. I stated that it is uncommon for feminists to discuss or acknowledge male rape and that the existing support community largely ignores male victims. Cara took to mean “female survivors have it easier.” However, she banned me specifically for writing on my own blog about her reaction.

Unfortunately, one person acknowledging a problem does not mean an entire group acknowledges that problem. However, Cara’s reaction demonstrated that she was not really interested in discussing male victimization, but only in discussing feminist theories and used male rape for that means. Coincidentally, I was the only male to mention his experiences, and I suspect Cara’s reaction was the reason.

What I find confusing is there is no objection when feminists note how uncommon it is for men to discuss women’s issues on threads in which men are discussing those issues, although feminists would object if those men responded in the way Cara responded. So while I understand your frustration, it is confusing that commenting on a group’s discussion tendencies is reason to be pissed off.

typhonblue December 15, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

One very good female friend told me that she thinks it’s actually a bit unfair to “talk almost all the women I meet wet and then not follow through” because I’m to afraid of having misinterpreted her signals.

Personally I think this is a great approach. Don’t let your friend make you feel guilty at all, the women you’re chatting up are big girls and should either take responsibility for their desire or go to bed hungry.

Sam December 16, 2009 at 10:13 am #

Typhonblue,

“Don’t let your friend make you feel guilty at all, the women you’re chatting up are big girls and should either take responsibility for their desire or go to bed hungry.”

Well, yeah. But the exact same thing could be said for me when it comes to a certain point… when both dancers are expecting the other one to lead, nobody will.

typhonblue December 16, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

But the exact same thing could be said for me when it comes to a certain point… when both dancers are expecting the other one to lead, nobody will.

Well, when you find one that will take the initiative, then you’ve found a keeper.

You taking the initiative is giving in to social pressure; her taking the initiative is defying social pressure. Why waste your time with conformists?

Motley December 16, 2009 at 3:04 pm #

Wow, that one hits a lot of bad buttons.

A dozen quick answers pop into mind. A few:

You taking the initiative is giving in to social pressure; her taking the initiative is defying social pressure.

Because a man with feminism-induced terror of taking the lead is not giving in to social pressure by taking the lead when he’s afraid to? (I’m probably putting words in Sam’s mouth when I say that. If so, sorry).

And I’m speculating about motivations here. But when I take the lead, I’m not doing it because I’m afraid of social pressure; I do it because I feel like it. The social pressure is more often against the man taking the lead, now; both because of fear of rejection and because of the (I suspect) feminism-induced shame in male heterosexual identity.

Why waste your time with conformists?
1. Because people who’ve been trained to do things the way their parents did ‘em aren’t inherently worthless?

2. Because even if they are, one instance of one behavior does not indicate that somebody’s a conformist?

3. Because… hell, I’ll stop. I’m probably taking this too seriously. Way, waaay too seriously.

If I’m taking this all wrong, sorry. Could you explain?

typhonblue December 16, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

Could you explain?

IMHE a lot of the long term relationships I’ve come across the woman has initiated the relationship.

I don’t think that says anything necessarily about the man or the relationship, but it does say something about the woman.

She takes responsibility for herself.

I’m not saying men shouldn’t take initiative because they should be ashamed of their sexuality I’m saying that a person who takes responsibility for themselves is an inherently better class of person. And considering the pressure that women can bring to bear in a relationship, for a man’s own safety it’s far better to be with someone who takes responsibility for herself and doesn’t foist it off onto someone else. (And often doesn’t see how she, herself, has created the situations she lives with.)

Because people who’ve been trained to do things the way their parents did ‘em aren’t inherently worthless?

Maybe for you.

Because even if they are, one instance of one behavior does not indicate that somebody’s a conformist?

I won’t list the social and legal options women have that men don’t in relationships because I’ll get smacked–you can go elsewhere to see that. But, in my mind, if I were a man in this current climate, I would be doing everything in my power to prevent myself from having a relationship with a woman who was at all unstable or incapable of taking responsibility for her actions. To me that would be a red flag and I would prefer to err on the side of caution then put myself at risk.

Sam December 16, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

Typhonblue,

well, yes, but… maybe we were talking about different things. Of course it’s great when people are self-sufficient in as many ways as possible. But that doesn’t mean that it’s inherently bad to conform to mutual expectations about who does what in the mating dance. Chosen conformity is as freeing as nonconformity, in my opinion. And, well, a female friend of mine who is rather active in picking her men herself will still say – if he isn’t man enough to kiss me against a wall when he believes I want to and wants himself, then he’s probably not man enough for me.

“Well, when you find one that will take the initiative, then you’ve found a keeper.”

I’m not sure, simply because I’m still not entirely sure about what my needs in this respect really are – and what of my behaviour is still sexual fear bred into me.

One of the women who did take initiative with me – who may have been a keeper if we didn’t literally live in opposite corners of the globe – kept telling me that, too. So, well, I don’t know.

typhonblue December 16, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

if he isn’t man enough to kiss me against a wall when he believes I want to and wants himself, then he’s probably not man enough for me.

Ugh. I hate that framing, ‘not man enough’. I find it insensitive.

After all, what’s the difference between judging a woman ‘not attractive enough’ and a man ‘not man enough’?

Except that we find the former dynamic to be offensive and the latter perfectly acceptable.

I wonder what it would be like to live in a world where men could take away women’s femininity with a word?

In such a world, I don’t think I’d want to spend any time around a man who considered it his business to take something so fundamental away from me; not just judging my attractiveness(to him) but my right to even call myself a woman because I’m not attractive to him or I behave in a way he doesn’t approve of.

Also, if a man who doesn’t initiate when he and the woman both want it, what about the woman who doesn’t initiate when she and the man both want it?

Is there a judgement against her akin to your friend’s judgement against the man?

I’m not sure, simply because I’m still not entirely sure about what my needs in this respect really are – and what of my behaviour is still sexual fear bred into me.

I can understand that. One reason why I put forth the ‘non-conformist as more attractive’ idea was that you seemed to be a person interested in analyzing yourself and being aware of your own dynamics. Which is a trait you often find among non-conformists.

BTW, I’m more attracted to men who have the mental strength to examine and question accepted dynamics within themselves then ones who play them out uncritically. There’s something very sexy about self-awareness and self-possession.

My husband is one such man.

What does sexual fear mean to you, btw?

Sam December 16, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

Typhonblue,

“After all, what’s the difference between judging a woman ‘not attractive enough’ and a man ‘not man enough’?”

Well, there is a difference, at least to a degree. Not being man enough is a behavioral dimension, not a visual dimension. As such it is – at least assumed – possible to overcome, while that is usually rather difficult for an essential category such as physical beauty (disregarding fashions for the moment, because visual fashions tend to be longer term).

“Except that we find the former dynamic to be offensive and the latter perfectly acceptable.”

I don’t think it’s considered perfectly acceptable. But I also don’t think it’s completely unacceptable the other way around – it’s just more common and as such it has received more attention. Most people don’t want to hurt other people’s feelings and thus they will try to convey such information indirectly rather than directly.

“In such a world, I don’t think I’d want to spend any time around a man who considered it his business to take something so fundamental away from me; not just judging my attractiveness(to him) but my right to even call myself a woman because I’m not attractive to him or I behave in a way he doesn’t approve of.”

Yeah, but there’s the thing that men are usually judged for their “doing” and women are more often judged for their “being”. And the grass is always greener on the other side.

“There’s something very sexy about self-awareness and self-possession.”

I agree. It was self-awareness that allowed me to get to the point at which I am now. But I’m not sure it’s what is needed to get the rest of the fear out of my system.

“What does sexual fear mean to you, btw?”

Well, it means just that – being afraid of having sex however much it is actually desired. I have a bit of OCD with respect to HIV, and I’ve been taught all through puberty that my sexuality is at least potentially violent. So, there’s a certain fear of actual sexuality, and there’s fear of the initiation (as initiation will forever be an image of my mum telling me over and over to “never pressure a girl because of my needs…”). I’m pretty sure she never intended this to stifle my development, but that’s the way it turned out. And it took me a lot of time and energy to get to where I am now. Not quite comfortable in my sexual skin, but hopefully getting there sooner rather than later.

typhonblue December 16, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

As such it is – at least assumed – possible to overcome, while that is usually rather difficult for an essential category such as physical beauty (disregarding fashions for the moment, because visual fashions tend to be longer term).

Then the ability to denigrate manhood allows for more social control then denigrating beauty.

I’ve been taught all through puberty that my sexuality is at least potentially violent.

I had an epiphany about this about a year or so ago. I ended up writing a story(or a subplot in a story) that explicitly explores the emotional trauma of having your sexuality weaponized.

And it took me a lot of time and energy to get to where I am now. Not quite comfortable in my sexual skin, but hopefully getting there sooner rather than later.

It sounds like your mother viewed your sexuality as damaging and viewed you in the shape of her own fears. I’m glad you’re beginning to recover from this emotional baggage.

That’s another reason why I said what I said earlier about not allowing your friend to guilt you into responsibility. You have every right to be reticent in initiating(you have suffered what I would consider to be a form of sexual trauma) and you have no obligation to initiate.

Sam December 16, 2009 at 11:24 pm #

Typhonblue,

“Then the ability to denigrate manhood allows for more social control then denigrating beauty.”

Sure. But both is likely equally painful because it’s considered the central category for attraction.

“I had an epiphany about this about a year or so ago. I ended up writing a story(or a subplot in a story) that explicitly explores the emotional trauma of having your sexuality weaponized.”

Funny thing. I thought about writing something about this myself, but I couldn’t bring myself to write without the intent of publishing it. And *that* I would never be able to do – double bind – I’m not *that* strong, although it would be meta-masculine, in a way.

“It sounds like your mother viewed your sexuality as damaging and viewed you in the shape of her own fears. I’m glad you’re beginning to recover from this emotional baggage.”

Every parent, every friend, every human does that. We only have our own perspective. It’s very difficult to take a step back and look at us from the outside – we cannot see ourselves. I don’t blame her or anyone, and better understanding her reasons, where she came from, etc, is actually quite helpful in deconstructing my own condition. I mean, usually forbidden fruit stuff causes teenagers to find it more appealing to do just that, but I didn’t. So, it’s really a bit more complicated, but the sexual shame thing did play non-trivial role.

“That’s another reason why I said what I said earlier about not allowing your friend to guilt you into responsibility. You have every right to be reticent in initiating(you have suffered what I would consider to be a form of sexual trauma) and you have no obligation to initiate.”

Nah, she’s the best thing that happened to me in this respect, and she’s not really guilting me. Far from it. Without her emotional support I would have never gotten where I am now. It’s more motivational than anything – it’s not that I am under any obligation to initiate. But I want to be able to initiate. I know I don’t *have* to. But I want to be able to express myself in this way in the appropriate moments.

Motley December 17, 2009 at 7:21 am #

Hmm. I’d say about half of the long-term relationships of which I know the details (disclaimer: yeah, I know the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”) women initiated the relationship.

I’m just highly skeptical of the notion that “woman initiates=good” and “man initiates=woman incapable of taking responsibility for herself.” It’s about as egalitarian an approach as the idea that women should just be completely passive objects in the game.

Tangent: Amusingly, I’m right now trying to define who “counts” as having taken the initiative in my own relationship. Background: my wife was engaged to someone else when we met, decided I was a more interesting prospect, but got largely ignored, in a sexual/romantic sense, because I’d written her off as unavailable. Then, months later, I had one of those “Hey, she can see right through me” moments and decided right there that I must not let that one go home to her fiance… and began a “subtle” (and seemingly hopeless, from my perspective) campaign of trying to persuade her that no, she didn’t want to go get married, she wanted to date me instead.

…Imagine my surprise. (Turns out I’m bad at reading a woman’s signals. Who’d'a guessed it?)
So, who took the initiative? Not really sure, there.

But anyway, somewhere back there I was trying to make a point. I think it’s that, if someone acts in accord with cultural norms (though “outdated cultural norms” might be the more accurate term, now) that isn’t an indicator that they are a Worthless Conformist (any more than doing things contra-normal is an indicator of being a Dazzling Unique Snowflake). Those norms are the norms because a lot of people felt like doing things that way.

As a side note: Sam’s experience of being told that to ever, ever fail to put the feelings of his partner before his own needs is monstrous is, as far as I’m aware, not unusual at all.

Sometimes, one thinks that society has learned all the wrong things from feminism. Which is probably where the “MRA assholes” are coming from. A lot of us have spent our lives being told that our sexual orientation makes us monsters, and are accordingly “grateful” to the feminist movement. Though I’d say it probably has more to do with the way that people take the wrong lesson from new data than with anything feminists* actually said or did. Or, at least, I’m willing to give feminism the benefit of the doubt.

*Yeah, I’m here referring to that mythical Monolithic Feminism. What I mean is that I’m assuming there are more pro-equality people in the feminist subculture than there are anti-male people. I don’t actually know one way or another, but, on the internet, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

typhonblue December 17, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

Motley:

Hmm. I’d say about half of the long-term relationships of which I know the details (disclaimer: yeah, I know the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”) women initiated the relationship.

If you think about it, that’s a really high percentage.

But maybe there’s a different dynamic behind it. When a woman sees a man whom she wants for a long term relationship, she probably feels more empowered to approach because that is what she’s supposed to want.

When a woman sees a man she just wants a fling or one night stand or transitory relationship with, she’s less empowered to initiate because that isn’t what she’s supposed to want. So the man has to ‘take away’ her responsibility.

I’m just highly skeptical of the notion that “woman initiates=good” and “man initiates=woman incapable of taking responsibility for herself.” It’s about as egalitarian an approach as the idea that women should just be completely passive objects in the game.

I agree.

As a side note: Sam’s experience of being told that to ever, ever fail to put the feelings of his partner before his own needs is monstrous is, as far as I’m aware, not unusual at all.

Also monstrous is the strong implication that his sexuality is damaging and unwanted, like it’s a plague he has to be extra careful not to infect someone with.

It’s as if men are taught that they are infected with a permanent STD and have to take pains not to pass the taint on to women.

Sometimes, one thinks that society has learned all the wrong things from feminism.

I think it’s because the idea of tainted male sexuality was already there to begin with. It’s a cultural inheritance from Christianity.

I also think it’s at the root of a lot of what feminism has identified as bad behavior in men. If you tell men that their sexuality is damaging, then they either embrace that identity or they spend their lives running from it and trying not to be ‘that guy’.

The guys who embrace it turn around and objectify women. And I think the psychological process goes like this: If my sexuality has no value, or negative value, I’m going to express my pain by saying the _only_ value women have is their sexuality.

Slut shaming will always exist as long as we see male sexuality as negative for the same reason that we stigmatize people who self-harm.

Sam:

Funny thing. I thought about writing something about this myself, but I couldn’t bring myself to write without the intent of publishing it. And *that* I would never be able to do – double bind – I’m not *that* strong, although it would be meta-masculine, in a way.

I could show you my work if you like.

Every parent, every friend, every human does that. We only have our own perspective.

I know. We all do the best we can with what we have. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t hurting others or that their hurt shouldn’t be honored.

But I want to be able to initiate.

I think this ties back into that ‘taint’ thing. If you had a delicious piece of cake, would you feel bad about offering to share it with another person? And if they refused would that make you feel bad or would you just shrug it off and say ‘more for me?’

Male sexuality is a wonderful thing. It’s fun, it’s free, it burns calories, it doesn’t involve exploitative third world labor…

Some men(and some women) use their sexuality as a weapon to hurt others, but that doesn’t mean male (or female) sexuality *is* a weapon.

If I can make an observation, maybe the reason you fear initiating is that you’re scared that if the woman rejects you, it’s because your sexuality is bad and ugly and you have to relive those awful feelings.

But if you viewed your sexuality more like a piece of chocolate cake, you’d be able to initiate sharing simply because if you’re rejected it’s not because it’s bad, but because the woman already ate or doesn’t like chocolate or is on a diet, or all kinds of neutral reasons that aren’t a judgement on the worth of cake itself.

JSC December 18, 2009 at 5:30 am #

I’m entering this discussion fairly late in the game, and it seems to be well established, but something Sam said takes the cake for me about masculinity:

‘Yeah, but there’s the thing that men are usually judged for their “doing” and women are more often judged for their “being”. And the grass is always greener on the other side.’

I feel like masculinity is essentially defined by performance. I mean that in every possible sense. You perform masculinity as a man by being strong and tough and confident and assertive etc. etc. but men are also judged by what we attain by our performance i.e. money, prestige, status, etc.

I feel like this is why so many men feel that “masculinity” is threatened, that there is this “masculinity crisis.” What it really speaks to is their insecurities about not performing it adequately in some sense given that gender roles in our society have changed. This opens men to ridicule and shame. This article: http://carnalnation.com/content/38206/44/masculinity-doesnt-hurt?page=0,1 speaks to that.

I agree that feminists shouldn’t have to define masculinity. I often wish there were a men’s space for this sort of thing. Since it doesn’t seem to exist (I’d be happy to check one out if anyone knows), many men seem to use feminism as an outlet for it. But this is not what feminism is for. This seems like a good start for creating that sort of space. And I do believe that women and trans folk have a place in it.

typhonblue December 18, 2009 at 11:49 am #

Interesting article, JSC.

And I do believe that women and trans folk have a place in it.

I think that depends. Would they participate without adding another dose of toxic shame?

JSC December 18, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

“Would they participate without adding another dose of toxic shame?”

I don’t think so if they are educated in what modern masculinity in America means (not that that doesn’t differ along racial/ethnic/religious lines too, which is something I forgot to add).

Nonetheless that is a problem. I’ve had just as many women give me a problem about not being traditionally manly as men, if not more so. Sometimes male-only spaces are needed, some men are not comfortable talking about masculinity with women. This is somewhat analogous to feminism, which includes men on some level but also endorses all-female spaces.

I think trans folk are especially important to have in these male spaces. They have a unique perspective, having possibly lived as two genders in our society. I recall the essay by a transwoman in “Yes Means Yes!” gave a good perspective, that of a (former) man, which was otherwise lacking. Of course this idea requires endorsing transphobia, but ideally the men in this fictional masculinity dialogue space would be against homophobia and transphobia.

Sam December 19, 2009 at 1:56 am #

OK,

having been the one who mentioned how meta-masculinity discussions aren’t an aphrodisiac, I suppose I should also mention that, apparently, sometimes they can be ;).

Different club, different woman, different interaction – one in which she for some reason that had to do with Hollywood but I don’t really remember moved into the whole gender area – so I mentioned in passing some of my recent insights highlighted in this comment thread, trying to move our chat to something less problematic, but much to my surprise this turned out to become a great three hour discussion, one where abstractly talking about sexuality and problems of male and female interaction was actually also flirting.

What may have been a point here was that this was my home-turf club, so while we were chatting, seven women (I knew) approached me to say hello with hugs and kisses (or attempted to drag me to the dance floor). I think it was at least partly their display of attraction that made her see my statements about male weaknesses and masculinity as some form of enlightenment rather than a personal weakness, which, in turn, allowed us to seriously (and still playfully) get into this subject. So, well, given the right circumstances, this seems possible…

But this also takes us, in a way, back to the problem: How can we discuss male/masculine weakness with women when we need to appear strong while doing so???

Tamen December 19, 2009 at 6:17 am #

@Sam: Sorry, but I suspect that the greatest aphrodisiac was not the meta-masculinity discussion, but rather the displays of attraction by the seven women you already knew. Almost nothing make a women more interested than other women being interested.

So to answer (perhaps a bit flippantly) your last question: One can do it by having one or more female wingmen. Or should it be wingwomen… :)

Clarisse Thorn December 19, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

@Tamen — I think I conflated you with Clarence a bit, sorry. You’re right that I wasn’t 100% on top of listening to you.

Because they have to to make a living I guess and don’t have the same luxury of choice.

Maybe … or the World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report doesn’t cover everything. Out of curiosity, have you seen any commentary on this subject from gender-concerned Host Country Nationals of your country?

Luckily for me we have a quite good maternal/paternal leave system … So here we have an example of men pushing for a less traditional role, but women and even feminist women resisting.

That is interesting. I don’t have much to say about it, but thanks for sharing.

@TS — I would argue that if women actively participated in discussions about masculinity they would, in effect, tell men who men are.

Are all men masculine by default, then? Another and possibly related question: Is it possible / desirable to separate masculinity from just being a man?

@typhonblue — Don’t let your friend make you feel guilty at all, the women you’re chatting up are big girls and should either take responsibility for their desire or go to bed hungry.

What Sam said in response to this is right on. Also, I generally find it to be pretty unproductive to tell women who have arguably been socialized not to take the lead or even understand their own desire that they “ought to do so”. I am put in mind of Betty Dodson, who often says things like “It’s very important for women to own their orgasms” etc. but whose advice for achieving orgasm I personally found singularly unhelpful — thus, she shamed me for having trouble with coming (as does a lot of ostensibly sex-positive culture).

Again, I’m put in mind of The Book. But I’ll resist the temptation to plug it again … especially since JSC has already done so too ….

@Sam — Yeah, but there’s the thing that men are usually judged for their “doing” and women are more often judged for their “being”. And the grass is always greener on the other side.

I love this quotation. I am also really enjoying typhonblue’s chocolate cake analogy.

But I want to be able to initiate. I know I don’t *have* to. But I want to be able to express myself in this way in the appropriate moments.

This response makes a lot of sense in light of what you said earlier to my submissive example.

@typhonblue, Motley — Sometimes, one thinks that society has learned all the wrong things from feminism. // I think it’s because the idea of tainted male sexuality was already there to begin with. It’s a cultural inheritance from Christianity.

Yeah, there is just no way this came from feminism. I invite you to research, for example, the way sexuality was framed for the Victorians: women as fragile flowers and men as dangerous beasts.

@Sam — How can we discuss male/masculine weakness with women when we need to appear strong while doing so?

I keep coming back to this idea of roleplaying or projecting certain tropes in my head. Is it reasonable to suggest attempting to project a traditionally masculine façade in other specific ways while having these discussions? Or is that just another trap? I’m thinking it’s just another trap ….

Maybe it would help if we tried to list the characteristics of masculinity first, and then separate out the “undesirable” ones?

typhonblue December 19, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

Clarisse:

Also, I generally find it to be pretty unproductive to tell women who have arguably been socialized not to take the lead or even understand their own desire that they “ought to do so”.

But isn’t that what we’re doing for men about masculinity? Asking them to start taking responsibility for how they’ve been socialized? Further, men have been taking responsibility for their desire for women for a long time now, would it really be that hard for women to do?

Sometimes you just have to do it. No excuses. Believe me, just doing it can be a very satisfying feeling, regardless of how difficult it is.

I am also really enjoying typhonblue’s chocolate cake analogy.

Thank you. I think if we got rid of this stigma attached to male sexuality we would see a lot less coercive behavior on the part of men.

Sam:

How can we discuss male/masculine weakness with women when we need to appear strong while doing so???

The first thought that came to mind is, why is Sam always relating a discussion of masculinity back to the dating game? And then I realized that this really is the crux of the issue.

Men need a masculinity that helps them get through those family/intimacy gates that women have erected. Anything else is just so much intellectual fluff.

That really speaks to the kind of selection pressure that women can bring to bear.

clarence December 19, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

Men need a masculinity that helps them get through those family/intimacy gates that women have erected. Anything else is just so much intellectual fluff.

That really speaks to the kind of selection pressure that women can bring to bear.

BINGO!

Thus PUA’s.

But the laws and way society is structured make this a very risky strategy. Thus men Going Their Own Way. And that’s a good thing. I think we need masculinity without female socialization. Only then can we bargain from a position of strength – because not needing female validation is the position of strength. Alas, most men need female validation. Or intensely desire it. Not always possible to tell which came first the socialization or the desire. And thus the big chicken and egg problem with these discussions. And *most* feminists (who admittedly were the first to question sex roles when women were disadvantaged) are of no use b/c they have no definition of masculinity outside of the patriarchy and patriarchy (rather than being necessary and possibly even good in some contexts) is seen as Bad.

clarence December 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

Clarisse:

Forgive me for coming back into the discussion at so late a date. You asked me if I felt there were no pressures on women to avoid technical subjects. My full answer is this: I don’t think those social pressures exist to any meaningful extent anymore and thus what we see is pretty much what we get. Women shaming other women for liking technology or having “geeky” qualities is just the flip-side of them tending to ignore or actively help persecute male geeks and nerds in high school. At this point, while some sexism remains (and will always remain short of “big brother style” thought policing) men have pretty much moved out the way, and often even encouraged women to enter these fields. Most women won’t. They are not interested in the subject matter and they don’t like the men who tend to work in those fields.

That’s my opinion on the matter. It ain’t cool to be geeky, and even for the brief period when one might argue there was some “geek chic” women still didn’t flock to STEM disciplines.This, plus Tamen’s several posts on this topic help make my case for me. I also note that if Title IX is applied to the STEM disciplines, America will lose its technological advantage pretty fast. High IQ people with assie or autie characteristics tend to be pretty rare and far more distributed on the male end, and those are the very people that make up most of your high end scientists, engineers, and inventors.

typhonblue December 19, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

Women shaming other women for liking technology or having “geeky” qualities is just the flip-side of them tending to ignore or actively help persecute male geeks and nerds in high school.

As a female geek throughout my life I’ve experienced far more discrimination and stigma from other women then I have from the male geeks who share my interests.

I admit that male geeks can get verbose and like to talk over you about their interests, but then, as a female geek, so do I!

clarence December 19, 2009 at 9:08 pm #

Typhon:

I think things must be different up there in Canada. Even though I’ve been in several technical environments for years of my life and (since these were on the lower end) often worked in companies where up to about 1/3 of my coworkers were female , I never saw or heard or participated in much sexism against women. Indeed, in most places I worked we honestly often wished there were more. Yet on Slashdot, in most comments that involve sex, there’s almost invariably one or two female commneter who chime in about how bad they’ve personally had it and about how cruel and sexist all those male geeks are. Maybe at the very highest end of tech jobs I could see it -so few women make their way up there. But its certainly not present much if at all in the lower end of things or middle end of things.

clarence December 19, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

To clarify by sexism I mean a few off color jokes some about sex, some about women’s abilities in technical subject.

These jokes were rare enough, and even so most of them were straight up sexual in nature not technical at all. I certainly never saw a woman given “easy” tasks or talked about behind her back or got wind of any plots against a female tech.

Clarisse Thorn December 20, 2009 at 2:15 am #

@typhonblue — As a female geek throughout my life I’ve experienced far more discrimination and stigma from other women then I have from the male geeks who share my interests.

As a female geek throughout my life I’ve experienced discrimination and stigma from other women, but I’ve also experienced — okay, here’s two examples:
1) being asked to pose in provocative stances by other professionals at professional conventions.
2) my boss also used to joke that I ought to “shut up and drink my Rohypnol”. (Full disclosure: I think this is funny. But you have to admit that most women wouldn’t.)

Interesting that of the two women on this thread, we’re both heavily geeky. This probably speaks more to the kind of women who spend a lot of time on blogs, but maybe it also speaks to the kind of women who have spent more time around a heavily male culture and are therefore more willing to “cut men some slack”.

I recommend this Male Programmer Privilege Checklist:
lafalafu.com/krc/privilege.html

Asking them to start taking responsibility for how they’ve been socialized? Further, men have been taking responsibility for their desire for women for a long time now, would it really be that hard for women to do?

I guess what I’m trying to say is less about content and more about framing. As I’ve already said, the point of these posts for me wasn’t to tell men how they ought to act, just to bring up the issues. That’s the approach I would take with women. To bring it back to my orgasm example, what helped me learn how to come was not people saying “You really ought to know how to come”, but just learning to experiment sexually in an open-ended way.

@Clarence — I never saw or heard or participated in much sexism against women.

The awesome thing about privilege is that you don’t notice having it and are often totally unaware of its manifestations. I just don’t find your experiential assertion compelling without some serious attempts to research the subject.

BASTA! December 20, 2009 at 3:59 am #

Recently some changes were made in the policy at FC in order to make the NoH threads more inviting to feminists.

You abused the new policy at the very first opportunity with an off-topic, passive-aggresive “obviously no one wants to play with you” remark.

machina December 20, 2009 at 6:26 am #

Clarisse Are all men masculine by default, then? Another and possibly related question: Is it possible / desirable to separate masculinity from just being a man?

Yeah, I find the lack of an explicit starting point frustrating with discussion so far.

I think masculinity is the perceived traits of men. This includes physical, psychological, behavioural, social and cultural traits. These traits are generalities though, for example men generally have broad shoulders, so broad shoulders is a masculine trait. However not all men have broad shoulders, moreover, some women have broad shoulders. From this masculinity applies to men generally, but not all masculine traits apply to all men, and conceivably some men don’t have any masculine traits.

Given that masculinity is directly linked to the traits of men, I don’t it’s possible to completely seperate it from being a man. On the other hand masculinity is the perceived traits of men, and this perception is mixed up with ideals and desires. So it’s possible to look at why masculinity doesn’t describe men accurately, and where it’s inaccurate to work out why.

desipis December 20, 2009 at 7:36 am #

I think masculinity is the perceived traits of men.

Which men though? The “average” man? Or the men who exemplify traits generally found in men? That is if men were represented by the numbers 1 to 7 and women by the numbers 4 to 10, would masculinity be based around the number 4 or the number 1?

clarence December 20, 2009 at 8:09 am #

BASTA!

Our bloghostess here can speak for herself but as for me I don’t for one minute buy that that comment from “Claire” on that old ballgame thread at FC is from our lady here.

clarence December 20, 2009 at 8:39 am #

Clarisse:

The awesome thing about female privalege is that one is not aware one has it and..

Forget the privilege crap. I’ve read three different “male privilege” checklists and probably around 80 percent of it has never applied to me in any way, shape, or form, with the other twenty percent or thereabouts either being something I could quibble about whether it is a privilege or something that I’ve had only enjoyed in certain circumstances. So I’m never a big fan of arguments about how blind I must be because I’m allegedly so privileged. I’m certainly familiar with Finally Feminism 101 Clarisse. If I found the definitions and arguments there very persuasive I doubt I’d be on this thread, as my only problem as a man would be ditching the last remaints of patriarchy out of my soul.

Far as it goes, I admitted that I thought there may be some sexism at the top levels of technical subjects as I’ve never been involved with or worked in those environments. Needless to say I find complaints by feminist organizations (such as AAUW)about the proportion of men in certain fields rather self-serving, and any studies produced by them that run counter to my own personal observations to be rather suspicious. I also note their favorite focus is on all the “best” mostly-male occupied jobs rather than the “worst” such as garbage collector. Part of the reason I’m so ticked off about feminist organizations focus on “glass ceilings” that even if such a thing existed most people will never get high enough to worry about, and their inistance that men are all to blame and benefit from it (yeah, I benefit from a greedy CEO being male, exactly how?)where they totally ignore the “glass floor” wherein males who fail in life tend to fall into far more so than females.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But I’m willing to bet that unless government literally forces things, the proportion of females in STEM subjects will be almost the exact same as it is now in 40 years. I wonder if you’d take me up on that bet?

clarence December 20, 2009 at 9:04 am #

OMG.

I just read that “Male Programmers Privileges checklist”. It’s the perfect example of how NOT to do a privilege argument as it makes many assertions that some women and some men will never experience at all and most of what it does complain about are things that one could take the opposite and make a “Female Programmers Privileges ” checklist. Not to mention many things are complaints feminists have with sexism in society in general not necessarily anything unique to female programmers experiences.

So for the most part a basically useless list that tries to assign guilt to males in general for experiences that not all females will have and that not all male programmers will be personally implicated in.

machina December 20, 2009 at 10:28 am #

desipis Which men though? The “average” man? Or the men who exemplify traits generally found in men? That is if men were represented by the numbers 1 to 7 and women by the numbers 4 to 10, would masculinity be based around the number 4 or the number 1?

In actual use the word can be used to both sort and rank.

When it comes to sorting I think it is based on all men by how they differ from all women. Those traits that effectively sort men from women are masculine.

When it comes to ranking, I think it actually more complicated than simply basing it around 1 as you might expect. We take these general traits and create an abstract ranking system by how they differ from feminine traits. So broad shoulders are masculine, broader shoulders are more masculine. This extends beyond real men into fantasy, myth, legend, etc.

This is all complicated by socially constructed gender roles that create singular traits, rather than overlapping distributions.

Sam December 20, 2009 at 11:09 am #

Clarence,

“PUA”

Check out the thesis by Elana Clift that I linked to above. I think there is a philosophical core with respect to performative masculinity in the seduction community that is, in a way, quite relevant to what we’re talking about here. But it’s really hard to separate that from much of the bollocks (“ten second seduction”, “get every girl into your bed whenever you want”) floating around the interwebs these days.

Clarisse,

“The awesome thing about privilege is that you don’t notice having it and are often totally unaware of its manifestations.”

Yeah, but there as well, the grass is always greener on the other side – did you have a look at the link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that I linked to above? There’s systemic epistemic “privilege” built into almost any feminist analysis : “Feminist standpoint theory claims an epistemic privilege over the character of gender relations, and of social and psychological phenomena in which gender is implicated, on behalf of the standpoint of women.”

“@Sam — How can we discuss male/masculine weakness with women when we need to appear strong while doing so?

I keep coming back to this idea of roleplaying or projecting certain tropes in my head. Is it reasonable to suggest attempting to project a traditionally masculine façade in other specific ways while having these discussions? Or is that just another trap? I’m thinking it’s just another trap ….

Maybe it would help if we tried to list the characteristics of masculinity first, and then separate out the “undesirable” ones?”

I think that would be a starting point. If separating it were a trap, then what would that tell us about performative masculinity? That it’s not real – and we’d be discussing about nature/nurture again.

I’d like to suggest one more basic distinction: collective vs. individual masculinity (or – “patriarchy as affirmative action”). It’s something I’ve wondered about a while and something I realized again last night when talking to a gogo-dancer at a club about her experiences in general and in particular that night. There was a beautiful woman that I know most guys simply wouldn’t have the guts to even talk to left to their own devices, without knowing her occupation. Yet the same kind of guys would, she said, tell her about being overweight and ask for blowjobs when they were aware of what she does (to finance her studies – oh cliché…).

So, Typhonblue is right – I do put all this in context of the mating game, because that’s why and where sex/gender matters at all. If it weren’t for that, I don’t think we’d even talk about any of this.

But I do believe that this is one of the most important dimensions of human behavior, quite possibly the most of the central dimension thereof, and thus a an equally important aspect of social coordination.

So the individual weakness (*and* perception of weakness) of most men to present themselves to a woman they desire sexually (say the dancer at hand) is, to a degree – offset by a collective “masculinity-weakness-managemen-system” allowing them to disregard their individual weakness to a degree, relying on the collective structure.

Of course, this is a very crude model of “patriarchy. But I think the main point here is that I think there is a mutual dependence between individual male’s perception of weakness with respect to one, if not *the* most important dimension in his life, and the problematic nature of social gender structures (in other words, I think this is the micro-foundation of the macro-demands of feminism).

In the end, it’s likely a chicken and egg question, but I don’t think the latter will ever be a truly level playing field if the former cannot be dealt with individually.

And that, of course, is at least partly a question of human anthropological constants like the polygyny factor and the relative importance of mutual choice and female choice in mating.

Tricky.

Clarisse Thorn December 20, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

@Basta — You abused the new policy at the very first opportunity with an off-topic, passive-aggresive “obviously no one wants to play with you” remark.

What the hell are you talking about? The only comment I’ve left at FC in over a month was on this post. And if anyone is actually going to argue that the comment is “off-topic and passive-aggressive”, then I fucking quit.

@machina — From this masculinity applies to men generally, but not all masculine traits apply to all men, and conceivably some men don’t have any masculine traits. … So it’s possible to look at why masculinity doesn’t describe men accurately, and where it’s inaccurate to work out why.

This! Exactly. I think this basically encapsulates my ongoing confusion with TS’s “non-men shouldn’t be participating in the discussion” argument. If we acknowledge that not all men are masculine and/or that not all men are equally masculine (and I thought we were acknowledging that, but maybe we weren’t), then why do non-masculine men have more “right” to participate in a discussion about masculinity than women or butches or … whoever else? I mean, most men are probably more affected by conceptions of masculinity than most women, but surely some aren’t — indeed, surely some women are more affected by said conceptions than some men.

@Clarence — I don’t for one minute buy that that comment from “Claire” on that old ballgame thread at FC is from our lady here.

Ah. If this is the source of our disagreement …. It might be from the dude who goes by “aych”. He called me “our dear Claire” on another thread, I think one of TS’s. Also I have been ignoring some incredibly irritating emails from him, so perhaps he is trying to get my attention another way :P

Is FC tracking the IP addresses of commenters? Because I really doubt that anyone in my area is pretending to be me. So if that’s what’s going on, it should be easy to disprove.

their inistance that men are all to blame and benefit from it

I think this is a frequent misconception about these subjects. The smart argument isn’t “all men are to blame”, it’s “society is generally centered around men”. It’s not “men always win”, it’s “men have a slight advantage”. At any rate, I’m sorry if I accidentally got the discussion back into Oppression Olympics territory — shades of my radical feminist parents are hard to shake. :grin: My general assertion, which is that I still don’t buy that STEM disciplines are widely accessible to women due to culture, stands.

where they totally ignore the “glass floor” wherein males who fail in life tend to fall into far more so than females.

Could you go into this more?

But I’m willing to bet that unless government literally forces things, the proportion of females in STEM subjects will be almost the exact same as it is now in 40 years. I wonder if you’d take me up on that bet?

I’d want to build in some caveats like “assuming good-faith efforts are made to minimize persisting sexist aspects of the culture within these disciplines”. Also, I am a freelance writer and an AIDS worker, which means I almost certainly make a fraction of the money you do … How much you want to bet? I don’t suppose you’d be willing to adjust the bet so that I’m risking less but proportionally the same amount, based on our compared salaries? :grin: Because that could be a really great deal for me.

On another note, some friends of mine have recently developed a site intended to encourage women in STEM disciplines, so I’ll plug it here — [ stemming.org ].

So for the most part a basically useless list that tries to assign guilt to males in general for experiences that not all females will have and that not all male programmers will be personally implicated in.

No, that’s not the point. The point is to get everyone to notice these situations when they occur and start thinking about how they’re contributing or how the situations make them feel. Where does the list tell you you are personally to blame?

If you are automatically reading blame into all feminist analyses, then can you tell me why?

@Sam — did you have a look at the link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that I linked to above?

I thought I’d looked at most of your links, but maybe I didn’t get this one. I tried searching the page for Stanford and didn’t find it; could you link it again?

Feminist standpoint theory claims an epistemic privilege over the character of gender relations, and of social and psychological phenomena in which gender is implicated, on behalf of the standpoint of women.

Sure, I buy this argument. But the point I was making in response to Clarence is that I simply don’t buy that there is “no sexism in STEM disciplines” based on his experience as part of the (yes! I’m going to say it!) privileged class. I wasn’t saying that women never experience any privilege.

collective vs. individual masculinity

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at based on your example ….

I do put all this in context of the mating game, because that’s why and where sex/gender matters at all. If it weren’t for that, I don’t think we’d even talk about any of this.

What? I can’t imagine that you’re saying what I think you’re saying. You’re not saying that sex/gender only needs to be unpacked in the context of romantic relationships, are you?

Sam December 20, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

Clarisse,

“What? I can’t imagine that you’re saying what I think you’re saying. You’re not saying that sex/gender only needs to be unpacked in the context of romantic relationships, are you?”

No, that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that sex/gender is one of the most important dimensions of social coordination / social organisation because humans procreate sexually and human mating is, in my opinion, where all the problems we’re talking about begin – not end, of course. Maybe that’s just restating the obvious… sorry for the confusion.

As for the link -

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology

“I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at based on your example ….”

I tried to express that I believe that in order to truly solve some of the problematic macro-level, systemic, masculinity issues, men would need true micro-level confidence, and that, I think, would have to come from strenghthening micro-level masculinity.

I attempted to add a level to this question:

“Maybe it would help if we tried to list the characteristics of masculinity first, and then separate out the “undesirable” ones?”

Does that make more sense?

Clarisse Thorn December 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

@Sam — I tried to express that I believe that in order to truly solve some of the problematic macro-level, systemic, masculinity issues, men would need true micro-level confidence, and that, I think, would have to come from strenghthening micro-level masculinity.

Yes, I think so. Thanks for the clarification. Again, again, I am reminded of Yes Means Yes, one of whose arguments is that in order to address larger issues like “rape culture”, it would really help to empower individuals to talk about sexuality openly and honestly.

Can you think of examples of situations deriving from “micro-level masculinity issues” as opposed to “macro-level masculinity issues”? Can you think of tactics that address one of the above rather than the other — or tactics that address both?

typhonblue December 20, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

Again, again, I am reminded of Yes Means Yes, one of whose arguments is that in order to address larger issues like “rape culture”, it would really help to empower individuals to talk about sexuality openly and honestly.

I would say, for myself, how you talk about ‘rape culture’ would determine how willing I was to be open about my own experiences.

If the assumption is that rape is a behavior exclusive to men then I’m out the door because I don’t need any more emotional trauma from having my experiences of sexual abuse minimized and ignored.

I would only engage in such a discussion, as a survivor of female-perpetuated sexual abuse, if there was a tactic admission that women do abuse, there was no ‘but not as much as men caveat’* and no one suggested that it’s less important to address female abusers as male. Or that female abusers are less ‘responsible’ for their abuse then male. Or that men are more responsible for stopping sexual abuse then women. Or that I’m responsible for the abuse I’ve suffered because a woman ‘wouldn’t do that without a good reason.’

If ‘rape culture’ tactically excludes my experiences of having been victimized, then I want nothing to do with it as a concept.

For my own emotional health if nothing else.

*I’ve read the evidence for this assertion and I find it unconvincing. A minute fraction of people sexually abused by women even come to the realization that they were abused, much less tell anyone.

Sam December 20, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

Clarisse,

I don’t really like terms like rape culture, because they are prime exhibits of the problem I alluded to with the epistemology link – they aren’t really answers but merely axioms. “rape culture” is non-falsifiable because it doesn’t contain any real information beyond statistics about sexual violence and an ideological explanation for it and its alleged social function within patriarchy. I don’t think it’s useful to rely on ideologically problematic terms to accurately describe the sad reality of sexual violence and the asymmetric risk structure for men and women – particularly not if the aim of the discussion is inclusion rather than exclusion.

Assuming that there will always be a certain degree of violence, it is reasonable to assume that there will always be a certain degree of sexual violence. But ‘rape-culture’ is implying the use of sexual violence (against women) as a control structure, and that may be the case in some parts of the world (Mukhtar Mai’s story, for example), but I don’t think that that’s the case in “the west” these days.

“Can you think of examples of situations deriving from “micro-level masculinity issues” as opposed to “macro-level masculinity issues”? Can you think of tactics that address one of the above rather than the other — or tactics that address both?”

Tricky. I’ll think about that until tomorrow.

typhonblue December 20, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

Sam,

Take a look at this:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

It’s a fascinating and scientific analysis of social attitudes and their effect on sexual victimization rates.

One startling finding was that the rate of forced PIV intercourse for male victims was 2.3%. For female victims it was _2.1%_!

typhonblue December 21, 2009 at 12:16 am #

As for a starting point for essential masculinity, I offer up my earlier statement as a starting point for discussion.

Masculinity is the tendency to seek out situations of vulnerability and navigate them through intuition.

To my mind it explains a wide swath of male behavior without being innately stigmatizing. From war to mountaineering to skateboarding to the Enlightenment.

sylphhead December 21, 2009 at 1:34 am #

Holy schizer…

I was disappointed in the way the Alas! thread turned out and was interested in participating here… but wouldn’t you know it, this thread is just swamped.

With so many side discussions going on and Clarisse only able to reply sporadically, I see little reason to jump into this fray. But, just making my presence known in case of a followup, or something…

Ciao

machina December 21, 2009 at 2:08 am #

Clarisse This! Exactly. I think this basically encapsulates my ongoing confusion with TS’s “non-men shouldn’t be participating in the discussion” argument. If we acknowledge that not all men are masculine and/or that not all men are equally masculine (and I thought we were acknowledging that, but maybe we weren’t), then why do non-masculine men have more “right” to participate in a discussion about masculinity than women or butches or … whoever else? I mean, most men are probably more affected by conceptions of masculinity than most women, but surely some aren’t — indeed, surely some women are more affected by said conceptions than some men.

I think Toy Soldier’s concern was with redefining masculinity for a changed society. If, on the other hand, you’re talking about masculinity as an existing concept and how people relate to it, then some women could be part of that. However the traditional gender role has been labeled oppressive, so it’s presumably necessary to look at what masculinity should mean in an egalitarian society. The concept needs to be redefined, and if the concept is “the perceived traits of men” then you have to go back to men, particularly egalitarian men.

typhonblue: As for a starting point for essential masculinity, I offer up my earlier statement as a starting point for discussion.

Masculinity is the tendency to seek out situations of vulnerability and navigate them through intuition.

To my mind it explains a wide swath of male behavior without being innately stigmatizing. From war to mountaineering to skateboarding to the Enlightenment.

That’s a good description of “heroic” masculinity, but I don’t think it’s a great description of traditional male roles in work and family. While the leadership positions as “breadwinner” and “head of the household” exposes men to some vulnerability, there was plenty of guidance provided social scripts.

Tamen December 21, 2009 at 3:31 am #

@Clarisse: I am not sure what you mean by “gender-concerned Host Country Nationals of your country”. If you by that means “norwegian feminists” I can tell you that I found the statistics and discussion surrounding the lack of increase of women in male dominated fields on a blog by a female who often adresses gender issues from a feminist viewpoint. All of the points I’ve made here has been made by her or commenters on her blog.

My “Because they have to to make a living I guess and don’t have the same luxury of choice.” statement was not completely pulled out of my own ass, it’s actually been subject of one or more studies.

One study referred to by an organization called “Women in science – Norway” found that “There is little difference in how Ghanaian girls and boys view science education and technology. In Norway, Sweden, Finland and England, on the other hand, the gender gap regarding what the pupils are interested in is huge.”. And it also suggests “…that the gap between girls’ and boys’ fields of interest increase the wealthier a country is. The higher the standard of living, the bigger the difference between the two genders.”. An article on this study can be found here: http://eng.kvinneriforskning.no/c62967/nyhet/vis.html?tid=62538

Clarisse Thorn December 21, 2009 at 10:09 am #

Rape culture: I do think this is a useful term, even though I understand why people would find it less than useful and I acknowledge the weaknesses that have been listed here.

Daran has noted that

Alas’s Ampersand defines “rape culture” as “a culture in which rape is prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence.” And on the “Another Feminist Blog” thread he points out that “The term “rape culture” is a concept used by feminists to facilitate discussion of why there is too much rape, and what changes to culture should be made so there will be significantly less rape.”

I subscribe to this definition. This is the definition I use when I talk about it. But since the term is considered problematic by people in this thread, I’ll try not to use it here.

I hope disliking the term isn’t enough to dissuade y’all from reading The Book.

@machina — However the traditional gender role has been labeled oppressive, so it’s presumably necessary to look at what masculinity should mean in an egalitarian society.

I guess part of the reason this thread kinda went every which way is that people have used it as a way to deconstruct “masculinity in general” and we haven’t really been focusing on any particular arguments, or questions, or defining our terms.

I don’t feel confident that we can ever figure out what anything would look like in an egalitarian society … or any other kind of utopia. I mean, not to say it’s not fun to think about, but it’s not really fodder for a meaningful debate.

Maybe the basic questions we can start from could be:
1) Attempt to describe how we currently conceive of masculinity,
1) List the current problems of masculinity,
2) Try to explore the roots of said problems,
3) Try to explore ways to address said problems on the
3a) societal level and
3b) individual level.

@Tamen — If you by that means “norwegian feminists”

Heh. I guess it was a clumsy formulation, wasn’t it? I did forget which Scandinavian country you were from.

From the article you linked:
“The pupils in Uganda and Ghana show great interest in science studies and technology. One possible explanation may be that youth in these countries see knowledge as the road to a better life,” says Jensen.
When it comes to the gender differences he points to the fact that youth in Western countries to a larger degree can choose their own identity. Gender seems to be an important factor in this process.

These paragraphs both seem spot on to me. I would be very hesitant to draw any conclusions about whether culture encourages or discourages people to go into certain fields based on their gender.

I can’t tell if you, Tamen, are making any particular argument, but I know that Clarence says your comments are supporting his argument that “even without the alleged pernicious male influence, I simply don’t think as many women are interested in technical subjects as men”. I don’t see anything in this study to prove Clarence’s argument. Rather, I see that people who are given more space to fall in line with socially-defined gender roles will take it.

As a side note, one of the ladies at [ stemming.org ] recommends this link:
http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-the-low-numbers-of-women-in-cs-hint-it-doesnt
Full disclosure: I haven’t looked at it myself because it’s so much data and I pay by the byte here.

typhonblue December 21, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

That’s a good description of “heroic” masculinity, but I don’t think it’s a great description of traditional male roles in work and family. While the leadership positions as “breadwinner” and “head of the household” exposes men to some vulnerability, there was plenty of guidance provided social scripts.

That assumes that ‘traditional male roles’ in our society actually speak to masculinity and aren’t emasculating at their core.

In hunter-gatherer societies male roles fall more in line with my conception; men are found exploring a wider territory and engaging in activities that foster self-reliance and intuitive problem-solving. They also function in a ‘provider’ role, but in a way that’s compatible with innate masculinity as I’ve framed it.

In hunter-gatherer societies men also preform the most child-care of any society. Which suggests, that western society’s framing of child-care as woman’s work is suspect as well.

typhonblue December 21, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

@ machina,

I should also add that the ‘situation of vulnerability’ can also include the non-physical, such as charting new spheres of knowledge.

To be honest, every man I’ve met falls in line with this. They all have a driving curiosity about the unknown, be it computers, games, sports, science, weather, etc.

Tamen December 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

@Clarisse: I’m not really putting foward any particular argument other than trying to supply some facts which surprised me when I first found them. As I would’ve expected a increased rate of women in male fields due to the culture change in western countries the last couple of decades.

Interestingly enough both Clarence and you takes the facts and statistics to support your quite opposite views. I am actually quite surprised when you say you don’t understand how the facts and statistics I’v quoted supports Clarence’s argument.

The fact that there is no increase in number of women in male fields even though the culture has changed quite a bit the last 20 years (although admittedly not as far as I’d like) supports his statements that even without perniciuous male influence fewer women than men would be interested in technical subjects. We postulate that there has been a decrease in the pernicious male influence the last two decades, but there hasn’t been a corresponding increase in women working/educationg themselves in technical fields.
I’m not sure he’s explicitly stated it, but to me it seems like Clarence argues for a biological difference between men and women in this regard. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

Meanwhile in Ghana more women are interested in technical fields than in Norway. This suggests to me that it’s not biological, so I don’t subscribe to that particular point. The flatter bell curve with more men on the extreme ends doesn’t explain all the difference between the number of women and men in CS for instance. I can tell you, and I guess since you know this since you’ve worked in the field that there is plenty of guys belonging to the mid-part of the bell curve working in CS.

But frankly, Clarisse, your point if I understand it correctly depresses me. You seem to state that the more freedom people get (more space as you said) there is an decrease in free will as they will fall in line with socially defined gender roles.

You point to the misogynist attitudes of male engineers as the main reason for the low prevalence of women in the tech fields. That may explain why some women leave the field, but doesn’t really explain why so few women start an education in the tech fields to begin with. And it’s not like the men starting in female fields aren’t experiencing a counterpush from female colleagues: http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/9256813/Male_nurses–reasons_for_entering_and_experiences_of_being_in_the_profession where male nurses says: “The subjects thought that female nurses did not accept that they were bedside nurses, and exerted pressure on them to adopt roles within nursing that were perceived to be male; i.e. teachers, or administrators.”

But still there’s an increase in men studying health and social services while there is no such increase in women studying in traditionally male fields.

Why it’s so is interesting and I think neither you nor Clarence have the full picture on why.

Motley December 21, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

What I meant about society learning the wrong lessons from feminism is just taking “rape is bad,” combining it with “male/female sexual intercourse=rape,” and then just stacking that mess on top of classic Victorian mores.

If I’m understanding Victorian sensibilities correctly*, having sex with a woman is defilement; the idea that any interaction with a woman makes me at risk of spontaneously becoming a rapist is, I think, new. Or perhaps just the idea that rape is a Very Bad Thing is new (and thus becoming-a-rapist is something with which to be seriously concerned), I’m not sure.

(*There is an admittedly very low probability of that)

But this idea that all men must be very, very careful not to ever do anything that makes a woman feel like she ought to have sex with you, because that’s “JUST THE SAME as rape” seems to have its roots in (wildly misinterpreted) feminism rather than Christianity. Disclaimer: I know a lot more about Christianity than I do about feminism (though still not all that much, probably). And most of Christianity’s Victorian-era influence seems to be more towards the woman-as-property direction, rather than the opposite.

The combination seems to be what Sam (and a lot of us, myself included) were brought up with–Victorian morality tells us that male sexuality is a hideous, tainted thing, and that any sexual contact is clearly rape; feminism tells us that rape is Very Bad and that rapists are Terrible, Terrible People, and that there are a myriad different kinds of rape that don’t involve explicit threat of violence, so it’s really easy to accidentally stray into rape.

To put more briefly, it seems like the message we’ve “learned” from feminism is Men Are Bad, and layered it above Victorianism’s Men Are Gross.

Awesome.

typhonblue December 21, 2009 at 5:52 pm #

And most of Christianity’s Victorian-era influence seems to be more towards the woman-as-property direction, rather than the opposite.

Christianity never posited that women are men’s property. The history of Christianity has been the slow progression towards more legal rights for women, not less. In Victorian society women were wards of their husbands and fathers (or wards of themselves if unmarried or widowed) _not_ property. You will never find a bill of sale for a white Victorian woman and likely they would find that attitude profoundly revolting, if we were able to go back in time and ask them.

Wards were afforded legal protection from mistreatment, abandonment and non-support by their legal guardians. Their legal guardians were also culpable for their criminal activity; if a woman stole, her husband or father went to jail, if a woman occurred debts likewise her husband or father went to debtor prison in her stead. Note that this is decidedly _not_ the case for people considered property aka. slaves. It’s sort of a grotesque (and racist) mischaracterization of Victorian society to conflate the two.

Did you know that in Victorian society, women could receive alimony from and take out restraining orders against their husbands and ex-husbands? Does that sound like a master-slave relationship?

If you want to see ‘woman as property’ you have to go to the Middle Eastern culture I grew up in, or go way back to Roman times prior to its adoption of Christianity.

As for rape and tainted male sexuality… The difference I see between Victorian and Feminist perceptions of male sexuality is that Victorians focused on male sexuality being _innately_ tainted, ie. every act of penetration was a hideous burden forced on saintly women by vaguely satanic men, their pustulant loins spewing sinful filth all over their pure conquests. (lols) Whereas feminism (absent some extremely retrogressive anti-sex branches of feminism that have identical attitudes to Victorians) seems to see male sexuality as a neutral, in and of itself, but tainted by association with rape.

To be honest I think that’s a step forward. Men could never wiggle out of Christianity casting their sexuality _itself_ as being an evil. But at least we might be able to recontextualize sexual exploitation as a gender-neutral activity in the future. After all, one of the latest and most comprehensive study(of its kind) casts serious doubts on our mainstream conception of sexual exploitation as ‘male abuser/female victim’ and the feminist conception of rape as patriarchal power play.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

Basically this study supports the idea that if people have a positive view of the opposite gender and believe that sexual relationships are mutually beneficial and supportive (aka. non-stigmatized) then they tend not to become sexually exploitative towards their partners. This holds true for men and women, both.

Sam December 21, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

Clarisse,

“I subscribe to this definition.”

The latter one you mentioned?

OK, but I have a feeling we’re slipping back into the “masculinity equals problems mode” of discussion. I may have contributed to that with the distinction between systemic and individual elements of masculinity, but this equation is exactly what’s not needed before we are even able to pinpoint what we’re looking at.

desipis December 22, 2009 at 8:39 am #

Clarisse:

Yes, I think so. Thanks for the clarification. Again, again, I am reminded of Yes Means Yes, one of whose arguments is that in order to address larger issues like “rape culture”, it would really help to empower individuals to talk about sexuality openly and honestly.

That last bit that I’ve emphasised gets at what I see as the main problem with the term. I’ve mainly seen it used to strip people (primarily men) of their sexuality or identity where it doesn’t fit the feminist model by blaming the actions of completely unrelated individuals (rapists) on elements of the person’s sexuality or identity. The effect is to disempower people in regard to talking about their sexuality.

The other problem I have with the term is it’s inference is that the culture in question intentionally supports or encourages rape, rather than suggesting that the culture incidentally having an unidended influence on (potential) rapists. This inference is used to demonise those who participate in the culture and demand that they give up their culture or else be branded as rape supporters.

From the wikipedia rape culture article: sexist jokes may be told to foster disrespect for women and an accompanying disregard for their well-being, which ultimately make their rape and abuse seem “acceptable”.. According to rape culture theory anyone who uses humour to observe or discuss aspects of gender is a supporter of rape.

Having a term to understand all the small social or cultural elements that go into forming the mindset of a rapist is useful for understanding rapists, but I think it grossly misrepresents the cultures it is applied to. As bad as rape is, we shouldn’t demonise cultures that in some small way increase the risk of rape without considering the many positive aspects of that paritcular culture first or the cost to those who identify with it in giving it up.

To put it in perspective, in a small way victims discussing their rape experiences normalises the action of the rapist and could possibly lead to more rape. But we wouldn’t consider this part of “rape culture” or demand rape victims stop talking about their experiences would we?

Motley December 22, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

@typhonblue– I’m using the word “property” more broadly than that (I’m not using legal terminology here). Amateur philosophy terminology: property=less-than-person.

Wards were afforded legal protection from mistreatment, abandonment and non-support by their legal guardians.

As is my dog. But, he’s still property. That’s the point I was trying to make.

Their legal guardians were also culpable for their criminal activity Likewise. I’d say that someone who isn’t considered responsible for his own actions isn’t considered a person, the way I’m using the term here. (Choice of pronoun deliberate. I’d say, without hesitation, that a society that doesn’t consider female humans to be legally responsible for their own actions is a society that thinks person-hood only exists in male humans–and I’m using person/property as a binary dichotomy).

typhonblue December 22, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

I’d say, without hesitation, that a society that doesn’t consider female humans to be legally responsible for their own actions is a society that thinks person-hood only exists in male humans–and I’m using person/property as a binary dichotomy).

Or, an alternative view, is that they considered the woman’s husband or father to be her representative to the state.

The problem is that your framing conflates the status of white Victorian women with slaves when their protections and status in society was vastly different.

Finally there is one thing that defines property. You can sell it. You can sell your dog. White Victorian women could not be bought and sold.

Motley December 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

Nah, I’m here defining property as “not a person.” I’m not conflating slavery and Victorian-era women.

I am, however, using property/person as a binary dichotomy. It seems you take issue with that; does it make it clearer if I say person/not-person instead, and posit that the Victorian era seems to’ve placed women in the not-person category?

There are a lot of things I can’t sell that aren’t people.

typhonblue December 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

Maybe something more along the lines of ‘citizen/non-citizen’ with a caveat that citizens had certain limited legal privileges in exchange for being physically beholden to the state with no legal provision that said state not abuse, mistreat them or provide for their welfare.

Sam December 23, 2009 at 2:22 am #

Clarisse,

I’ve stopped over at your recommended Yes Means Yes and read around a bit – noting two things.

First, if you click “manliness” in the category list, you’ll get a list of posts almost entirely devoted to rape/rape culture/sexual violence issues. The one exception? The post about a post you wrote…

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/things-cis-het-men-are-afraid-to-talk-about/

And as for that – I read your comment and the post you refer to in it (bitchyjones) about the similarities of male submission and the male heroism discourse. I think that’s missing one decisive bit: Male heroism may include submission, but it is always teleological, not deontological.

Of course, this opens up another question about masculinity that I think is touched upon in the thread about the origins of male dominance at reclusiveleftist.com that I linked to above: Is masculinity necessarily more teleological (male jojo) because femininity is necessarily more deontological (giving birth)?

Clarisse Thorn December 23, 2009 at 3:27 am #

@Tamen — I am actually quite surprised when you say you don’t understand how the facts and statistics I’v quoted supports Clarence’s argument.

I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t think that your material proves his argument. I can see how it might support his, but I can also see how it might support mine.

Ultimately — just to make my stance on this one totally clear — I don’t feel that we can assert whether men/women are “biologically suited” to anything right now, because the waters are too muddied by cultural influence. And I obviously do think there’s cultural influence. But I agree with you that the cultural encouragements/influence has decreased in the last few decades. Also, you are quick to point out that “it’s not like the men starting in female fields aren’t experiencing a counterpush from female colleagues”, but I never argued against that fact.

You seem to state that the more freedom people get (more space as you said) there is an decrease in free will as they will fall in line with socially defined gender roles.

I think that if people get more freedom to choose their professions (or identities, or whatever) — and yet this freedom is not matched by a corresponding lack of social pressure in terms of which identities are acceptable or encouraged — then yes, they are likely to use that freedom to fall in line with the acceptable and encouraged identities.

“Free will” is tricky and ultimately unsolveable. I don’t think arguments about whether or not we have free will (in this sphere or any other) will ever be settled, and those arguments are more suited to a philosophy classroom than this thread. I’m more interested in pointing out factors that encourage people in certain directions.

You point to the misogynist attitudes of male engineers as the main reason for the low prevalence of women in the tech fields

Where did I say it was the main reason? I said it was an important reason, and I emphasized it because I felt like it was getting disappeared.

I think neither you nor Clarence have the full picture on why.

I doubt anyone does.

@Motley — But this idea that all men must be very, very careful not to ever do anything that makes a woman feel like she ought to have sex with you

This is a really unbalanced message, I agree. I really wish more people were trying to reformulate it in general terms rather than male-female — that’s what I’ve always tried to do.

In other words, I wish everyone were being super damn careful not to pressure other people into sex. And I wish everyone were better trained in how to discover and communicate their sexual needs. As it stands now, we have a situation in which (most) men are scared to push too hard, (most) women have a really hard time figuring out what they want, and the common sexual scripts encourage men to push women into sexual experiences as a method of learning about their own sexuality. It’s a recipe for disaster.

@typhonblue — Thanks for the study. Your summary makes me think it’s gonna support a lot of points I make all the time, so I’m psyched to read it.

@Sam — The latter one you mentioned?

The whole thing.

OK, but I have a feeling we’re slipping back into the “masculinity equals problems mode” of discussion

Could you be more specific? I don’t think that, for example, my definition of rape culture specifically puts us in a “masculinity equals problems mode”, unless you read it to say that only men are contributing to rape culture (which isn’t anywhere in the definition).

@desipisis — You’re making some good points, but …

According to rape culture theory anyone who uses humour to observe or discuss aspects of gender is a supporter of rape.

I don’t think so … I think the point is that anyone who actually non-critically buys into the structures behind certain rape/abuse jokes is also probably buying into a viewpoint of others that makes them more likely to rape. As typhonblue said: “if people have a positive view of the opposite gender and believe that sexual relationships are mutually beneficial and supportive (aka. non-stigmatized) then they tend not to become sexually exploitative towards their partners.”

In other words, if a person is using humor about (for example) sex within marriage as a way to observe or discuss gender but doesn’t actually think that (for example) married women can’t be raped by their husbands, then they’re not supporting rape culture; they’re probably using humor to point it out, in fact. But this can be a really difficult distinction to detect.

I think analyzing humor is a really great way to point out problematic cultural aspects. And I think it would be a good thing if people tried to be sensitive about the way they talk and think about other humans, in general. I don’t think we’ll ever be able to “police” humor. The same way we can’t “police” sexuality.

As bad as rape is, we shouldn’t demonise cultures that in some small way increase the risk of rape without considering the many positive aspects of that paritcular culture first or the cost to those who identify with it in giving it up.

Okay, but isn’t it possible to address part of a culture without throwing out the whole thing? And isn’t it reasonable to encourage people to give up a problematic cultural aspect, even if it costs them something, if giving it up would contribute to the freedom and rights of other people? I grant that this cost-benefit analysis may not always be straightforward, but surely sometimes it is.

I am reminded of some gender activists here in sub-Saharan Africa. The area I’m in is very concerned with cultural identity and preserving local culture, but this is often used as a weapon against gender activists, who are accused of “opposing their own culture” when they campaign for (for example) equal rights for married women.

Can you give examples of cultural aspects that you think are positive, that are being attacked as supporting rape culture?

@Sam — First, if you click “manliness” in the category list, you’ll get a list of posts almost entirely devoted to rape/rape culture/sexual violence issue

I should clarify that Yes Means Yes is, in fact, a book largely about sexual violence and how encouraging new models of thought about gender/sex (and enthusiastic consent) will hopefully contribute to removing sexual violence. So, if you look at pretty much all the posts there, they’ll tie back to sexual violence and gender coercion. The same is true of the essays in the book. But it’s still brilliant — you just have to know the context before you get into it, I guess, so it’s my fault for not clarifying that. By the way, I recommend the book more highly than the blog.

I agree that it’s best not to define manliness by abuse, but I don’t think it’s fair to attack a book about abuse for talking about things in relation to abuse. Yes Means Yes (the book) might not begin from the best starting point ever, but it’s still the best and most accessible discussion I’ve seen of these issues. (But maybe it’s just most accessible to me. Being a rabid feminist and all.)

Male heroism may include submission, but it is always teleological, not deontological.

I know what the words mean from my ethics studies, but I’m not sure I understand how you’re using them here. Can you give more examples?

Clarisse Thorn December 23, 2009 at 3:50 am #

To clarify:

By “As it stands now, we have a situation in which (most) men are scared to push too hard, (most) women have a really hard time figuring out what they want, and the common sexual scripts encourage men to push women into sexual experiences as a method of learning about their own sexuality.”

I meant

“As it stands now, we have a situation in which (most) men are scared to push too hard, (most) women have a really hard time figuring out what they want, and the common sexual scripts encourage men to push women into sexual experiences as a method for both parties to learn about their sexuality.”

Sam December 23, 2009 at 9:50 am #

Clarisse,

pre-Christmas stress, so only a brief reply until I have more time to think about all this -

“unless you read it to say that only men are contributing to rape culture (which isn’t anywhere in the definition).”

I guess you’re right that that is an implicit assumption I made.

“I agree that it’s best not to define manliness by abuse, but I don’t think it’s fair to attack a book about abuse for talking about things in relation to abuse.”

I didn’t want to attack the book, I just noted that you’re constant enthusiasm, and rememebered that I had once read a comment by Thomas on feministing.com about sex and getting out of the teamsport-metaphor, which was allegedly the starting point of his essay in the book. I have to say, though, that his writing on the blog seems rather arrogant (and men-bashing) to me – although this may be a consequences what you two are discussing in your discussion below your comment to his post about your post.

“I know what the words mean from my ethics studies, but I’m not sure I understand how you’re using them here. Can you give more examples?”

Well, I think I was wondering if it is easier for femininity to be rooted and justified in itself and its biology – particularly because of the centrality of motherhood – whereas masculinity is more peripheral and cannot as easily achieve validation out of itself and thus needs justification/explanation/definition by achieving something external to itself. Suffering/ Submission is thus part of the male narrative if, and endured for an externally validated goal.

Clarisse Thorn December 23, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

Ah, Christmas. My Christmas plans are to hang out with other expatriates and complain about the heat. :grin: I hope y’all have snow ….

I have to say, though, that his writing on the blog seems rather arrogant (and men-bashing) to me – although this may be a consequences what you two are discussing in your discussion below your comment to his post about your post.

His writing on the blog often is pretty accusatory — and I take him to task for that, a lot (if you go through my comments on that blog I’d bet that at least a quarter are saying things like, “Thomas, I love your writing and I think you make such brilliant points but maybe you could be a little nicer?”). His essay in YMY doesn’t come across as badly, I think.

Well, I think I was wondering if it is easier for femininity to be rooted and justified in itself and its biology – particularly because of the centrality of motherhood – whereas masculinity is more peripheral and cannot as easily achieve validation out of itself and thus needs justification/explanation/definition by achieving something external to itself.

Aha. Maybe. Hmm … if you have access to academic papers then I really think you might like the “Precarious Manhood” paper that I cited in one of the masculinity posts, I think Part 2. Or you could just email me and I’ll send you the PDF … I probably shouldn’t post it publicly though, since it’s not freely available.

Clarisse Thorn December 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

Oh, almost forgot:

Firstly, via Critical Masculinities, I’ve learned that Feministing recently posted something by a male feminist on how to discuss feminism with other men. I think a lot of the commenters here will be pretty unhappy with some of the formulations, and — having participated in this conversation and written this followup — I think I’ve got a feel for some of the limitations and assumptions that may or may not be reasonable in that post. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

Secondly, typhonblue, I read your paper and I think this paragraph is worth highlighting:
It is also important to note, however, that these results are correlational, and therefore, causal statements cannot be made. Although the measures of gender hostility were used to predict sexual coercion, the causal role could conceivably be reversed: Because people at these sites experienced higher rates of sexual coercion, it could have led to more hostile gender beliefs and attitudes. Another important caveat concerns the differences between the two site-level predictors of sexual coercion: Unlike the Status of Women Index, which was characteristic of the nation in which the university was located, the Gender Hostility scales were site-speciﬁc, and therefore, the level of gender hostility at each site cannot be generalized to the nation in which the university was located. Moreover, the fact that the Gender Hostility scale was site-speciﬁc could explain why gender hostility and not the status of women was a stronger and more consistent predictor of variations in sexual coercion. Speciﬁcally, the Gender Hostility measure was more proximal to the study participants and, therefore, would exert a stronger inﬂuence on their sexual relationships.

typhonblue December 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

Secondly, typhonblue, I read your paper and I think this paragraph is worth highlighting.

Was there a particular reason why that quote resonated with you?

TS December 23, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

Are all men masculine by default, then? Another and possibly related question: Is it possible / desirable to separate masculinity from just being a man?

Yes, I would agree with the conclusion that all males are masculine by default since masculinity is simply the way males display behavior. As I said before, no behavior or characteristic is unique to any group, so I do not think one can separate masculinity from just being male unless one intends to redefine masculinity. However, I do not see how one can redefine masculinity without creating another set of stereotypical roles. What would masculinity look like if it was separated from simply being male? What characteristics would be associated with it and why could those characteristics not also apply to femininity? How would that new definition not become just another stereotype that unfairly characterizes certain behaviors as belonging solely to one group?

This! Exactly. I think this basically encapsulates my ongoing confusion with TS’s “non-men shouldn’t be participating in the discussion” argument. If we acknowledge that not all men are masculine and/or that not all men are equally masculine (and I thought we were acknowledging that, but maybe we weren’t), then why do non-masculine men have more “right” to participate in a discussion about masculinity than women or butches or … whoever else? I mean, most men are probably more affected by conceptions of masculinity than most women, but surely some aren’t — indeed, surely some women are more affected by said conceptions than some men.

I did not say that non-men should not participate, only that their participation should not carry the same weight. I think the underlying problem is that we do not have a concrete definition of what masculinity is. How are you defining masculinity? Are you defining it on certain behaviors, i.e. stoicism, assertiveness, “aggressiveness,” etc. makes a person masculine? Does a person’s sex have nothing at all to do with it? Also, how do you explain the worldwide variety of positions on what counts as masculinity?

typhonblue December 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

Clarisse:

I should clarify that Yes Means Yes is, in fact, a book largely about sexual violence and how encouraging new models of thought about gender/sex (and enthusiastic consent) will hopefully contribute to removing sexual violence.

I may have misunderstood part of the discussion thus far but I think Sam’s criticism about ‘Yes Means Yes’ conflating masculinity with sexual violence is extremely pertinent. Particularly in light of the paper I linked to.

It’s hard to reconcile a belief that masculinity needs to change to ‘end sexually coercive behavior’ in light of the kinds of female-on-male sexual exploitation prevalence rates ‘Predictors of Sexual Coercion Against Women and Men:
A Multilevel, Multinational Study of University Students’ found.

It finds that sexual exploitation is not a gendered activity. Men do it, women do it and changing masculinity may end half of it, but won’t address the other half.

Clarisse Thorn December 24, 2009 at 1:42 am #

@typhonblue — I posted the paragraph because you said, Basically this study supports the idea that if people have a positive view of the opposite gender and believe that sexual relationships are mutually beneficial and supportive (aka. non-stigmatized) then they tend not to become sexually exploitative towards their partner. While I agree with the idea behind your words, the study doesn’t necessarily support them, as the writers themselves point out in that paragraph. After all, we all know correlation is not causation.

I may have misunderstood part of the discussion thus far but I think Sam’s criticism about ‘Yes Means Yes’ conflating masculinity with sexual violence is extremely pertinent

It’s pertinent, but it doesn’t mean the book is no good. As I already said, I agree that it’s not great to center discussions of masculinity around abuse, but even with that agreement I still think YMY is the best discussion of relevant issues that I’ve seen. Also, if you read the book you’d see that it critiques female behavior too.

@TS — Good points. And you’re right that we haven’t been defining our terms, as has been pointed out several times already. But our terms are pretty hard to define, turns out.

I guess I find myself coming back again to what’s probably a stereotypical feminist position: masculinity is a social construction (as is femininity) and the question isn’t about “who gets to define it” but rather “what it is now, how it restricts and benefits us, and how it’s reasonable to use it it its current form”.

typhonblue December 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

Also, if you read the book you’d see that it critiques female behavior too.

But does it frame it in terms of being potentially exploitative as it does male? For someone who has been sexually exploited by a woman, reading something that saying women can’t be sexually exploitative is triggering. Doesn’t matter if it’s done explicitly or implicitly. Tying sexual exploitation to masculinity is one way of implicitly doing this. (And, goddamn, does it hurt.)

I’m afraid if this book frames sexual exploitation in this way that I will avoid it like the plague. I don’t need more motivation for suicidal ideation in my life.

After all, we all know correlation is not causation.

You’re right, the study supports _correlation_ between gender-hostility and sexually exploitative behavior for both men and women. It doesn’t find as strong a support for other sexual-violence theories, such as feminism’s patriarchal-dominance theory. (If only because the ‘patriarchal-dominance’ theory doesn’t address why women sexually exploit men at equal rates.)

Further studies would be needed to disentangle causation vs. correlation. Although I have no idea how they’d be structured.

clarence December 24, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

Happy holidays to everyone. Clarisse, that means you too in your current warm locale. I’ll post a few times after Christmas to answer your question to me, among other things. Fascinating comments so far :)

desipis December 25, 2009 at 5:47 am #

@Clarisse:

I think analyzing humor is a really great way to point out problematic cultural aspects.

My point was that humour itself is a great way to point out problematic cultural aspects.

Can you give examples of cultural aspects that you think are positive, that are being attacked as supporting rape culture?

I googled “examples of rape culture” and the third link was this. It’s a story that contains some good examples of rape culture such as the covering up of evidence of rape by a famous/wealthy/powerful person (but then calling it rape culture ignores all the other bad things that are covered up). However it also includes things such s simple flirtatious behaviour, or expressing a negative opinion of a rape victim as “rape culture”.

The problem is driven by an attitude that the needs of a rape victim are so important they trump the very foundations on which our society is based upon such as the justice system or freedom of expression.

Sam December 26, 2009 at 12:18 am #

A friend gave me Nick Cave’s recent novel “The Death of Bunny Munro” for Christmas and I think its Solanas inspired vision of sociopathic male sexuality that needs to be overcome for love/by love (in this case between father and son) is quite relevant for this subject. I’m not quite at the point of writing down my thoughts, though. Has anyone else read the book?

Clarisse Thorn December 26, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

@typhonblue — But does it frame it in terms of being potentially exploitative as it does male?

I wasn’t on the lookout for that while reading it, but probably not. It’s certainly your prerogative to avoid it if you think it would trigger you … it’s kind of a shame, though, because again, I do think it makes a lot of interesting points (some of which have been recapped in this thread).

@desipisis — My point was that humour itself is a great way to point out problematic cultural aspects.

Sure, it can be, but it can also be a great way to express problematic cultural aspects without thinking about them in any serious way. It depends on the person speaking and the context. That was my point.

(Note: I’m going to use the phrase “rape culture” a lot in this response, because it’s central to the discussion. If you don’t like the term, you might as well skip the rest of the comment.)

I agree that some of the things covered in the story you linked are transgressions of justice that could just as easily occur in other cases.

I will also say that although I think it really sucks that anyone would feel like they had to play along with an obnoxious flirt for the sake of their job, I could see it happening to a man …. But speaking as a girl who has worked (as an example) in a bookstore, the women behind the cash register are infinitely more likely to report situations in which men (especially older men) will “flirt” in ways that are occasionally uncomfortable and that we felt obliged to put up with it because otherwise we’re driving away a paying customer, right? My male coworkers never had similar complaints about female customers. The problem was bad enough that my male boss often took the new female employees out to lunch and told us in no uncertain terms that we absolutely, positively, always had the right to kick guys to the curb if they were being aggressive and he didn’t care if he lost sales over it. I’ve worked in places where the same problem occurred and the boss didn’t do that. And it’s not like I have bad boundaries — in fact I always dealt emotionally with these issues better than my coworkers (which isn’t to say it still didn’t sometimes make me feel attacked). It’s a real issue. I’m willing to call it a manifestation of rape culture.

I also think that “a negative opinion of a rape victim” may be legitimate (as may any negative opinion of any crime victim). But there are negative opinions that exploit cultural attitudes about the victim (women, for instance, or black men, or whatever) in ways that victims of other crimes are not described or exploited. This is a good example.

The problem is driven by an attitude that the needs of a rape victim are so important they trump the very foundations on which our society is based upon such as the justice system or freedom of expression.

I agree with you that this shouldn’t be happening, but I don’t think that’s an argument against the existence of rape culture, nor is it an argument against trying to deal with rape culture.

Attacking freedom of expression is bad. Attacking the justice system is bad. But rape culture is bad too. There has to be a middle ground in which we work against rape culture without doing either of the first two.

@Sam — No, but I would if you mailed me a copy :P

typhonblue December 26, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

Clarisse,

Would you consider the assumption that men are always ‘asking for it’ to be part of rape culture?

Or the assumption that female touch is always wanted touch?

Sam December 26, 2009 at 11:54 pm #

Clarisse,

no, seriously, if you have an amazon gift account, and they do deliver in South Africa, I just might – this thread is really valuable to me :)

“My male coworkers never had similar complaints about female customers.”

The grass is always greener on the other side.

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/05/04/of-never-feeling-hot-the-missing-narrative-of-desire-in-the-lives-of-straight-men/

I was 32 when I first heard a woman tell me I’m “hot”. Just saying.

“I’m willing to call it a manifestation of rape culture.”

Funny thing, last year, a girl I liked who worked in a bookshop was invited to lunch by a guy in a queue. So the thing is, here’s the problem: a guy in a guy asking a girl if she wants to have lunch with him. There are two possibilities: a) he puts himself out there, she likes him and says yes: good for both of them b) he puts himself out there but she doesn’t like him and says no – example of rape culture…?

I think by now I would be able to tell which approach would be welcomed and which approach wouldn’t. But the differences I think I’d be able to spot are subtle, and certainly more based in conversational “performance” than in attitude towards women.

Sam December 27, 2009 at 12:12 am #

Typhonblue,

“Or the assumption that female touch is always wanted touch?”

Yeah. I really hate the subconcious feeling that my touch is taking something from a woman rather than giving her something – that her touch is more valuable than mine. On the other hand, I’ve only once been the subject of unwanted female touch. Female touch usually *is* wanted – and I have no problem explaining this with physical differences: women usually aren’t physically intimidating to men, which means that their touch can easily be dealt with if actually unwanted. That’s not the case when men touch women.

But while I completely understand the asymmetry based on this, I hate it when natural uncertainties based on such physical differences are turned into belief systems about the problematic nature of one persons touch relative to another persons touch.

This is exactly what I think was implied in the Foster Wallace quotes I mentioned above: We (men) need female love to validate our assumed less valuable touch, and thus cannot create the passion needed for women to overcome their double binds – at least not in a reflected way.

(Context: I’m drunk on the best Scotch on the planet and I just (again) wasn’t able to follow through with a cool woman who wanted me to leave the bar with her (but hey, at least I’ve got another facebook friend!).)

Sam December 27, 2009 at 12:17 am #

Can (human) sexuality be transcendent in itself? Can male sexuality? Female sexuality?

Clarisse Thorn December 27, 2009 at 5:10 am #

@typhonblue — Would you consider the assumption that men are always ‘asking for it’ to be part of rape culture?
Or the assumption that female touch is always wanted touch?

Definitely. That’s part of why I noted “black men” in my last comment, for instance — black men are particularly portrayed as predatory, hypersexualized, and therefore are particularly hurt by these kinds of assumptions. (Oops, I guess I should be capitalizing Black, but I have the feeling that no one on this thread is going to call me out on it …. :P)

I’m not sure if you avoid the blog The Curvature because you think it might trigger you, but this post is a fantastic example of a feminist deconstructing rape culture around male victims.

Here is an excerpt:
In the majority of sexual assault cases, where a woman is the victim of a man’s violence, rape apology is rooted primarily not in the denial that male violence exists, but in the denial that male violence means something and needs to be stopped. Conversely, in cases where a man is the victim of a woman’s violence, rape apologism is strongly rooted in the denial that women’s actions can count as violence at all — and especially that their actions can count as sexual violence against men, who are routinely construed as incapable of being victims.
In cases of both of these two types of sexual violence (though hardly the only two that exist), the victim is accused of “wanting it.” But while the female victim is also, when that reasoning fails, accused of deserving it, this seems to not be the case with men. No, they just always wanted it. (Again, talking only about male victims of women — gay male victims of other men are routinely portrayed as “deserving” it as well as “wanting” it.) There are no sneers about what he should and shouldn’t have been doing. Just jokes about how awesome the assault must have been for him.

@Sam — There are two possibilities: a) he puts himself out there, she likes him and says yes: good for both of them b) he puts himself out there but she doesn’t like him and says no – example of rape culture…?

Those aren’t the options, I don’t think … I would see it this way:

a) Guy asks her out to lunch in a respectful way, indicating clearly that he is totally okay with it if she says no. Whether she agrees or disagrees, this is not an example of rape culture. I assume this is what happened with your friend. (Side note: I actually have some male friends who have told me that they absolutely positively no longer ever flirt with women in customer service positions, because they can’t stand the thought of putting her in a bad position. I think that those male friends are taking it too far, but I do think that in this kind of situation, if you’re a man asking a woman out then you have to make it incredibly clear that you won’t make her job hell if she refuses you. One example of an easy way to do this is to put it all on the table — just say, “Hey, I’ve really enjoyed this conversation, and I’d like to ask you out to lunch, but I’m afraid that you’ll feel obligated or uncomfortable because I’m a customer. I want to assure you that it is totally okay for you to say no if I ask you out to lunch. So, that having been said, will you come out to lunch with me?” If a dude had ever said this to me at my bookstore, I would’ve been charmed for sure!)

b) Guy asks her out to lunch aggressively or passive-aggressively, making it clear that he will make a scene or be difficult if she says no. She feels anxious about refusing because if she sets boundaries but “loses a paying customer”, her boss will be mad. This is an example of rape culture. Especially, oh god especially if the guy asking her out knows that she feels uncomfortable refusing him and presses his suit anyway without giving her an easy way out. Much like the guy in the post that desipisis last linked.

But the differences I think I’d be able to spot are subtle, and certainly more based in conversational “performance” than in attitude towards women.

True, but I think you can make it explicit without causing harm, as I noted in my parenthetical above. On the other hand, I tend to make most things explicit, so maybe I am just biased.

Thanks for the link; it’s excellent. It reminds me of things that my submissive activist friend Maymay has often said. You’ve already read some Bitchy Jones, but if you get the chance then I advise combing her archives.

On the other hand, I’ve only once been the subject of unwanted female touch. Female touch usually *is* wanted – and I have no problem explaining this with physical differences: women usually aren’t physically intimidating to men, which means that their touch can easily be dealt with if actually unwanted. That’s not the case when men touch women.

Chastity Boy has stories about this, actually. Women who have groped him, touched him aggressively, etc, because “why would a man ever have boundaries?” or “when wouldn’t a man want to be sexualized?” It’s really fucked up and it makes me angry on his behalf.

I hate it when natural uncertainties based on such physical differences are turned into belief systems

Yes!

Can (human) sexuality be transcendent in itself?

Defining transcendent might be a good call … but yes, I think so. Also, I think you should’ve been a Unitarian :P

In re: Amazon accounts, I can receive Kindle books, but not under this name. So if you ever get around to emailing me, I can tell you how to send the book. ;) I’m glad the thread has been so helpful for you; your comments have added a ton of value!

Sam December 27, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

Clarisse,

“a) Guy asks her out to lunch in a respectful way, indicating clearly that he is totally okay with it if she says no. Whether she agrees or disagrees, this is not an example of rape culture. I assume this is what happened with your friend.”

According to her account he said, he’d wait in a coffee place around the corner for her to stop by after work if she would like to. She said she saw him sitting there but didn’t enter. No further contact – I feel bad for the guy, too. I mean, there is no easy way to deal with rejection, and everyone – women in particular – is always looking for romantic stories like this when it comes to “how I met your mother” than “ahm, there was this cool match.com algorhythm”. Yet at the same time she basically rejected him for proposing what she (she in particular) is complaining about lacking in her life. Double bind again.

“b) Guy asks her out to lunch aggressively or passive-aggressively, making it clear that he will make a scene or be difficult if she says no. She feels anxious about refusing because if she sets boundaries but “loses a paying customer”, her boss will be mad. This is an example of rape culture.”

This I really don’t understand. How is the possibility of “losing a customer” and “her boss getting mad” rape culture? I mean, putting people in corners isn’t exactly well behaved, but I don’t think it has anything to do with rape or a culture “in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.” I mean, really?

typhonblue December 27, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

On the other hand, I’ve only once been the subject of unwanted female touch. Female touch usually *is* wanted – and I have no problem explaining this with physical differences: women usually aren’t physically intimidating to men, which means that their touch can easily be dealt with if actually unwanted. That’s not the case when men touch women.

Again, I urge you to read my link, Sam. It shows women forcing intercourse on men(in relationships) at roughly the same rate as men.

Either the study is completely anomalous(although it studied 38 locations across the globe) or we need to rethink male sexual invulnerability to women completely.

I personally think that the mind is the ultimate weapon, all an abuser needs is motive, he or she will then find out the effective physical or social weapon to victimize. Greater physical strength is only one among many (and actually one of the least effective.)

In my own experience unwanted male touch was a lot easier to deal with then unwanted female touch. This is because I tend to have powerful somatic flashbacks whenever I’m with sexually aggressive women and I freeze completely. (I know another sexual assault survivor on feministcritics.com that has had similar experiences with women.)

With men, I’ve said ‘stop’ and they’ve stopped.

I would also say that your cavalier ‘women usually aren’t physically intimidating to men, which means that their touch can easily be dealt with if actually unwanted’ would tend to marginalize these male victims of sexual assault perpetuated by females.

Is a woman’s unwanted touch easily dealt with if, say, she has a gun or a knife? She uses threats of proxy violence (a man on feministcritics.org described a situation where he was forced into sex because his rapist threatened to tell the police she raped him and he was sure they would believe her)? How about if he’s sleeping or incapacitated by drugs? Or if he’s like me, and is paralyzed by past abuse?

In my own experience most normal men(non criminal, non military) are uniquely and decidedly incapable of dealing with violence dealt by women. They don’t know how to fight back, they often don’t think its appropriate or they believe others will side with her against him.

And finally, the element of surprise is spectacularly paralyzing on those who aren’t used to violence.

typhonblue December 27, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

This is exactly what I think was implied in the Foster Wallace quotes I mentioned above: We (men) need female love to validate our assumed less valuable touch, and thus cannot create the passion needed for women to overcome their double binds – at least not in a reflected way.

Why do you need female love for this?

BTW, how did this anemic, fraught, uncomfortable form of heterosexuality ever see the light of day.

I’m going to be really blunt here. This is one reason I only date bisexual men. (Bi solidarity generally being the other.) I don’t want to ‘validate your ticket’; I want you to come to me with it already validated.

I don’t think I’m alone.

typhonblue December 27, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

Sam, I just wanted to add, that what I wrote above was too angry.

Let me try again. I don’t think you will ever be able to find the validation you seek with women. This is because women have internalized all of the same attitudes towards male sexuality as you have. And likely will feel that you owe them a benefit in exchange for validating your ticket.

Which will only reinforce the dynamic, not change it.

This is a cycle of co-dependent addiction. It’s deeply disturbing to me that this is what ‘love’ between men and women has come to.

TS December 27, 2009 at 10:23 pm #

I guess I find myself coming back again to what’s probably a stereotypical feminist position: masculinity is a social construction (as is femininity) and the question isn’t about “who gets to define it” but rather “what it is now, how it restricts and benefits us, and how it’s reasonable to use it it its current form”.

To me this is an inadequate definition because if masculinity is only a social construction that means none of the characteristics attributed to it are specific to males, which in turn means that it is contradictory to call it “masculinity.” In other words, what reason do we have to call the identity “masculinity” if we contend that it has nothing at all to do with males? The other problem is that like race and nationality, even if we contend the identity is a social construct it would not change the importance of that identity to those who claim it and that problems that would occur if someone tried to change it or redefine it. How would we address that without playing to any specific political worldview?

I’m not sure if you avoid the blog The Curvature because you think it might trigger you, but this post is a fantastic example of a feminist deconstructing rape culture around male victims.

There is some cognitive dissonance in the portion you quoted because what Cara says does not match what male victims describe. In the nine years I have been involved in male victim advocacy, all the male victims have described a denial that female violence means something and needs to be stopped, all described being told they deserved it and far too many described being told what they should have done to avoid the abuse, especially if the woman was not attractive.

“Rape culture” does not have a concise, explicit definition, so it is both difficult to explain and difficult to categorize what counts as part of “rape culture.” What is clear, however, is the usage of the term and it is typically applied only to male-on-female assaults and is described as stemming from “patriarchy.” Cara’s analysis does not really attempt to explain this contradiction. She avoids acknowledging, but it is still there, which is what I think typhonblue was getting at when she asked if unwanted comments made towards males count. If “rape culture” stems from “patriarchy” how does one explain female perpetrated violence and more specifically how does one do so without explicitly or implicitly absolving women of responsibility or blaming the victims for their own assaults?

Sam December 28, 2009 at 1:09 am #

Typhonblue,

“Again, I urge you to read my link, Sam. It shows women forcing intercourse on men(in relationships) at roughly the same rate as men.”

I did read the paper, and, yes, it shows that there are some socialised conceptions and discourse patterns with respect to sexual violence that seem to be wrong.

“Greater physical strength is only one among many (and actually one of the least effective.)”

I don’t doubt that emotional violence can be as or even more devastating than physical violence, yet the physical aspect, it seems to me, is – if we assume that average physical strength is the only aggression-relevant sex-based difference between women and men – something that women cannot avail themselves of, while men cannot credibly renounce to ever using it – because it’s there.

Of course a gun trumps a bicep. But the real question in this respect, I suppose would have to be if and to which extent there have been evolutionary processes innately separating female and male violence, helping women to deal with male aggression and be aggressive themselves in ways that do not rely on physical strength to the extent men do (indirect, threats, other men, hidden poison, etc). I suppose this is, to a degree, a reasonable assumption given the prevalence of physical violence in human history.

Yet on the other hand, recent data about increases in physical violence among younger women show that assumed and visible differences in violence-strategies certainly aren’t entirely a product of nature, and thus, the ceteris paribus argument (physical strength on top of everything else being rather similar – cannot be entirely discounted)

But I do agree that non-physical violence is much harder to see and therefore it is also not as readily recognized – and – female violence is also “emasculating” which makes it even harder for most men to talk about it, which, in turn, makes it less salient as a social problem and allows to frame the discourse in ways that discount male experiences.

That said, I stand by the physical violence ceteris paribus argument, but I would accept that it’s applicability is a matter of degree.

“Why do you need female love for this?”

Love for the lack of a better word – this refers to the double binds I outlined above. If male heterosexuality is internalized as exploiting by women and as exploitative by men, both women and men need each others validation/acceptance. Love (for lack of a better word) is – I would say – assumed to to be the ulitmate equalizer of mutual desire: with love, there is equality in giving and taking, there is no more exploitation one way or the other. Does that make sense? I’m not arguing for this, I’m merely trying to conceptualise what I perceive to be the reality around me.

“I’m going to be really blunt here. This is one reason I only date bisexual men. (Bi solidarity generally being the other.) I don’t want to ‘validate your ticket’; I want you to come to me with it already validated.”

Sorry, I don’t really understand.

“This is a cycle of co-dependent addiction.”

Helen Fisher would call it a four year Cocaine high…

Tamen December 28, 2009 at 8:15 am #

@Clarisse: First I want to apologise for misreading you. I sincerely thought your example with the misogynist jokes and remarks from male coworkers was meant to illustrate what you thought were the main reason for women not going into male dominated fields.

Secondly: Thank a lot for you wish for snow for all of us! When I came back home last night from spending the holidays with my family I had to shovel through two feet of snow to even get into the house. So thanks a lot :) Although now when that chore is done the house and garden looks like a postcard.

Thirdly: By bringing up the pushback against males in female dominated fields I wasn’t trying to imply that you had claimed that they didn’t experience that, which you of course didn’t. I was trying to further highlight the paradox that male participation in female fields have a small increase. Even though they too experience a pushback from co-workers of the other gender. Seeing there being a greater public push for women in male fields than vice versa and seeing that the shaming of male kindergarden workers are larger than that of a female mechanic.

So leaving free will aside for another discussion I can’t help but wonder (since I don’t believe biology is a major factor – that’s where I differ from Clarence) if the greater societal pressure on women is on an arena I can’t see; namely from women to women. It even fits with the public push not working so well for women since they usually states something like: “Don’t believe all the men saying you can’t be an electrical engineer.”. But what if your best friend, sister or even mother says it… On the other hand I’m also not privy to support happening between women.

Motley December 28, 2009 at 9:27 am #

Seconded on the snow front. Clarisse, if you’d wish for economic improvement with the effectiveness with which you wished for snow for us, I’m sure we’d all be intensely grateful.

(I took a shovel to the snow-heap in front of my house. I found my car, as well as a few others. I hope there aren’t any more cars in there, because I’m too tired to shovel any more.)

Anyway, back up at 172, you said something like “My male coworkers never had similar complaints about female customers” –do you mean “I would know if they had any similar problems” or “they never voiced any such complaints in my hearing?”

Miles and miles of difference between the two. I mean, a few years ago, I might’ve said that I’d never met a woman who’d been sexually assaulted. I’d have been wildly incorrect, of course, but I was drawing that conclusion from the fact that none had mentioned any such thing to me (and I wasn’t, at that age, entirely clear on the fact that absence of evidence isn’t the same thing as evidence of absence).

typhonblue December 28, 2009 at 11:02 am #

I don’t doubt that emotional violence can be as or even more devastating than physical violence, yet the physical aspect, it seems to me, is – if we assume that average physical strength is the only aggression-relevant sex-based difference between women and men – something that women cannot avail themselves of, while men cannot credibly renounce to ever using it – because it’s there.

There is one form of sex-based aggression that women can avail themselves of and not men. Almost every male on the planet has had the experience of being subject to a female’s decisions during the formative stages of his life. That means he survived (and received pleasure) because a woman decided he would.

By operant conditioning he will come to associate a woman’s absence with loss of pleasure, warmth and attention. Basically, loss of life. This differential is a psychological pressure(which can be used as a weapon) that women have and men do not.

As for your subsequent discussion on physical violence. If the human race had to rely on physical violence to survive, we would have been dead hundreds of thousands of millennia ago.

Humans have managed to adapt to a situation in which we have significant physical disadvantages to the other animals in our environment. And we have managed to use those adaptions to dominate.

Humans rely far more on tools and social networks then physical strength to get things done. The question then becomes, do men and women really have the same ability to use tools and social networks.

I would say no. Women, because of the operant conditioning I mentioned above, are capable of developing and employing social networks far more deftly then men. They also employ tools and the element of surprise more creatively. Men with an ‘innate’ advantage, can see themselves as immune or invulnerable and not learn to conceptualize the environment(and elements thereof) as a potential weapon.

Which is why, in the final analysis, there exists evidence that women do aggress against men at similar rates that men aggress against women(DV, sexual exploitation, etc.). If physical strength really was the ultimate trump card as you’re framing it, this effect would not exist.

That’s the crux of the issue.

Yet on the other hand, recent data about increases in physical violence among younger women show that assumed and visible differences in violence-strategies certainly aren’t entirely a product of nature, and thus, the ceteris paribus argument (physical strength on top of everything else being rather similar – cannot be entirely discounted)

Equality may be making female ‘toughs’ more visible, not making more female ‘toughs’.

Sorry, I don’t really understand.

I would much rather be with a man who doesn’t believe that his touch is (innately*)unwanted then one who feels it is. It sets any potential relationship up on uneven footing and starts a cycle of co-dependance. Plus, I don’t see it as my job.

I recognize there are huge hurdles to achieving this. However I have found that bisexual men tend to (but not always) recognize that male touch is wanted. Usually because it’s wanted _by them_.

*By saying innately I mean that male touch itself is a net negative rather then not being wanted at that particular point in time by that particular person.

typhonblue December 28, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

Just to expound and continue my bad manners… (Warning, this is highly critical.)

The dynamic Sam describes looks like this to me:

The average heterosexual man tries to ‘sell’ a woman something he himself does not feel has any value(or even has negative value*.)

Now, even if you’re selling me an actual nugget of gold, if you truly believe it’s pyrite, you’re still trying to cheat me.

So the average heterosexual man is trying to manipulate a woman into valuing something he himself considers valueless. But the very fact that he thinks he has to ‘cheat’ validation out of her means that he never really gets the validation he seeks because the validation he does get is based on ‘cheating.’**

This reduces modern male heterosexual behavior into a neurotic mess of neediness, projection, deceit and self-loathing.

Even the successful guys loose.

*Namely, male touch.
**Plus she really can’t give him something he needs to give himself, namely a positive attitude towards male sexuality and male touch.

Clarisse December 28, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

@Sam — How is the possibility of “losing a customer” and “her boss getting mad” rape culture? I mean, putting people in corners isn’t exactly well behaved, but I don’t think it has anything to do with rape or a culture “in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.” I mean, really?

You don’t see it? Really? Hmm.

Here’s how I see it. The woman is basically required to put up with a sexual invasion of her space (a mild one, but one nonetheless) that she did not consent to. Not putting up with it — setting boundaries — would be socially unacceptable. If we didn’t live in rape culture, then setting boundaries would never be socially unacceptable — it would in fact be encouraged. It would be a normal thing to do. If we didn’t live in rape culture, then she would feel totally comfortable setting that boundary explicitly and immediately rather than trying to hedge around the problem; and when she set the boundary, it would never occur to the customer to be mad or uncomfortable about the fact that she did so; and even if the customer did get mad the boss would be puzzled, confused, by the customer’s odd behavior, rather than backing it up.

Again, it’s a mild example. And again, if we’re going to go back to Oppression Olympics, I’m sure as hell not going to assert that this kind of situation is equivalent to actually getting raped. I’m also not going to assert that this kind of situation is “as bad as” male-harming cultural issues, like unfair child custody cases for instance. So the point of this example is not to say, “OMG women have it soooo hard”. The point of the example is just to show that rape culture is common, it’s everywhere, that it’s always acting on us even in the smallest ways.

@typhonblue — Let me try again. I don’t think you will ever be able to find the validation you seek with women. This is because women have internalized all of the same attitudes towards male sexuality as you have

Er, because all women are the same, right? I understand that you’re angry, but I think you’re off base here. If you said “most women”, I might agree.

@TS — In other words, what reason do we have to call the identity “masculinity” if we contend that it has nothing at all to do with males?

I’m not contending that ideals of masculinity have nothing at all to do with males. I’m contending that it doesn’t have to. Right now, ideals of masculinity are associated with males, which is obviously why we call it masculinity. But we can acknowledge that something works in a certain way now without saying that it always has to work that way in the future. Saying that masculinity must be associated with maleness just because the word masculinity derives from words for maleness is allowing ourselves to fall into linguistic sophistry. Language stems from our current culture, but it doesn’t have to define how we think about that culture.

I think you’re addressing this too prescriptively. As I already said, I’m not sure the goal is to change or redefine it — I think a better goal is probably to describe it and figure out how it works for some people, how it doesn’t work for some people, how much they want to reject some aspects of it, etc.

Which is part of why ….

If “rape culture” stems from “patriarchy” how does one explain female perpetrated violence and more specifically how does one do so without explicitly or implicitly absolving women of responsibility or blaming the victims for their own assaults?

I guess what’s going on with the word “patriarchy” is that for a lot of feminists who came late to the game or have unusual perspectives (like myself), we just use it as shorthand for “everything that’s wrong with gender dynamics today, a situation in which men have a slight advantage”. Y’all are starting to convince me that the word isn’t a good one to use, but then what do I replace it with when I’m talking about sex and gender? “Everything that’s wrong with gender dynamics today” is too long to say.

Cara’s analysis does not really attempt to explain this contradiction.

Maybe because she subscribes to the definition of “rape culture” that I already cited, rather than the one with the connotations you’re describing. In which case there is no contradiction.

Your point about the experience of male survivors is well taken, though.

@Sam again — with love, there is equality in giving and taking, there is no more exploitation one way or the other

Interesting. This reminds me tangentially of a recurring theme in BDSM community conversations. A lot of us feel that before we discovered BDSM and overt, well-negotiated power relationships, there were many more fucked up power relationships in our lives — it was just that we didn’t have the tools to discuss, address and change them.

Love may hopefully motivate parties to try to be less exploitative, but in my experience, being in love can often function to make the parties involved deny that they’re being exploitative and refuse to examine their behavior. Because they’re in love, right? Because there are certain scripts we internalize about how we’re supposed to act while we’re in love, and analyzing those scripts can be even harder than analyzing less personal/private scripts — because they are so deep-rooted.

@Tamen — I can’t help but wonder if the greater societal pressure on women is on an arena I can’t see

Or maybe it’s in front of you and you’re missing it? Not trying to insult you, just saying, sometimes it’s easy to miss these things.

@Motley — “they never voiced any such complaints in my hearing?”

Fair point, and I’m ashamed to say that it’s well taken. I feel pretty sure that given all the discussions we had about being hit on by customers, the men would speak up if they’d had similar experiences … on the other hand, of course, men aren’t “supposed” to complain about things like that, so maybe they were experiencing it and just not talking about it?

I dunno. I still find it hard to believe that men who work retail experience anything remotely similar to women who work retail, particularly if you’re in a situation where you’re often alone at the retail location and/or work predictable hours so that people know when to find you. I’ve certainly never seen any clues whatsoever that they do. If you can find a man who’s worked retail and contradicts my assertion, let me know, because I know I can find any number of women who’ve worked retail and will back up my experience. I suppose guys might not be willing to talk about it, but I think that the social penalties faced by a woman who talks about being sexually assaulted are wildly worse than the ones faced by a man who talks about being offensively hit on at work; not trying to make another Olympics comparison, just saying that there’s a difference that would modify behavior.

Clarisse, if you’d wish for economic improvement with the effectiveness with which you wished for snow for us, I’m sure we’d all be intensely grateful.

Ahahaha, I’ll see what I can do!

@typhonblue again — I would much rather be with a man who doesn’t believe that his touch is (innately*)unwanted then one who feels it is. … Plus, I don’t see it as my job.

Yeah … I get this with BDSM. Sometimes people will be like, “But surely if you really like a guy you can still date him even if he’s vanilla! You can just teach him your tastes!” But I just feel so exhausted at the thought of not only teaching a new partner what I want, but having to train all the anxiety about violence out of him from square one. (Which is even assuming that it’s possible to convert a vanilla person in the first place — and frequently it’s not, because most vanilla people are just, well, vanilla-oriented, the same way a lot of BDSMers are innately into BDSM.) So I usually date within the BDSM subculture, where guys have at least started addressing the issues on their own and share my sexual vocabulary ….

Of course, right now I am dating Chastity Boy, who has no experience with BDSM and an enormous amount of anxiety about sexuality … and that’s going okay. Though I have to say that one of the major sources of exhaustion for me between us is when I have to make sex easier for him, again … but on the other hand, he’s a quick study and has a fabulous grasp on gender theory, so my conversations with him are easy — unlike many of my conversations even with other BDSMers. Plus, he’s told me that it’s okay if I go do BDSM with other people. Not that I get too many chances at that in sub-Saharan Africa. :P

Motley December 28, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

Hmm (reads Clarisse saying “I hope y’all have snow;” looks out window, sees huge frickin’ piles of it): While we’re at it, my niece would like a pony. (Seems worth a shot, given the evidence so far).

re: “If you said “most women”, I might agree.”

I generally assume that when people say “Men” or “Women” in a gender-issues discussion, that they mean “Mr. or Ms. Average,” or “51+% of the given group” or whatever. I mean, that’s what I do (in advance: whenever I say “Men do ____” or “women do ___,” that’s what I mean.)

With regards to the reporting-rate for instances of men getting unwanted flirtation at work–yeah, we’re not “supposed” to mind… ever. In general, I’d say I’ve had a few of those experiences when I worked in retail (I’d say fewer than my female coworkers, but that’s just an impression). I’d also say that, in a non-anonymous setting, I’d sooner be kicked in the crotch real hard than mention that to anyone to whom I’m not married. (And for context: no, I’m not someone who likes being kicked in the crotch).
And I’m reasonably certain that I’m not unique in that. (Well, in either of those things)

In general, I’d say that the social pressure against talking about, well, everything we’ve talked about in this thread, is hugefor men. (I’m saying that relative to most other social pressures that men experience, rather than relative to the same pressure for women, since I don’t have any basis for that comparison; the Oppression Olympics seems to be entirely a no-the-grass-is-greener-over-THERE argument)

I’m speculating here, but it seems like “some creepy guy hit on me at work today” is an acceptable topic for girls to chat about… for guys, not so much.

Re: Tamen’s note about societal pressures on women being in an arena invisible to him (and me)–I think he’s saying the same thing you are. Societal pressures on people who aren’t us are generally invisible. It is right in front of us, but we can’t see it because it’s a subtle way a person is treated… and if you’re not that person, you’ll likely never notice. How much do you actually know about the pressures on men? I’m going to guess “Not a lot”–and I similarly intend no insult, since I’d estimate my own knowledge about the pressures on women to be in that same “not a lot” category.

Oddly, I might actually put it at about the same–while there’s a lot more written on the pressures on women, and I’ve read some of it, you’ve evidently thought about this stuff a lot more than I have.

On a different note, the “patriarchy” word issue you mention (with regard to using it as shorthand for, well, all this stuff that’s wrong) is that the word has a lot of associations for almost everybody. (From the POV of random-guy, it seems to be in the same category as when certain politicians say “gang problems”)
Not sure what other shorthand term for “everything that’s wrong with gender dynamics today, a situation in which men have a slight advantage”.
Is the slight advantage (presumably) held by men really significant for the discussion? It seems like assertions about whose grass is greener aren’t really a good starting point (regardless of statistical support). I mean, what’s wrong with “everything that’s wrong with gender dynamics today?”
(In my very limited experience, we use the term “This shit*,” which isn’t really any better; “we” being “people who don’t talk about this stuff often and have the vague impression that the word “Patriarchy” means “I blame men for everything wrong with the world”).

(*the word “shit” being interchangeable with the word “stuff” in that setting)

I saw the term “kyriarchy” somewhere, but it lacks a certain something (comprehensibility to people who don’t read greek, I suspect). Whereas “This Stuff” is a little vague…

typhonblue December 28, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

One problem I have with the word ‘patriarchy’ is that a term that lumps western culture in with the culture I grew up in (Saudi Arabia) casts too wide a net to be meaningful.

The truth is that men have been in the most prominent positions of power in every culture everywhere. So the term ‘patriarchy’ as employed by feminist theorists can easily be replaced by the word ‘culture.’

And saying culture oppresses women is incoherent.

Further *all* of these various ‘patriarchies’ result in very different outcomes for women. Figuring out _why_ seems to me to be a more fruitful exercise* then labeling everything everywhere ‘patriarchy’.

* How are you going to improve the lives of women if you can’t explain why the lives of women in Culture A are better then the lives of women in Culture B?

TS December 28, 2009 at 8:10 pm #

I’m not contending that ideals of masculinity have nothing at all to do with males. I’m contending that it doesn’t have to. Right now, ideals of masculinity are associated with males, which is obviously why we call it masculinity. But we can acknowledge that something works in a certain way now without saying that it always has to work that way in the future. Saying that masculinity must be associated with maleness just because the word masculinity derives from words for maleness is allowing ourselves to fall into linguistic sophistry. Language stems from our current culture, but it doesn’t have to define how we think about that culture.

While I am no expert in linguistics, my limited understanding of how language works is that it plays as much a role in defining a culture as the culture does in defining a language. I am not certain one can really separate the two. That said, I am not associating masculinity with males because of the linguistic etymology, but because of males adopting the term as the definition of their identity. The definition may change in the future, but we can only observe what occurs now. If we were to apply this to another social construct like race, should we analyze those identities the same manner?

That is the context I am trying to understand, the reason being that if the re-describing of social constructs is limited only to masculinity and femininity, it raises questions about the intended goal of such efforts.

Y’all are starting to convince me that the word isn’t a good one to use, but then what do I replace it with when I’m talking about sex and gender? “Everything that’s wrong with gender dynamics today” is too long to say.

As I dislike labels, my suggestion would be to do away with using a term altogether (certainly do away with any gendered terms) and explain exactly what is meant. However, the most logical solution would be to use “gender dynamics.” It still requires an explanation and is still prone to being highly polarizing and politicized, but it instantly conveys what issue one wants to analyze.

Maybe because she subscribes to the definition of “rape culture” that I already cited, rather than the one with the connotations you’re describing. In which case there is no contradiction.

The contradiction still remains because in both definitions the implication is that rape is specifically male-on-female sexual violence and that it is male “fundamental attitudes and beliefs” that are at issue. Neither are actually definitions as both simply present rhetoric as explanations. Regardless of that, the definitions are not even in agreement despite coming from the same person, demonstrating my point about a lack of a concise, explicit definition.

Sam December 28, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

Clarisse,

“Again, it’s a mild example.”

I just saw that old family video in which I was “forced” to dance with my mum’s best friend on her 50th or so anniversary. Did I want to dance with her? Did I even want to go to her birthday party? No way. But I did, it was uncomfortable, and it was certainly unwanted, though, I assume, not sexual… it was a mild annoyance and a mildy unwanted touch… was my mum’s friend contributing to rape culture by asking me for a dance even though she could have known that a pubescent boy will likely not appreciate dancing with his mother’s friend. Should I have discussed my boundaries? Or would it have been worse to hurt the woman by telling her that I don’t want to dance with her? So I made the decision to dance with her. I could have made a scene, but I chose not to. It wasn’t worth it. I don’t know if that experience is actually similar to the experience you mention, but if we take our words for it, it was both a mild case of unwanted.

Rape culture? After all, the term is called *rape* culture and I doubt there are mild versions of “rape”. There are standards and boundaries for public and private conduct – and I don’t think it is part of those standards that rape is condoned in any way. I think I could understand if this would be seen as “entitlement” (whether that alleged entitlement would be male or economic or whatever) in feminist terminology, but rape culture? I don’t think that term makes much sense without accepting the feminist axiom that male sexual violence is a social control structure for women and that culture actively promotes the use of sexual violence. Looking around me, not just in this thread, completely disregarding everything typhonblue has introduced into the debate, that’s not what I’m seeing. We may have to agree to disagree on the definition and usefulness of the term.

“with love, there is equality in giving and taking, there is no more exploitation one way or the other”

As I said, “love” for the lack of a better term. More about this below -

Typhonblue,

“Just to expound and continue my bad manners… (Warning, this is highly critical.)”

Don’t worry.

“The average heterosexual man tries to ’sell’ a woman something he himself does not feel has any value(or even has negative value*.)”

This is *not* what I tried to say. I was talking about attributed *relative* values not *absolute* values. The attribution-part is important. Of course, male touch has value – most women *are* heterosexual, after all. If they didn’t like the male touch, that would truly put them into a problematic position with respect to their own desire (just as the men).

“So the average heterosexual man is trying to manipulate a woman into valuing something he himself considers valueless.”

I’m not the average man, and I don’t think that my sexuality is valueless, but I was raised believing that a) sexuality in itself is bad and b) women actually never want sex while men always want sex and thus they have to be control themselves if they don’t want to hurt the ones they love – simplified. Shorthand for – try to kiss a girl you like on the schoolyard and she, for whatever reason (and there are tons of reasons) doesn’t say “marry me”, you’re instantly a rapist (of course, “rape culture” would expects me to do it anyway and not at all care about either the pressure on her or on me, right? So maybe that explains my disdain for the term to a degree).

“But the very fact that he thinks he has to ‘cheat’ validation out of her means that he never really gets the validation he seeks because the validation he does get is based on ‘cheating.’**”

Well, that was why I am so concerned with sexual transcendence: What is it, that allows me / male to *trust* her acceptance of my desire, to forget about shameful attibutions of exploitation to let go and feel validated in my sexuality, what allows her to *trust* me enough to forget about socialised attributions of sexual exploitation by men (not just feminist) to let go? Will it ever be possible to get to that point from *within* sexuality? Without any external reference point for validation?

Hugo Schwyzer once wrote something interesting about cumshots/facial ejaculation and “radical acceptance”.

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/07/08/shame-mystery-and-vulnerability-a-very-long-post-about-the-penis-and-the-longing-for-acceptance-reprint/

“This reduces modern male heterosexual behavior into a neurotic mess of neediness, projection, deceit and self-loathing.”

Yes, and I think that’s at the root of the things we’re trying to understand in this thread.

As I told Clarisse in another thread, there’s nothing that makes me feel as manly as a woman who’s attracted to me. But every little step of the physical escalation is difficult for me, because of this general dynamic. I remember one of my first makeouts with a wonderful woman, her hands were all over my torso but my hands didn’t leave her waist until she stopped and asked if there was anything wrong with her breasts… it’s not that I didn’t rationally realize she would likely enjoy my touching her breasts even before she explicitly asked for it, but I was so afraid of doing what I was told not to – “to push a girl” that I didn’t experiment. Making mistakes about her assumed wishes in that realm would, after all, make me “a rapist”. No one can, well, I couldn’t, “experiment” with Damokles sword hanging over my head. When said woman suggested “getting me laid tonight” I was scared, of course, but I still felt it was necessary to express my affection to her by saying that I’m happy with where we are now. She was basically asking me for sex and I still felt I had to demonstrate my ability to control my desire. It would have been a perfect first time (for me), and I missed what would have likely been a wonderdul experience (on a New Year’s Eve…) because my misguided socialised beliefs about male/my sexuality (and the insividual psychological issues that came with it). I’ve learnt to deal with it to a large degree, but this stuff is doesn’t go easily.

“**Plus she really can’t give him something he needs to give himself, namely a positive attitude towards male sexuality and male touch.”

Yeah, as Baudelaire once said: “Those men get along best with women who can get along best without them.”

“This reduces modern male heterosexual behavior into a neurotic mess of neediness, projection, deceit and self-loathing.”

So, well, maybe it was like this all along, we just had a different way of dealing with it. Now that the old script is gone, and we cannot really rely on social mediation anymore, we need to find a new one.

And I need to find a woman who will explicitly ask me to be kissed at Midnight Thursday night ;)…

typhonblue December 28, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

Well, that was why I am so concerned with sexual transcendence: What is it, that allows me / male to *trust* her acceptance of my desire, to forget about shameful attibutions of exploitation to let go and feel validated in my sexuality, what allows her to *trust* me enough to forget about socialised attributions of sexual exploitation by men (not just feminist) to let go? Will it ever be possible to get to that point from *within* sexuality? Without any external reference point for validation?

It strikes me that the west has created a very unnatural situation. Earlier on in this thread I described how non-Christian societies have much higher rates of bisexuality among men. Actually our society prior to 75 years ago had higher rates. (In fact male bisexuality is a fact of life for most mammals.)

I have argued that this likely provides some sort of sexual training or sexual fitness boast. Like I said in a previous post ‘bisexual men generally see male touch as wanted, because they want it’.

Most people start life with positive associations to female touch because their primary care givers are female. Perhaps a period of bisexuality preforms the same function for young men–physically demonstrating to them that male touch is desirable.

As for helping men in _our_ society overcome their ‘double bind’, I have no idea.

typhonblue December 28, 2009 at 11:17 pm #

Yeah, as Baudelaire once said: “Those men get along best with women who can get along best without them.”

That’s a really great quote, btw.

Clarisse December 29, 2009 at 5:32 am #

Well, okay. I guess I’m convinced away from the terms “rape culture” and “patriarchy”, at least generally speaking. But I am not convinced that arguments involving those terms must be invalid … I also think that in many cases, complaining about the terms rather than addressing the argument will be a straw man. I mean, okay, so we could replace all instances of “rape culture” in (for example) desipisis’s link with “entitlement”; but I don’t think the actual points behind that post are any less valid or important, nor do they stop making a larger point about culture just because we’ve shuffled some terms around. Which means that what we’re saying is more about communication tactics than the substance of any given argument.

@TS — If we were to apply this to another social construct like race, should we analyze those identities the same manner?

Well, aren’t we doing just that? Do you read any race blogs?

@Sam — Should I have discussed my boundaries? Or would it have been worse to hurt the woman by telling her that I don’t want to dance with her?

Setting aside the argument about “rape culture” definitions for a moment: is it conceivable that we could live in a society where discussing your boundaries wouldn’t hurt someone else? Is it conceivable that such a society would be a better one? Where we were taught that putting ourselves out there, receiving rejections, or setting boundaries were all totally normal things to do that would never get us in trouble with our parents or bosses or celebrities who might decide to get us fired?

Clarisse December 29, 2009 at 5:36 am #

Also:

@TS — The contradiction still remains because in both definitions the implication is that rape is specifically male-on-female sexual violence and that it is male “fundamental attitudes and beliefs” that are at issue.

Where is this implied in the definition I posted? (Comment 146)

Motley December 29, 2009 at 8:06 am #

@Clarisse:

Which means that what we’re saying is more about communication tactics than the substance of any given argument.

That’s mostly how I’ve been reading this whole thing… or were we talking about something completely different, and I missed it? (Which perhaps not be entirely out of the ordinary.) That’s what I was saying way back in (scrolls up) #12, at least, about the value (and difficulty) of avoiding subculture-language when addressing non-subculture-people.
Or, in the (pretentiousness warning!) Euclidean sense, the value in beginning a conversation by first coming to an agreement on the definition of one’s terms.

@typhonblue:
(In fact male bisexuality is a fact of life for most mammals.)
Is it? I don’t think that’s the case (I vaguely recall some big news about homosexual sexual behavior in monkeys being observed–I’m assuming that it wouldn’t have been news if it were just a fact of life. Vague recollection, though.)

Sam December 29, 2009 at 9:01 am #

Clarisse,

“Setting aside the argument about “rape culture” definitions for a moment: is it conceivable that we could live in a society where discussing your boundaries wouldn’t hurt someone else? Is it conceivable that such a society would be a better one? Where we were taught that putting ourselves out there, receiving rejections, or setting boundaries were all totally normal things to do that would never get us in trouble with our parents or bosses or celebrities who might decide to get us fired?”

To be honest, there will always be approach anxiety and rejection will always suck, and rejected people will never feel good about it. It’s really hard to not take rejection personally even though it often really isn’t personal.

So, on a first level, knowing this from one’s own experience and generally being an emphatic being, we will always balance the gravity of the potential/actual boundary infringement with the other person’s potential pain due to rejection. On a second level, we will calculate potential consequenes of the rejection – the rejected person will not be happy, how does that affect us? That’s where parents and bosses come into the picture.

The world consists of a web of relationships, and we all want different things from one another. So unless people will stop being annoyed when they don’t get what they want, I don’t think such a world is conceivable.

So we need rules to decide which kind of approach is admissible in what circumstances, and which kind of rejection is justified based on the kind of approach. On a fundamental level, this is what the Categorical imperative is about…

Sam December 29, 2009 at 9:05 am #

Typhonblue,

I heard the fitness argument for the first time, and it is one that seems to explain why homosexuality seems to be an evolutionary constant despite its obvious procreational challenges.

But given that research in this matter is so highly political, I tend to be highly sceptical.

TS December 29, 2009 at 10:54 am #

Well, okay. I guess I’m convinced away from the terms “rape culture” and “patriarchy”, at least generally speaking. But I am not convinced that arguments involving those terms must be invalid … I also think that in many cases, complaining about the terms rather than addressing the argument will be a straw man. I mean, okay, so we could replace all instances of “rape culture” in (for example) desipisis’s link with “entitlement”; but I don’t think the actual points behind that post are any less valid or important, nor do they stop making a larger point about culture just because we’ve shuffled some terms around. Which means that what we’re saying is more about communication tactics than the substance of any given argument.

That is why I dislike using ideological-based terminology. However, my criticism has little to do with the terms themselves. It lies in the flaws of the theories and the lack of evidence demonstrating an in tandem global endorsement rape against females and at attempt by all males to seek power specifically or intrinsically to oppress women. It is difficult to apply theories so exclusive in design universally. The argument I have heard the most is that these theories ask questions that should be asked. While that may be true to an extent, I do not think that means the questions are asked in an unbiased manner, that the answers are unbiased or that we should accept a clearly ideological viewpoint as the explanation.

Well, aren’t we doing just that? Do you read any race blogs?

I am aware that some progressive liberals argue that race is a social construct, but the discussion with race, ethnicity and nationality appears to end with saying we are all part of a global community, but it stops short of declaring that anyone from any background can adopt the identity of another culture because certain characteristics fit the person’s needs. Are there any people suggesting that the term “American” should be used as broader identity wholly or mostly unrelated to the United States (which is how the term is used despite applying to both North and South Americans)?

Where is this implied in the definition I posted?

It is implied by the author’s claim about “fundamental beliefs and attitudes” and in the full context of the post you took the quote from. I am also aware of the author’s views in regards to male victimization, female perpetrated sexual violence against males and female perpetrated sexism against males, which the author appears to view as negligible, improbable and impossible respectively.

typhonblue December 29, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

Motley:

Is it? I don’t think that’s the case (I vaguely recall some big news about homosexual sexual behavior in monkeys being observed–I’m assuming that it wouldn’t have been news if it were just a fact of life. Vague recollection, though.)

Do a search on ‘bisexual behavior in animals’, this is a pretty non-controversial observation at this point. In fact in many species researchers have _only_ observed homosexual behavior.

BTW, farmers are often more aware of this. Often they use younger bulls to ‘tease’ older bulls to get them ready to mount cows.

Here’s a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Sam:

I heard the fitness argument for the first time, and it is one that seems to explain why homosexuality seems to be an evolutionary constant despite its obvious procreational challenges.

One very simple solution(too simple, really). Imagine we have a gay and straight gene. Even if the gay gene leaves it’s carriers less fit, if, in combination with the straight gene (creating a heterozygous bisexual) it creates _greater_ reproductive fitness, then the trait will perpetuate. Gay men may reproduce less then straight men, but bisexual men could easily reproduce _more_, giving a net advantage to the gay gene.

An example (from the wikipedia article) one fourth of black swans form homosexual couples and they then either steal a nest or mate with a female and drive her away. More of the young in these pairs survive to adulthood (possibly because two males can defend a larger territory).

But given that research in this matter is so highly political, I tend to be highly sceptical.

Skeptical about what?

Clarisse:

Which means that what we’re saying is more about communication tactics than the substance of any given argument.

I think the problem is starting off the discussion by stigmatizing and minimizing the experiences of one half of potential rape victims. If men have been sexually assaulted, they aren’t going to be inclined to talk about their experiences(which are painful to begin with) if they have to first accept notions about how they’re responsible for sexual assault because they’re male.

And then, because male victims are made invisible by a highly stigmatizing discourse, we assume that they are negligible, improbable and likely impossible.

typhonblue December 29, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

I’ve done a bit more reading into the whole ‘homosexuality gene and evolutionary fitness thing.’

Apparently there’s some evidence that bisexuality is associated with masculinity in women and hypermasculinity in men. Also male bisexuals have more sexual contact with females then heterosexual males.

That actually jibes with my own experience. Bisexual men are more masculine. And by that, I don’t mean that they’re macho, but more confident, calm, self-assured and assertive. They also tended to have more experience with women. And they were taller on average too(sample bias, probably).

I would say that might support a theory that homosexuality may reduce evolutionary fitness but bisexuality increases it.

Clarisse December 30, 2009 at 11:56 am #

@Motley — That’s mostly how I’ve been reading this whole thing… or were we talking about something completely different, and I missed it?

Sure, communication has been a major thread in the discussion. But I guess my point was that I don’t like it when actual arguments are disappeared because of a disagreement over terminology. So, for example, if we decide to do away with the phrase “rape culture” then what happens to all the examples of rape culture? Do we rename them as examples of, say, entitlement? Are they actually showing something different? Will anyone argue that they show nothing at all?

When I first heard “rape culture” I hardly needed the phrase explained to me — it was so instantly obvious to me what it meant. I immediately thought, “Yes! That is the perfect term for all the things that are so fucked up about entitlement and sexuality in America!” So if we get rid of the phrase, then what do I do with the thread in my mind that was previously labeled “rape culture”? I can’t get rid of it. It definitely exists, so far as I’m concerned. So if I’m finding other ways to refer to it then it’s because I’m being polite or trying to communicate better, not because I don’t think “the artist formerly known as rape culture” exists. I have seen arguments on this thread that convince me that rape culture applies equally to men, but no one has launched an argument that budges my conviction that it exists; and I want to be able to talk about it.

@Sam — To be honest, there will always be approach anxiety and rejection will always suck, and rejected people will never feel good about it. It’s really hard to not take rejection personally even though it often really isn’t personal.

Maybe, but some kinds of rejection are easier to take than others. Yay for typhonblue’s chocolate cake example! Are you upset when someone rejects a piece of chocolate cake from you? I’ve known few people who would get upset when I rejected their food, but I know of cultures where it’s a grave insult not to accept someone’s food. That’s not really true in America (and Europe?), at least not in my experience. (Isn’t there a story from Roman times about a woman who refused an apple the emperor offered her because she was allergic, who was executed? I think I only read this story in the excellent novel I, Claudius, so maybe it didn’t really happen, but you get my drift.)

Point being, if we can train people not to feel so uptight about offering/rejecting food, then can’t we train people not to be so uptight about offering/rejecting sex?

@TS — I do not think that means the questions are asked in an unbiased manner, that the answers are unbiased

Do you think it would be unbiased if the definition of “rape culture” were truly gender-neutral, the way I’ve been trying to interpret it?

It is implied by the author’s claim about “fundamental beliefs and attitudes” and in the full context of the post you took the quote from

Is it okay if we throw out the context? I’m much more interested in the definition, which I find extremely useful and even-handed, than the originator. So if we throw that out, and keep the definition — again, forgetting the author — then do you still find it biased?

In terms of your race argument, I’m having some difficulty following all the threads. … and, hmm, this is not assisted by the fact that it’s really hard to search for a string as short as “TS” on this page, so I can’t isolate all your comments and read them over again easily. Which means my response probably won’t be very smart. sorry.

(Here’s a question. What if people could change their bodily skin tone with the same ease as a gender transition?)

Are you arguing that people shouldn’t be able to adopt masculinity as an identity? I don’t think you are, but I do think you are arguing that people who choose to adopt masculinity rather than being born into it “shouldn’t” have the same “say” about what masculinity is. But again, I’ve sort of concluded that we won’t get anywhere if we’re prescriptive — if we try to tell people what masculinity is, as opposed to just describing our experiences and those of the people affected by masculinity that we know. In which case, I don’t see why non-masculine people shouldn’t be involved. I mean, white people are involved in the conversation about race.

@typhonblue — I think the problem is starting off the discussion by stigmatizing and minimizing the experiences of one half of potential rape victims

Okay. I can get behind that. But do you think that rape culture exists, if you throw out all the gender bias that y’all see as inherent in the discourse but that isn’t inherent in the definition I provided?

Also, have you read the book Is Multiculturalism Bad For Women? It’s quite feminist in frame, and some of the essays seem overly simple to me, but I’m finding others quite nuanced and interesting. Wondering if you’ve got a take on it.

To all: Going off the grid again for a couple days.

Sam December 30, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

Clarisse,

“Are you upset when someone rejects a piece of chocolate cake from you?”

I think it will usually depend on the assumed/communicated reasons. If someone is visibly stuffed, I will assume it has something to do with the chocolate cake, and probably won’t be offended. If I’m an immigrant, and someone’s not taking the cake because he/she isn’t too sure what’s in there because it’s cake from a different country and he/she may not be completely at ease with foreign stuff, it would be a borderline case, but if someone wouldn’t take the cake because of what I am (say because I’m an immigrant with a different ethnicity) or who I am, then, yes, I’d be offended.

It’s not too different structurally with respect to meeting people, for romantic/sexual relations or anything else although the ego-matter will be a much more important element in that case. So, when I know that a woman isn’t interested in talking to me because of where she is in her life right now, or she knows that her best friend digs me, or similar reasons, I may be sad about the lost opportunity, but it’s she’s not rejecting *me* but the opportunity. It’s different when she’s rejecting you for *YOU* – the same is true for men rejecting women, of course. Case in point – I was dancing close with a girl at a party when I was 14 or so. At some point she looks up and says, oh no, the dance floor is empty and I’m dancing with *you*. That’s a rejection that is hard not to take personally. The upside is that usually the reason is not personal – but it takes a lot of effort to rack up a significant number of approaches to realise that. Once I had approached, say, 100 women, and there were only 2 conversations that didn’t meet the 2 minute mark, I was pretty confident that whatever it was that made them uninterested in a conversation, it wasn’t something universally apalling about me.

So, this is actually a dilemma for me as well, because of my situation I’m usually the one (at least in their impression) rejecting women at some point of our interaction, and there is no way of credibly explaining that it’s really about me and not about them without becoming too personal at a point of the interaction where that kind of vulnerability is usually not a clever idea one way or the other.

So, a healthy ego and confidence are the elements that may help us to deal better with rejection, but it’s never gonna be as easy to deal with this kind of rejection as it is with chocolate cake.

I was hoping you’d say something about my story about not being able to touch the breasts of the woman I was making out with – and I’m mentioning it again, because strucuturally I was in the same situation that the dude from the Chicago sex tours whom you mention in your latest post was in: I believed I had her ok to experiment (we had been french kissing and caressing each other for twice for about 15 minutes in the last hour) but how could I positively know? You mention that what Chicago sex tours guy seems to have interpreted as a signal from you certainly wasn’t one… he wasn’t too afraid to try (and got smacked). I was too afraid.

I’m not saying that these cases are indentical, but they both show that experimenting is logically happening in a space that is not yet negotiated, and that is usually the problem of the initiator…

BTW, I think it’s clear why men hit on you more when you’re talking about sex – we’re not used to women talking about sex, so whenever that happens two things happen in our brains – a) we feel accepted (or relatively accepted) for our desires and b) we assume that a woman who talks about these things with us must be interested, why else who she do that.

I’m so grateful I have a best female friend and we actually talk about sexual stuff (I even got her a “neck-massager because she wasn’t happy with her bf, but didn’t want to talk to her bf about this and was too afraid to get one herself…) ;)

Will email you one of these days about the kindle thing.

Happy New Year!

typhonblue December 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

Sam:

That’s a rejection that is hard not to take personally.

Wow. I, personally, would have breathed a sigh of relief that I dodged a bullet there.

That woman sounds like an abusive narcissist. I wouldn’t take her abuse personally simply because for abusive narcissists it really is all about them and not about you.

Clarisse;

I have seen arguments on this thread that convince me that rape culture applies equally to men, but no one has launched an argument that budges my conviction that it exists; and I want to be able to talk about it.

That’s fine, and you’re doing a lot by acknowledging that rape culture could be hurting men as much as women.

However, not to belabor the point, but if you ever look at TS’s blog, you’ll see the huge amount of history he has with the term ‘rape culture’ and how it’s been used against him as a male victim of rape to silence him. Other ‘rape culture’ heretics (like myself) have similar experiences with the term.

I think it’s sort of like the position of the swastika. It’s modern association with Nazism has tainted it’s traditional association as a buddhist symbol of life. Some people want to reclaim it’s traditional association, but at the same time they have to be very careful about explaining their motivation for using the symbol around certain groups of people.

I mean, white people are involved in the conversation about race.

But they aren’t as involved in discussions of what constitutes ‘black identity.’ Nor do they feel as entitled to be involved.

I think this is what TS is getting at, although I have to confess I’m having the same trouble as you parsing his comments.

Sam December 30, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

Typhonblue,

“That woman sounds like an abusive narcissist. I wouldn’t take her abuse personally simply because for abusive narcissists it really is all about them and not about you.”

Well, what’s “me” anyway. At that point it was a status thing. My status in the school hierarchy wasn’t up with hers at the point, but she wasn’t completely unchallenged either, so being teenagers and all, she certainly wasn’t rejecting everything that was/is “me” but was likely afraid that her being seen with me would have a negative effect on her social status. The games people play. As easy as it is to rationalize this with hindsight, it’s still rejection that is painful.

typhonblue December 30, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

As easy as it is to rationalize this with hindsight, it’s still rejection that is painful.

And why don’t we have a discourse about women’s cruelty while rejecting men that’s as equal in volume and scope to the discourse about the ‘beauty ideal’?

Sam December 30, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

Typhonblue,

the two things aren’t on the same level if you don’t qualify the argument: If you say that we should talk about women judging/rejecting men for their relative achievements/lack thereof, then it would be on the same level as men rejecting women because they don’t conform to their (partly) socialized visual tastes.

typhonblue December 30, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

At that point it was a status thing.

I don’t care what justification she had–what she did was abusive.

What I said in 207 was sort of clumsy so I agree it needed to be clarified. So I agree with how you qualified it in 208.

typhonblue December 31, 2009 at 2:42 am #

I’ve been doing some thinking on ‘rape culture’ and why I think it’s a mistake to conflate sexual harassment with rape.

Setting aside date rape–which women may perpetuate as often as men so women’s attitudes are likely just as pertinent to examine–I’d like to look just at ‘stranger rape’. That type of rape seems to be more of a male-only activity.

Most people think of ‘stranger rape’ as a man jumping out of the bushes of a park late at night and taking a woman by surprise. However, they don’t realize that the attack is usually preceded by a sequence of behavior on the part of the rapist in which he ‘cases’ his target: observing habits and determining vulnerabilities.

I, personally, think that conflating sexual harassment with something like stranger rape muddies the water and can make it more difficult for women(and men) to recognize and navigate situations of real danger.

Let me explain. (I’m going to steal some terminology from Marc MacYoung.) We have three brain states, a human brain, a monkey brain and a lizard brain.

The human brain is like our super-ego and isn’t really important to this discussion because it tends to shut off during situations of excitement. The monkey brain views maintaining and enhancing social status as our primary objective. The lizard brain is concerned with survival violence, either defensive or offensive(predatory).

Most guys drop into ‘monkey brain’ mode while experiencing the excitement of observing an attractive(to them) woman.

If I’m in a dark alley and I see three young men, I would actually be relieved if they start breaking into hooting and cat-calls. Why? Because they’re thinking with their monkey brains. They see me and turn me into a focal point for their status displays: preforming heterosexuality so that they don’t loose standing with their friends. Most of these sort of hooting, harassing displays indicate monkey brain activity–these guys are more concerned how you might enhance their status.

On the other hand if they remain quietly observant, it’s more cause for worry. Because they’ve moved into lizard brain mode. (Or they’re indifferent, in which case they’re probably still in human brain mode.)

A real sexual predator will not make his sexual interest in you known until its too late.

MacYoung calls the five stages of violent crime Intent-Interview-Positioning-Attack-Reaction.
I’ve been ‘cased out’ by sexual predators. Not once during this process of grooming did they indicate sexual interest. Instead their attention was turned to figuring out how safe I was to attack.

They were in lizard brain mode.

When someone is observing you in lizard brain mode, you know something’s wrong. It’s a survival instinct and a powerful one. Offense or annoyance is the furthest thing from your mind.

In one incident a potential rapist Interviewed me to determine my situational awareness. He took opportunity to invade my space while positioning his body in a dominant way* and hiding his positioning behind an innocuous activity. I indicated through body language and expression that I was aware of what he was doing.

He backed off and didn’t try it again, even when given another opportunity to make the same ‘mistake’. My situational awareness was too high for him to risk further escalation.

The whole process was completely silent and invisible to everyone present except me and him.

Now it would be really great if all men remained in human brain mode around attractive women, however men who engage their monkey-brains around an attractive woman may be annoying and offensive, but they have nothing to do with sexual predators or the way sexual predators think.

Most bad monkey-brain behavior is because of the monkey-brain’s status focus. A man in monkey-brain mode will objectify women or talk about them as if they were ‘prey’ but he’s doing that in a status-orientated way, not a predation-orientated way. He’s doing it in order to lessen his potential loss of status if he’s rejected.

A sexual predator is thinking about whether or not its safe to use violence against you.

* It’s hard to describe a feeling convincingly, but people who fight regularly likely know what I’m talking about. It’s not just being in your space, it’s also the intent to do harm.

Toysoldier December 31, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

Do you think it would be unbiased if the definition of “rape culture” were truly gender-neutral, the way I’ve been trying to interpret it?

No, because I do not think the lack of gender neutrality is the main problem. The main problem, from my perspective, is the one-size-fits-all explanation for a complex issue. There are a myriad of reasons why people — women and men — sexually assault each other, only one of which stems from cultural hatred towards another group.

Is it okay if we throw out the context? I’m much more interested in the definition, which I find extremely useful and even-handed, than the originator. So if we throw that out, and keep the definition — again, forgetting the author — then do you still find it biased?

If we threw out the context, what would “fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence” mean?

Here’s a question. What if people could change their bodily skin tone with the same ease as a gender transition?

Technically, they can. Michael Jackson did it. Yet I can think of no group that believes altering one’s skin tone, facial structure and hair makes one part of another ethnic group. However, let us switch the group again. For instance, what if people could change their sexual orientation with the same ease as a gender transition? There is no reason not to consider sexual orientation a social construct as well, but would not many people argue that a person cannot change his or her sexual orientation despite how easily they could do it?

Are you arguing that people shouldn’t be able to adopt masculinity as an identity?

I suppose the confusion lies in how we define masculinity as an identity. Are you saying that masculinity is a specific set of characteristics males are born with? If so, why are these characteristics exclusive to males? If not, why should we call it masculinity at all? Why not call it something else?

I mean, white people are involved in the conversation about race.

Yes, but as typhonblue noted they are not as involved in discussions of what constitutes “black identity.” That is the difference. Race is a broad discussion; black identity is a discussion that only relates to black people (I assume we mean Western descendants of African slaves).

Sam December 31, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

Happy new year, everyone!

Before I forget it, and there’s a fair chance I will – Masculinity moment, early 2010. I’m out with friends, guys and girls – all of the guys are all talk about how they’re gonna score tonight and not one of them was actually brave enough to even walk up to a girl and say hi. About two hours ago, I saw this girl sitting in a chair, texting. There was something about her, so I walked over and told her that I saw her, and found her intriguing and just had to come and say hello. She said: “respect, no one ever does that.” I didn’t want to talk to her to get that compliment, but it still made me feel like a man. Because I did walk over and said hi.

BASTA! January 1, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

@Clarisse:

What the hell are you talking about? The only comment I’ve left at FC in over a month was on this post.

Yup, that’s the one.

And if anyone is actually going to argue that the comment is “off-topic and passive-aggressive”, then I fucking quit.

While I think you are putting way too much power over your important decisions in anyone’s hands, if that is your wish, then so be it. I am hereby arguing that your comment was off-topic, and blatantly so: you started with the unapologetic “I don’t have much to contribute” and proceeded to state your opinion on the idea of paired threads, which was NOT the thread’s topic. I am also arguing that the “no matter how small the sample size” remark is just a convoluted way of saying “you are marginal, nobody reads you, bwahhahhahah”.

Now what exactly are you going to quit?

BASTA! January 1, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

Edit, edit, edit! For chrissake, it’s the second decade of the 21st century, and I am entitled to preview/edit functionality! ;)

Desipis January 1, 2010 at 1:22 pm #

Clarisse:

When I first heard “rape culture” I hardly needed the phrase explained to me — it was so instantly obvious to me what it meant.

To me “rape culture” sounds like something from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where there is legal and public social support for men to rape women. The term implies the culture is centred on rape with deliberate active participation in enabling rape to occur. I don’t think it’s at all fair to imply this about the vast majority of cultures around the world.

I think a term like “sexual interaction entitlement” which could cover all types of sexual interaction from overt flirting to rape would better communicate the idea rather than going for the emotionally charged extreme of “rape”. It may not be as snappy as “rape culture” but given the many nuances in the topic I’m not sure it’s a good idea to try for a short and snappy term.

Trying to explain to a reasonable person that their behaviour is inappropriate because its part of “rape culture” will likely be met with a reaction of “WTF? I’m not a rapist/I don’t support rape.”. Where as I think a better result would be obtained by explaining that they’re incorrectly assuming they (or others) are entitled to sexually interact with someone else.

As for “patriarchy”, I think a term such as “cultural sexisms” would better cover what many feminists are referring to. I think that many of the problems with the way gender manifests within society are not going to be driven (at least not solely) by “the dominance of men in social or cultural systems”. The way some feminists frame the gender problems as just sides effect of a political power struggle says more about the political aspirations of those feminists than it does about the truth of gender related problems.

Toysoldier January 1, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

Clarisse wrote:

I have seen arguments on this thread that convince me that rape culture applies equally to men, but no one has launched an argument that budges my conviction that it exists; and I want to be able to talk about it.

You can talk about “rape culture.” The problem arises only if you want to talk to people who do not wholly agree with the theory or those who disagree with the premise of the theory. The position you seem to have on the theory is one of faith, i.e. you will continue to believe in “rape culture” regardless of what anyone says. If that is the case, would it not render discussions with non-feminists moot?

I think you are bumping into the same problem Feminist Critics bumped into, only in the reverse: how can a person hold a discussion with others if the person or the other group or both hold a set of beliefs that are not open to change?

typhonblue January 1, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

I think you are bumping into the same problem Feminist Critics bumped into, only in the reverse: how can a person hold a discussion with others if the person or the other group or both hold a set of beliefs that are not open to change?

I think the concession that ‘rape culture’ likely affects men as much as women is being reasonably open to change.

There are a myriad of reasons why people — women and men — sexually assault each other, only one of which stems from cultural hatred towards another group.

I agree. And I think we should think carefully before we conflate sexually disrespectful behavior with ‘rape culture’. (Heretofore referred to as ‘sexual predation.’)

A culture of sexual disrespect does not lead to rape. Rape leads to rape. Specifically the marginalized and ignored rape(and abuse) of children. Rapists suffer from a compulsion to repeat their own abuse.

I remember listening to a podcast on ‘circles of support’—a group of people dedicated to providing an informal family to sexual offenders in order to prevent re-offending. They apparently reduced recidivism 70% in the offenders they worked with. Although their work is admirable, I couldn’t help but wonder where they were before the sexual offenders first offended.

To get rid of sexual predation, we would have to address childhood sexual abuse—identify abused people at most risk of falling through the social cracks and get them social support.

A culture of disrespect can create a situation in which damaged people fail to get the support they need to deal with their emotional issues but without the driving force of childhood abuse even a culture of sexual disrespect would not result in rape. So, in essence a culture of sexual disrespect is necessary but not sufficient to give rise to sexual predation.

To deal with our sexually disrespectful society, we would have to examine our attitudes towards male and female sexuality. One of the big ones would be how we stigmatize male sexuality as debased and foul. I think if we removed this single attitude we would end slut-shaming, objectification of women, and a great deal of sexual badgering on the part of men.

Finally I think conflating sexual disrespect culture with sexual predation culture can also make people more unsafe!

This is why:

Let’s imagine the average women being cased by a sexual predator. If she’s taught to see rape not in terms of sexual predation but in terms of ‘sexual disrespect’ she may completely miss the signals of potential predation.

As he approaches her to case her, it’s guaranteed her predator alarm is screaming. But since he’s not exhibiting any sexual disrespect behavior, she’s probably saying to herself, ‘well, I guess I’m just imagining things’ and ignores her early warning system. That results in a successful dry run for him and he figures its safe to escalate later when he corners her alone.

So even though it may be satisfying on an ideological level to equate the two(in order to get a stronger sense of vehemence to shout down instances of sexual disrespect), I believe they shouldn’t be conflated.

Further, I sympathize with those men who are having trouble with the term ‘rape culture’. It is often associated with the implication that rape is something men enjoy and benefit from—directly and indirectly—thus all men are responsible.

I can imagine that, for any man who has himself been sexually abused by a woman, this construct is difficult to swallow. And by difficult to swallow I mean like being strangled to death with a tourniquet.

Toysoldier January 3, 2010 at 11:19 am #

I think the concession that ‘rape culture’ likely affects men as much as women is being reasonably open to change.

I do not think that this was a concession on Clarisse’s part because she has never suggested she did not already believe that “rape culture” affects men. A better phrasing of my prior comment is that it is difficult to hold a discussion if one person or both are not willing to challenge their beliefs and worldviews. Granted, the more fundamental the belief, the less likely that will happen. However, I think it is necessary, especially in situations like this where there are people participating in the discussion who have negative experiences with those sorts of views. Of course, I dislike fundamentalist beliefs and worldviews because they often cannot be explained, do not accurately reflect the total situation and frequently harm other people, so I am more stringent towards theories like “rape culture,” the “culture war” and “Original sin.”

I agree. And I think we should think carefully before we conflate sexually disrespectful behavior with ‘rape culture’. (Heretofore referred to as ’sexual predation.’)

I think the conflation occurs because of the nature of the theory itself. It is a theory created by female victims to explain why they were assaulted. Much of the language surrounding the theory sounds more like stating things that could trigger a female rape victim than anything that explicitly causes or contributes to causing sexual violence against women.

Further, I sympathize with those men who are having trouble with the term ‘rape culture’. It is often associated with the implication that rape is something men enjoy and benefit from—directly and indirectly—thus all men are responsible.

I can imagine that, for any man who has himself been sexually abused by a woman, this construct is difficult to swallow. And by difficult to swallow I mean like being strangled to death with a tourniquet.

That is the purpose of the theory. It is meant to cause that discord in order to prompt men to “change” by holding them responsible for sexual violence against females. That male victims are harmed by this is incidental, although I think they are intentionally excluded from the theory because acknowledging male victimization or female-perpetrated sexual violence would severely undermine the validity of the theory of “rape culture,” which is why when male victims are included, it is only male-on-male sexual violence that gets acknowledged while female-on-male sexual violence gets downplayed or ignored, with the exception of acknowledging men ridiculing male victims.

Clarisse January 3, 2010 at 11:27 am #

@Sam — I was hoping you’d say something about my story about not being able to touch the breasts of the woman I was making out with – and I’m mentioning it again, because strucuturally I was in the same situation that the dude from the Chicago sex tours whom you mention in your latest post was in: I believed I had her ok to experiment (we had been french kissing and caressing each other for twice for about 15 minutes in the last hour) but how could I positively know?

No. Oh no. I’m going to have to calm myself down for a minute, because this argument makes me incredibly angry.

…

Ok.

Chicago Tour Dude is an asshole because the “signals” he “interpreted” from me were limited to me daring to talk openly about sex and my own sexuality. I did not approach him personally. I did not say anything to him personally, other than talking about my work at Jane Addams Hull-House Museum; I think maybe I answered a question he asked about my film series and maybe I even smiled at him! but that’s it. Based on the fact that I was talking about alternative sexuality out loud — good heavens! a woman talking about sex out loud! — he decided that grabbing my ass would be appropriate. People will act as though “woman talking in public about sex” = “woman making herself sexually available to whoever happens to hear her talk”. Which is insane. And is just another mechanism for shutting women up who want to be able to talk about sex — because if we have the nerve to do so, we’ll be telling people we’re Asking For It!

As for your breast situation, it honestly seems pretty transparent to me. If you weren’t sure about touching her breasts, you should have asked out loud whether you could touch her breasts. If she really wanted you to touch her breasts, she should have asked you to touch her breasts (or, if she really didn’t want to say anything out loud and she felt very confident that you’d want to touch her, I suppose she could have taken your hand and guided it to her breasts).

I’m not saying that these cases are indentical, but they both show that experimenting is logically happening in a space that is not yet negotiated, and that is usually the problem of the initiator

I suppose I can kind of see this argument, almost, but … nope, can’t really see it. The space seemed extremely negotiated to me. It was a public tour about sex and sexuality. I was in attendance, talking about my sexuality activist work, and in fact my boyfriend was with me, by the way. An appropriate way to attempt some kind of “initiation” with me would have been to, say, talk to me first. Maybe, you know, ask me about my interests, or ask me out to dinner, or — God forbid — straightforwardly ask if I was open to some kind of sexual encounter. Not just assume that the fact that I was talking openly to a group about sexuality meant that I was “freely sexually available”.

Your argument makes more sense in the context of a typical Western sexual encounter, where there is already an intimate space established that is about experimentation.

I think it’s clear why men hit on you more when you’re talking about sex

It doesn’t just happen when I talk about sex. It happens almost every time a new group finds out that I’m into S&M. In fact this phenomenon is well known in the BDSM community — I once told a guy that I’m out to almost all my friends and he said, “Oh, when you came out then did people start hitting on you more?”

@typhonblue — I think it’s sort of like the position of the swastika

This is a good metaphor, thank you.

A real sexual predator will not make his sexual interest in you known until its too late.

A “real” sexual predator? Implying that a sexual predator who does it in the context of, say, drugging your drink at a bar isn’t “real”?

I’ve been doing some thinking on ‘rape culture’ and why I think it’s a mistake to conflate sexual harassment with rape

I can see your argument in terms of stranger rape, but stranger rape is actually pretty rare. Do you think it makes sense to put sexual harassment on the same continuum as acquaintance rape?

A man in monkey-brain mode will objectify women or talk about them as if they were ‘prey’ but he’s doing that in a status-orientated way, not a predation-orientated way. He’s doing it in order to lessen his potential loss of status if he’s rejected.

Maybe, but isn’t that whole frame — sexual acts as things that you “get” or “achieve” for status — doesn’t that make someone more likely to pressure or even force a nonconsenting partner into sex? When sexuality is discussed as something you’re out for basically despite the wishes of the “prey”, then aren’t you more likely to, well, have sex basically despite the wishes of the “prey”?

@Toysoldier — Technically, they can. Michael Jackson did it.

Not the same thing. He didn’t do it on purpose, he had a condition.

If we threw out the context, what would “fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence” mean?

I meant the context of Ampersand, not the entire cultural context.

The main problem, from my perspective, is the one-size-fits-all explanation for a complex issue. There are a myriad of reasons why people — women and men — sexually assault each other, only one of which stems from cultural hatred towards another group.

“Rape culture”, as I understand it, isn’t intended to be a simple explanation, nor is it supposed to be limited to “cultural hatred towards another group”. I don’t see how anything in, for example, the definition that I posted indicates that “rape culture” indicates a one-size-fits-all or any particular cultural hatred.

There is no reason not to consider sexual orientation a social construct as well, but would not many people argue that a person cannot change his or her sexual orientation despite how easily they could do it?

I’m confused by this sentence. Is one of your premises that people could easily change sexual orientation if they wanted to?

Yes, but as typhonblue noted they are not as involved in discussions of what constitutes “black identity”

Not as involved, but still involved. Is it really worth having a big argument over degrees of “how involved” a butch “should” be as opposed to a born man? Also, I don’t think you’ve at all addressed my suggestion that we’d do better to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

Are you saying that masculinity is a specific set of characteristics males are born with?

No. I think that if I had to define masculinity I’d say that it’s “our cultural conception of what maleness is supposed to look like”.

Looks like Merriam-Webster defines it as “1. Male, 2. having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man”. Heh. No wonder we’re confused.

@Basta — You are a great example of someone who is way too excited about deciding that I’m a bitch. I mean, did you even attempt to think about how I might have meant the comment in a friendly way?

Now, for the record, here’s how I meant it:
1) I said, this is a cool idea for paired threads. The “this” part indicates that I meant that particular pair of threads was a cool idea. I didn’t praise paired threads in general.
2) I said I didn’t have much to contribute because I didn’t want anyone to think I was being unfriendly by being brief. In my experience, it’s pretty common for people to leave comments saying things like, “I don’t have much to add to this discussion, but I just wanted to praise the post/thread/whatever!”
3) I said “no matter how small the sample size” because I thought that maybe if Daran didn’t get many responses, he wouldn’t think it was worth it to list the number of responses, not because I wanted to call the blog marginal.

Now what exactly are you going to quit?

It’s an idiom.

@Desipis — That sounds reasonable.

@Toysoldier — The position you seem to have on the theory is one of faith, i.e. you will continue to believe in “rape culture” regardless of what anyone says.

No, that’s not what I said. I said that I haven’t seen any arguments that have convinced me that “the artist formerly known as rape culture” doesn’t exist. And if I’m going to continue thinking it exists, I’d like to be able to discuss it. But I’ll buy that it’s too emotionally charged a term for the mainstream.

Sam January 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

Clarisse,

happy new year!

“No. Oh no. I’m going to have to calm myself down for a minute, because this argument makes me incredibly angry.”

Sorry for that… As I said, I don’t think the situations were *actually* comparable, just “structurally”, although you do point out an important qualifier that indeed does limit the scope of my argument significantly.

“Your argument makes more sense in the context of a typical Western sexual encounter, where there is already an intimate space established that is about experimentation.”

Agreed.

“If you weren’t sure about touching her breasts, you should have asked out loud whether you could touch her breasts. If she really wanted you to touch her breasts, she should have asked you to touch her breasts (or, if she really didn’t want to say anything out loud and she felt very confident that you’d want to touch her, I suppose she could have taken your hand and guided it to her breasts).”

As I mentioned above, she asked if there was something wrong with her breasts, so she did wonder why I didn’t pick up. The point is that, logically, whether she takes my hand and put it there or I put it there, extending the space logically means being in non-negotiated space, the initiator necessarily runs that risk – and in a way, masculinity is about knowing about that risk and doing it anyway. And I don’t want to live with the fear of having to consider myself some kind of sexual predator for possibly attempting to kiss a girl or touch her breasts while making out.

I do realize this is extremely tricky and there are hardly any “standard” cases with respect to this. I just wanted to say that *any* kind of initiation is happening in a previously non-negotiated space and we should be able to differentiate good faith from bad faith interactions conceptually and verbally, beyond saying “I know it when I see it”.

I do relize that there is a difference between different cases of experimention, some of which are “good faith” and some of which are “bad faith”.

These (probably largely contextual) differences should be more clearly communicated and understood by more people – and, yes, the general public (including, I suppose, myself) can apparently learn a whole lot from people in the BDSM community who are able to talk about these issues without killing any vibe.

“Looks like Merriam-Webster defines it as “1. Male, 2. having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man”. Heh. No wonder we’re confused.”

Very true.

Desipis January 3, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

@Clarisse:

If you weren’t sure about touching her breasts, you should have asked out loud whether you could touch her breasts. If she really wanted you to touch her breasts, she should have asked you to touch her breasts…

I’m not sure everyone wants to make sexual communications so explicit. For many people sexual interaction is primarily an emotional experience, and rationalising the interaction in the way you suggest would take away that emotional component. I think it’d be better to strike a balance between not crossing someone’s boundaries and not repressing ones own sexual expression. I think reciprocating rates of escalation would model the way most people are comfortable in approaching sexual interaction, rather than explicit agreement at each escalation.

(or, if she really didn’t want to say anything out loud and she felt very confident that you’d want to touch her, I suppose she could have taken your hand and guided it to her breasts)

The problem with this is it assumes the guy is ok with touching her breasts. At the end of the day if we avoid explicit communication then the risk is that one side will take things that step too far (and even then explicit communication could be considered as too far by some). I think the problem is some guys (and possibly girls) feel they will be demonised for taking things that step to far despite having the best intentions, when as I see it the problem is people who take things 10 steps to far without regard for the boundaries of the other person.

Exploring your own and your partner’s boundaries is a natural part of sexual interaction; a part that means those boundaries will occasionally be crossed. The message many guys are receiving from both the conservative and feminist sides of the gender debate is that crossing a woman’s sexual boundaries is a mortal sin, regardless of how, how far or why they was crossed. This demonisation has an oppression effect on male sexuality, particularly for those who are genuinely trying to do ‘the right thing’.

Chicago Tour Dude is an asshole because the “signals” he “interpreted” from me were limited to me daring to talk openly about sex and my own sexuality.

I can’t help but wonder if he’s not assuming you’re freely sexual availability, but rather that you were comfortable with a more rapid escalation when it comes sexual interaction. Something along the lines of: “She talks about sex the same way as the guys I know; therefore she’d be ok with me being aggressively sexual towards her in the same way that the guys I know would be ok with her being sexually aggressive towards them.”. Essentially, the problem is not making the distiction between someone who can freely talk about sex with strangers and someone who is freely willing to engage in sex with strangers. I see it as an ignorance likely born out of a society with strong social taboos around talking about sex, so I’m not sure I would attribute attitudes of malice or indiffrence to the behaviour. (I’m not trying to diminish the harmful effect of the behaviour here).

Sam January 3, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

Desipis,

“Exploring your own and your partner’s boundaries is a natural part of sexual interaction; a part that means those boundaries will occasionally be crossed. The message many guys are receiving from both the conservative and feminist sides of the gender debate is that crossing a woman’s sexual boundaries is a mortal sin, regardless of how, how far or why they was crossed. This demonisation has an oppression effect on male sexuality, particularly for those who are genuinely trying to do ‘the right thing’.”

I couldn’t have phrased it better. And that’s why masculinity is cornered into a “doing it anyway”, which in turn leads to more arguments about “rape culture” which are then jusitified with problematic notions of masculinity. It’s negative feedback slope reducing everyone’s ability of sexual expression – in the way I’ve tried to outline in #70 and the comments thereafter mentioning the Foster Wallace short story.

typhonblue January 3, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

I’m going to preface this by saying that I appreciate that you’ve allowed that men can be sexually victimized by women(and possibly at comparable rates.) This really reduces the emotional load on me. For whatever reason I identify strongly with male victims of female sexual assault, probably because of transference issues.

I also want to point out that I’m not continuing this discussion to convince you of anything, just to put forth some thoughts.

A “real” sexual predator? Implying that a sexual predator who does it in the context of, say, drugging your drink at a bar isn’t “real”?

Anyone who specifically intends to remove your ability to effectively reject his/her advances is a sexual predator as far as I’m concerned.

Sexual predators methodically cut off all your potential escape routes. He/she doesn’t want your consent, he/she wants your inability to consent.*

That’s why I believe rape is about power, not sex. (And I’ve gotten into arguments with the ‘other side’ on this one too.)

I can see your argument in terms of stranger rape, but stranger rape is actually pretty rare. Do you think it makes sense to put sexual harassment on the same continuum as acquaintance rape?

No.

To explain. In general people rape because they were abused as children. They don’t learn to rape from a culture of sexual disrespect, they learn to rape from being physically violated while they were just forming their boundaries.

Now, having said that, a culture of sexual disrespect makes it far more difficult for these victims to seek out and get the help they need. Both for the majority of victims who would never go on to victimize and those who will.

The link I posted indicated that having been sexually abused had a strong correlation to being sexually violated as an adult.

Maybe, but isn’t that whole frame — sexual acts as things that you “get” or “achieve” for status — doesn’t that make someone more likely to pressure or even force a nonconsenting partner into sex?

True. But without that initial ‘spark’ of childhood sexual abuse I don’t think the person in question would go further then cajoling.

A culture of sexual disrespect will make it easier for a sexual predator to justify his/her actions and hide them behind a layer of misdirection.

*I think this distinction may be critical to resolving the issues Desipis and Sam are presenting. Rapists want to rape; clueless people who misread signals and went further then the other party wanted them to go may be inept but they’re not rapists–they genuinely want consent. The exception being if someone believes that men’s(for example) consent is a given and does not think s/he has to get it first.

typhonblue January 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

BASTA,

Regardless of what Clarisse did or did not do in the past, she’s listening now.

Isn’t that what matters?

Desipis January 3, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

typhonblue:

He/she doesn’t want your consent, he/she wants your inability to consent.

Isn’t the inability to consent just a means to an end? In some cases that may be simply to demonstrate or gain power over the victim, but I don’t think you can just rule out that some rape primarily on the basis of sexual urge (via wikipedia).

But without that initial ’spark’ of childhood sexual abuse I don’t think the person in question would go further then cajoling.

While childhood sexual abuse is a risk factor, its far from being something common between all sexual predators. I think there are many things that could push someone’s state of mind into a place where they place their own desires over the wellbeing of a fellow human being.

Clarisse January 4, 2010 at 12:19 am #

@Sam — Sorry for that… As I said, I don’t think the situations were *actually* comparable, just “structurally”, although you do point out an important qualifier that indeed does limit the scope of my argument significantly.

What’s interesting about this for me is that if I were to put a name to what’s similar between the two cases, I would call it “rape culture”. Reason being that I think rape culture is one of the factors encouraging these limiting sexual scripts and sexual assumptions, rather than encouraging us to examine and negotiate each individual sexual encounter.

Another way to say this without using the loaded term “rape culture” would be that I think the similarity between the two situations is that the “sexual escalation” is framed in a scripted, entitled way.

One of these days I’ll stop recommending the book, but Thomas Millar’s YMY essay “Towards a Performance Model of Sex” gets at a lot of this pretty well, I think.

These (probably largely contextual) differences should be more clearly communicated and understood by more people – and, yes, the general public (including, I suppose, myself) can apparently learn a whole lot from people in the BDSM community who are able to talk about these issues without killing any vibe.

I think there are probably vanilla people who can do the same thing.

Also, part of learning to do it without killing the vibe is to allow yourself to kill the vibe a few times first.

One of the assumptions behind learning to break cultural sexual scripts, and carefully negotiate sexuality, is that sometimes killing the sexual vibe is more important than doing something you’re not 100% comfortable with.

By the way, I just remembered a paper called “Learning from Extraordinary Lovers” by Peggy Kleinplatz in which she attempts to distill a bunch of lessons about sex from the BDSM community. As I recall, her approach is pretty close to the approach I would take, though it’s not quite the same. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16803770 I’m not sure if the paper in its entirety is available for free on the Web, but anyone who emails me for it is welcome to a PDF.

@Desipis — I’m not sure everyone wants to make sexual communications so explicit.

I freely acknowledge this. But I’m pretty sure it’s the only way out. So if a person is committed to avoiding sexual entitlement and never transgressing a partner’s boundaries, they’re gonna have to learn. In my opinion.

I realize that I come across as not grasping the subtleties of the situation, but I do. When I was younger I hated talking directly about sex, too. In fact, my first BDSM partner really freaked me out with his constant talking-directly-about-what-we-were-doing, and at first I was incredibly relieved to go back to more vanilla guys who wouldn’t force me to think about or communicate what I wanted. To go back to the comforting fiction that the right partner would “just know”; that a good enough partner “should” be able to “read me” perfectly without me ever saying anything. Ultimately though, I realized that it was a trap, and it was limiting me, and that although some people will match up with me better than others, no one will ever “just know” — and it will always, always, always be better to be able to discuss the sexual encounter directly and ask for what I want directly.

It took years.

As I’ve said before, even in the BDSM community we aren’t perfect about these things; we just have a leg up, and a general focus, that the population at large doesn’t have. I keep meaning to write assorted posts about certain experiences I’ve had, like the first time I negotiated a safeword that actually felt like a sexy part of the encounter rather than a swift precursor or awkward necessity.

I think it’d be better to strike a balance between not crossing someone’s boundaries and not repressing ones own sexual expression. I think reciprocating rates of escalation would model the way most people are comfortable in approaching sexual interaction, rather than explicit agreement at each escalation.

Again, I agree — and even in BDSM we do this (it is, after all, nearly impossible to negotiate absolutely every single step between “starting to flirt” and “leaping into bed together”). But the thing is that “reciprocating rates of escalation” are simply never going to be a sure thing. And so if you’re in a situation where you want a sure thing, or for some reason you’re not comfortable with the “reciprocating rate of escalation”, then there is no other way out besides learning to actually talk about it. Or if there is another way then I haven’t encountered it and would love to hear about it.

The problem with this is it assumes the guy is ok with touching her breasts.

Which is why I said “if … she felt very confident that you’d want to touch her”.

So, in summary: I agree with basically everything descriptive that you’ve said, even the stuff about Chicago Tour Dude. (I don’t absolve him of indifference. And, hey, let me clarify that I’ve transgressed people’s boundaries in ways that make me an asshole, too. None of us are lily-white.)

The problem is that the model you are describing is not the One True Way. You are correct that people are not comfortable talking directly about sexual encounters. You are also correct that people feel demonized for taking things too far despite the best intentions. But there is simply no way for this situation to be its own solution. If people want to persist in their discomfort and fail to talk directly about sexual encounters, then I certainly can’t stop them, but in that case they will continue to accidentally take things too far too fast, and they will probably continue to feel bad about it too.

@typhonblue — In general people rape because they were abused as children. They don’t learn to rape from a culture of sexual disrespect, they learn to rape from being physically violated while they were just forming their boundaries.

I am willing to believe this is true, but every single rapist can’t possibly do it because they were abused as children. I am wary of any cultural analysis that presents only one reason why people do things. Do you think it is reasonable to assert that some rapists act the way they due because of the reasons you outlined, and some do it because of the reasons I outlined?

Motley January 4, 2010 at 8:04 am #

I am willing to believe this is true, but every single rapist can’t possibly do it because they were abused as children

Umm… why not? To clarify:

Do you think it is reasonable to assert that some rapists act the way they due because of the reasons you outlined, and some do it because of the reasons I outlined?

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. I’d be really surprised if it weren’t in fact both. Something I read ages ago cited evidence that rapists–people who knowingly and willingly commit rape–were (statistically speaking) overwhelmingly frequently abused as children. Not everyone who was abused as a child goes on to become a rapist, but people who weren’t abused as children almost never do. (I’d do a little googling for sources, here, except I’m at work; so take it with a grain of salt, as I’m citing only my fuzzy recollections.)

I’d maybe clarify Typhonblue’s statement to say “They learn to rape from being physically violated. The idea that it’s okay to violate others (or that they can get away with doing so) comes (at least) partially from a culture of sexual disrespect.”

typhonblue January 4, 2010 at 9:56 am #

While childhood sexual abuse is a risk factor, its far from being something common between all sexual predators. I think there are many things that could push someone’s state of mind into a place where they place their own desires over the wellbeing of a fellow human being.

Like what? Give some examples of what can push someone’s state of mind into a place where they place their own desire for sex over the well-being of a fellow human?

It takes a really damaged mind to conceive of your own sexuality as a weapon to inflict damage against another human being. That, in and of itself, is it’s own type of self-abuse.

Motley January 4, 2010 at 10:16 am #

It takes a really damaged mind to conceive of your own sexuality as a weapon to inflict damage against another human being.

I got the impression (though maybe it’s just me) from something Sam said, upthread, that that’s how most of us (“us” being straight-males-in-America) are raised. Unless by “as a weapon to inflict…” you mean “something that should be used as a weapon.” In which case, never mind.

Sam January 4, 2010 at 10:22 am #

Clarisse,

“what’s similar between the two cases, I would call it “rape culture”.”

“the similarity between the two situations is that the “sexual escalation” is framed in a scripted, entitled way.”

sorry, now you lost me with respect to rape culture and entitlement? At what point was my behaviour ‘entitled’ – if anything, it was oppressed by the weight of my assumed obligation to never, ever experiment lest I could inadvertendly cross a woman’s boundaries. Being told “no” upon experimentation in that context already means “demonized”.

“One of these days I’ll stop recommending the book, but Thomas Millar’s YMY essay “Towards a Performance Model of Sex” gets at a lot of this pretty well, I think.”

I read the original comment on feministing.com, that, I think, lead to the essay. I very much agree with the sentiment, but, to be frank, much of what he’s writing on the webpage is very much team sport. I don’t get the “performance” model in his writing.

“One of the assumptions behind learning to break cultural sexual scripts, and carefully negotiate sexuality, is that sometimes killing the sexual vibe is more important than doing something you’re not 100% comfortable with.”

But sometimes it takes experimentation to find out about new things you may like. Again, we should all become more comfortable with talking about our and other’s sexuality, but while that’s probably going to help, it’s not going to solve the logical ‘problem’. There needs to be a space for “experimentation is ok” and that cannot merely be ‘female touch is ok, male touch is bad’.

“But there is simply no way for this situation to be its own solution. If people want to persist in their discomfort and fail to talk directly about sexual encounters, then I certainly can’t stop them, but in that case they will continue to accidentally take things too far too fast, and they will probably continue to feel bad about it too.”

I agree that that’s not a first-best solution, but it wouldn’t be too bad to stop having a discourse in which “feeling bad” about mistakes in an interaction equals feeling demonized by socialized discourse.

“Again, I agree — and even in BDSM we do this (it is, after all, nearly impossible to negotiate absolutely every single step between “starting to flirt” and “leaping into bed together”). But the thing is that “reciprocating rates of escalation” are simply never going to be a sure thing. And so if you’re in a situation where you want a sure thing, or for some reason you’re not comfortable with the “reciprocating rate of escalation”, then there is no other way out besides learning to actually talk about it. Or if there is another way then I haven’t encountered it and would love to hear about it.”

I think it’s generally a good idea to be bolder in the initial stages rather than later. Almost everything, starting from saying hello, is based on assumed consent rather than positive knowledge. Plus, everyon loves wiggle room. I think it’s generally a good idea to be more careful the more physical an interaction becomes. But the structure is still the same, somebody has to jump and initiate, if only verbally, or nothing will happen.

And if ever want to get out of our mutual double binds, we need to stop having a general public discourse at least implying that initiating is both the sign of masculinity and borderline predatory/rapist (‘pushing a woman’)…

typhonblue January 4, 2010 at 10:58 am #

I got the impression (though maybe it’s just me) from something Sam said, upthread, that that’s how most of us (“us” being straight-males-in-America) are raised. Unless by “as a weapon to inflict…” you mean “something that should be used as a weapon.” In which case, never mind.

Yeah, that. -.- Sorry.

Motley January 4, 2010 at 11:55 am #

Oh. I was mostly pondering how someone here (I think it was you, but I’m not totally sure) referred to Sam’s description of his upbringing as “sexual abuse.” (Though it might have been “child abuse,” but I don’t remember).

And Sam’s story (not trying to belittle it here) is not unique. I think Desipis (second-to-last paragraph, #221) very well describes the point I was trying to make earlier about our culture having learned the wrong thing from the point feminism was making.

Sam January 4, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

Motley,

“culture having learned the wrong thing from the point feminism was making”

I think that’s an important point, although – to be honest – I think feminism has not been willing to learn the right thing from the point feminism was making. Maybe the assumed male sociopathy is too deepy ingrained socially, perhaps even caused by biological/evolutionary differences of the male/female sexual risk/reward structure that are partly incompatible with our desires as human beings trying to culturally transcend much of our biolgical baggage – hence such incongruencies.

Motley January 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

Yeah. I might be rather naively hoping that the idea of inherent male sociopathy isn’t yet here to stay.

I base this particular assumption on the fact (well, observation) that it seems to be a new thing. The idea that we (guys) were raised to believe that “violating a woman’s boundaries is a mortal sin, and that it will automatically happen if we ever, ever, ever act on our emotions, ever,”* seems to meet (so far) nigh-universal agreement from guys born after the mid ’70′s, but the idea seems totally foreign to most guys older than that. (My informal survey is, of course, not scientifically rigorous)

*And I’m fascinated that typhonblue (or whoever) said that raising people to believe that constitutes abuse. I agree completely, though it’s not something that had occurred to me before.

Toysoldier January 4, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

Clarisse,

Even if we removed the feminist context, what would “fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence” refer to? As for the intention of “rape culture,” perhaps it is not intended to be a simple explanation or limited only to men’s cultural hatred of women. However, that is how is it applied. We do not see, for instance, the questioning how women’s behavior causes and perpetuates female sexual violence against males and we see no discussion about different factors that cause or maintain sexual violence against anyone.

As for non-group member’s involvement in identity discussions, we are talking about identity, which people tend to view as something they “own,” so we must address the issue at some point. Even on a superficial level we see people reacting to anyone they feel is taking or hijacking their identity, such as many liberal feminists reaction to Sarah Palin identifying as a feminist. That is why I keep bringing up other types of identities because I think it demonstrates the importance of this issue in the discussion.

That is also why I asked whether you think masculinity is a specific set of characteristics males are born with. You stated that you think it is “our cultural conception of what maleness is supposed to look like,” which leads me to ask again whether these characteristics are exclusive to males, and if not why should we call it masculinity at all? It makes no sense to call being assertive, dominant or strong “masculine” traits since females can also be assertive, dominant and strong. By adopting the “cultural conception of what maleness is supposed to look like” are not butch lesbians and others who adopt the masculine identity just perpetuating gender stereotypes?

Regarding “rape culture,” it is not too emotionally charged a theory, just a politically-driven fundamentalist theory not intended for non-feminists. Perhaps we should agree to disagree in the same way a Catholic friend of mine and I agree to disagree about “Original Sin” and the immorality of homosexuality. However, as I say to my friend, it is worth trying to understand why others feel harmed by the theories you accept, especially if you wish to discuss those theories with them because few people can discuss theories they find objectionable without it becoming a heated conversation.

Motley January 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

While I don’t really know anything about the value of the term within feminist circles (so this is just an outsider’s perspective) I’d say that “rape culture” seems to be primarily a shock-value term (with the perceived implication that a rapist lurks inside everything that has male genitalia). Useful for shocking other women into believing that rape is a real problem, even if it hasn’t happened to them; not so useful for convincing an unconvinced man that there’s merit in your ideas. (Calling someone a rapist isn’t a good way to get someone to take you seriously, if they haven’t committed any rapes). Sort of the same way that yes, lots of people get killed by cars, but calling anyone who has a car “part of murder-culture” is probably not conversationally useful.

And yeah, far as I can tell, “Mr. Not-Into-Gender-Studies” hears “All men are rapists” whenever someone says “Rape culture.” In short, I’d say it’s a shock-value term, and isn’t useful towards anyone you’re not trying to shock.

Even (heck, especially!) if you mean something different by it; just as if I mean something other than “the head of a committee,” or a “thing people sit on,” I shouldn’t use the word “chair.” Particularly as people already have not just an established meaning, but a lot of already-existing emotional baggage attached to the phrase “rape culture.” “Culture of sexual disrespect” is a lot clunkier, but I think it means what you mean. If there’s a slicker phrase, someone should find it.

Clarisse January 4, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

@Motley — I am willing to believe this is true, but every single rapist can’t possibly do it because they were abused as children
Umm… why not?

You’re right. I suppose it’s conceivable that every single rapist was abused as a child. But this is a very strong claim that I have seen no evidence for (though I have seen evidence that many rapists were abused as children), and therefore I am very skeptical. In fact, I am particularly skeptical because I personally know at least one rapist very well and I am very close to certain that he was not abused as a child.

@Sam — sorry, now you lost me with respect to rape culture and entitlement? At what point was my behaviour ‘entitled

I think the script bit is stronger in your example than the entitlement bit, but actually, I’d say that she demonstrated entitlement by expecting you to “magically know”.

But sometimes it takes experimentation to find out about new things you may like

Sure, but why can’t that be explicitly negotiated? I mean, even as simply as “Is there anything you don’t want me to do? Will you be sure to tell me if there is anything you want me to stop?” Which is (again) how BDSM encounters often go — not by saying “I want you to do XYZ” but by saying “Don’t bite my lips or pierce my nipples, otherwise do what you want and I promise I’ll safeword if I have to!”

I agree that that’s not a first-best solution, but it wouldn’t be too bad to stop having a discourse in which “feeling bad” about mistakes in an interaction equals feeling demonized by socialized discourse.

I don’t know about this. It’s possible that the current discourse has gone a little too far, but I don’t think that a situation in which people feel bad about making mistakes and are afraid to do so is such a negative thing. I say this even as someone who has made some bad mistakes and felt terrible about them (and been shamed for them).

I’d rather have a situation in which the populace is forced to learn how to be more careful, and more explicit, in order to have sex than one in which more mistakes are made and more people are hurt while having sex.

People give a lot of wiggle room currently. I know this doesn’t square with how you feel, but I posit that you’re on an extreme end of the socialized male continuum, and I further posit that your feelings about how much room you have aren’t quite consistent with how much room you actually have (and isn’t this one thing you’ve been giving a lot of examples of?).

@Toysoldier — Even if we removed the feminist context, what would “fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence” refer to?

It would refer to how people tend to think about gender, sexuality, and violence. I don’t understand why this phrase is unclear or impossible to picture as a not-strictly-feminist concept.

By adopting the “cultural conception of what maleness is supposed to look like” are not butch lesbians and others who adopt the masculine identity just perpetuating gender stereotypes?

Yes, but part of the question is how that’s a bad thing; whether it’s a bad thing. Is it always negative to play with a cultural trope? Is there a way to keep a cultural trope while drawing its “fangs”? Asking “why we should call things masculinity” is reasonable, but that’s only one question among many. And most of the other questions have to do with the situation as it currently stands, which means once again that we are back at my descriptive assertion, which you still haven’t addressed: namely, that it’s more useful to start by describing how masculinity currently appears and how it functions and how people are using it, than it is to attempt to “decide” what it “should” be. Assuming we even have the power to decide that. Which we probably don’t.

As for non-group member’s involvement in identity discussions, we are talking about identity, which people tend to view as something they “own,” so we must address the issue at some point. Even on a superficial level we see people reacting to anyone they feel is taking or hijacking their identity

Okay. But is it possible to prevent people from hijacking an identity like that? Isn’t it more productive to try and figure out what the identity looks like, how it’s acting within our culture, and why people are attracted to it? Again, this is just another way to reiterate the descriptive point I’ve been trying to make, but again, I don’t feel like you’ve addressed that.

Regarding “rape culture,” it is not too emotionally charged a theory, just a politically-driven fundamentalist theory not intended for non-feminists. Perhaps we should agree to disagree

Perhaps, or perhaps you should give me an argument that actually describes a reason rape culture does not exist, rather than quarreling with semantics or suggesting that the same issues apply to men.

Desipis January 4, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

Clarisse:

The problem is that the model you are describing is not the One True Way.

I didn’t mean to imply that other ways were not equally valid, but rather that people who operate under the model I described shouldn’t be criticised for doing so, even in the cases where someone’s boundaries are crossed. If one party is uncomfortable with the risks of implicit communication then its certainly reasonable to initiate more explicit communication. However I think that if two people rely on implicit communication while sexual interacting then the responsibility for the risks should be shared and not placed solely on the one who went too far; or as is somewhat the case, solely on the male regardless of who did what.

Desipis January 4, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

Clarisse:

I’d rather have a situation in which the populace is forced to learn how to be more careful, and more explicit, in order to have sex than one in which more mistakes are made and more people are hurt while having sex.

I don’t think we should be forcing models of sexuality on anyone. Certainly educating people about more being more explicit and normalising it would be a good idea, so people feel comfortable choosing a way that personally fits them. However forcing people to approach sex in a certain way feels a bit like forcing people to be heterosexual, some people just aren’t going to want to do things that way.

Sam January 4, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

Clarisse,

will add some info in that “kindle email” I’ll send you later today -

“I’d say that she demonstrated entitlement by expecting you to “magically know”.”

Not really, she was one of the women who actually addressed the issue. Most women are confused by the lack of escalation, but they don’t address it, or don’t take over initiative themselves. So, as for the entitlement of never having to take responsibility for escalation, she actually didn’t exhibit it. To be honest, she had also told me earlier to stop overthinking things and kiss her. So, no. Most women, yes – this case, no.

I don’t know about this. It’s possible that the current discourse has gone a little too far, but I don’t think that a situation in which people feel bad about making mistakes and are afraid to do so is such a negative thing. I say this even as someone who has made some bad mistakes and felt terrible about them (and been shamed for them).

I’d rather have a situation in which the populace is forced to learn how to be more careful, and more explicit, in order to have sex than one in which more mistakes are made and more people are hurt while having sex.

I don’t really see how that’s mutually exclusive.

People give a lot of wiggle room currently. I know this doesn’t square with how you feel, but I posit that you’re on an extreme end of the socialized male continuum, and I further posit that your feelings about how much room you have aren’t quite consistent with how much room you actually have (and isn’t this one thing you’ve been giving a lot of examples of?).

I agree as to me being particular in this respect (and it is always hard to understand when generalizations are useful and when not if all you have is your own perspective ), yet I’m not sure what you refer to with respect to the “lot of examples”.

I would also say that my particular position of being sexually inhibited due to a number of reasons I have outlined as well as my later attempts to deal with it, especially rationally and partly influenced by a largely hostile gender discourse, and my personal successes including being “very good with women” by now do give me a special, I think useful, perspective with respect to the question of what masculinity means today.

Toysoldier January 4, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

The reason I asked about the phrase is because I am unaware of it being considered a non-feminist concept. Your answer indicates it is essentially a feminist concept, meaning the context cannot be separated from the definition. Who wrote the definition is less important than the ideology that informs the definition, in which case my answer to your question is yes, I would still find the definition biased because the ideological framework that informs it. That does not mean no one should discuss “rape culture,” only that, like the “culture war” or the “war on traditional values,” we should remain cognizant of the political and ideological views attached to the theory.

Asserting that anyone can be masculine or can adopt the identity is an attempt to decide what masculinity should be. There is no way of getting around that. As for describing how masculinity currently appears, how it functions and how people are using it, that is what I have been doing. We simply disagree on how it functions and whether anyone other than males can “use” it. However, I think the question about why we should call the identity “masculinity” if it is just a cultural concept is worthy of being addressed.

And while it is not possible to prevent people from hijacking an identity, that does not change the reaction it will prompt from the people who belief they own the identity. Yes, it is worthwhile to learn the whats, whys and hows of people’s attraction to a given identity, but we must also accept that there will be objections and we must give those objections due credence, the point being that we cannot simultaneously acknowledge and ignore the importance an identity has for people.

Asking that I present an argument disproving “rape culture” is the logical fallacy of demanding negative proof. You are asserting that “rape culture” exists and that the theory is useful, so it is your burden to prove that. Conversely, I do not have to prove “rape culture” does not exist to find the theory flawed in the same way that one need not prove God does not exist to find Christian theories flawed.

typhonblue January 4, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

Clarisse:

In fact, I am particularly skeptical because I personally know at least one rapist very well and I am very close to certain that he was not abused as a child.

How do you know? Most of the people who know me ‘very well’ would never guess I was abused as a child. I would guess the only, and I mean only, person who truly knows if someone is abused as a child is the person themselves. And often people who are abused don’t even begin to acknowledge it to themselves much less talk about it.

As for the rest of it. Wow, I’m exhausted just discussing this issue. Can’t imagine how exhausting and defeating it must be for men to haul all this sexual stigma around.

Once again, I feel for you guys. :(

Motley January 5, 2010 at 7:18 am #

@typhonblue–thanks, that’s what I was about to say. The presence of childhood abuse is nigh-impossible to disprove; if you don’t know that someone’s been abused, that only indicates that you don’t know if they have or not. Which is really annoying for survey purposes.

Can’t imagine how exhausting and defeating it must be for men to haul all this sexual stigma around.

That’s where all those “Nice Guys” come from. @Sam, I’d say you got a particularly severe case of it, but your overall experience seems to be an outlier not in the nature of the problem, but in how well you’ve handled it. The fact that you’re not spending all your internet time ranting about “how horrible women are” in some passive-aggressive sort of way speaks well of you. Most men (disclaimer: “As far as I know”) who are very concerned with women’s boundaries become Nice Guys. I’d imagine that’s because most women aren’t socialized to initiate, and someone concerned with other people’s boundaries won’t initiate… but will think that they’re doing things right, and be upset when failure-to-initiate doesn’t get them any dates. I know the Nice Guy doesn’t get a lot of love on the internets, but I’ve generally found that people who suck, generally suck because their life sucks–and that at least half of the suckiness of their life is not their fault. Pardon the goofy phrasing.

@Clarisse I’d rather have a situation in which the populace is forced… While what you suggest doesn’t sound problematic, I’m inherently skeptical whenever someone says that in a conversation about sex and culture. But semantics aside, yeah. Having a culture where, instead of a negotiation, it’s just up to the guy to guess, is a problem. (Guess wrong in the overly-polite direction, and you end up a Nice Guy. Guess wrong in the other direction, and congrats, you’re a rapist.)

But a lot of people think that talking about that is a mood-killer (and killing the mood early on usually ends the relationship before it begins).

Sam January 5, 2010 at 9:40 am #

Motley,

I think “nice guys” and “nice girls” cannot be reduced to a single set of symptoms or causes – and while I think that a certain inability to appropriately navigate the social/inter-gender space is a necessary ingredient, I think only a part of those to whom the concept applies actually do worry about other people’s boundaries, it’s just that they are afraid of setting their own – a certain emotional exploitation and deception is always part of being a nice guy/girl. But I find it striking that the role of the other person in such a relationship is consistently downplayed in feminist discussions about this phenomenon (I have a hunch that’s because they are realizing that they are looking at some kind of feminist collateral damage) – as if the other party (usually thought to be a woman) were completely unable to see that they are in an unhealthy relationship because of the superior strategic acting displayed by the nice guy. I think the nice guy discussion as – pretty much the only thing online feminists care about when it comes to dating – is a particularly weak spot of their discourse about masculinity. Because it’s a coded version of “they should know magically even though I usually say the opposite”. It makes feminist discourse, particulary feminist discourse about masculinity, come off as a “test” for men to ignore. This doesn’t help anyone.

Best nice-guy thread I’ve ever read:

http://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/absolutely-fun-and-true-fact-4-the-history-of-nice-guys/

“The fact that you’re not spending all your internet time ranting about “how horrible women are” in some passive-aggressive sort of way speaks well of you.”

Thanks. As I said, I’m a particuar, possibly peculiar, case. Most women are good people, and while I agree that the feminist mantra of treating them as “just people” in the context of a sexualised interaction will not be enough to create sexual attraction, it certainly is a good starting point – albeit one that is difficult to get for men who have spent most of their forming years not interacting with women, but seeing them from afar, particularly with respect to sexual interest.

I was always lucky enough to be around girls who were interested in me even when I wasn’t giving out any vibe, from early on – I still have a stuffed animal that I was given by a girl when I was eleven, because, she said, “she loved me”.

So it was always relatively easy to understand that the core of my problems had nothing to do with individual women (except for, partly, those (mother, grandmother) raising me) but rather with the way I had internalized socialized messages about myself and my male sexuality and the way I processes them. What wasn’t/isn’t easy is dealing with it in a productive way. I took me almost a decade to get to that point. I’ve come a long way, but I’m not quite there yet – and there’s a fair chance I’ll never be able to shake this completely.

I feel like the construct masculinity is particular relevant to the rational processing of my psychological issues – and that these psychological issues are rather relevant for the concept – which is why I find this exchange so helpful :)

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 11:00 am #

I might be rather naively hoping that the idea of inherent male sociopathy isn’t yet here to stay.

I rather hope the same thing about female sociopathy. But I digress.

In the west we believe that killing someone is easy. Not because we’ve ever killed anyone, but because that’s how it’s portrayed on movies and in TV.*

Killing another human being is extremely difficult because we have strong instincts against it. If we look at the history of modern warfare, this instinct is most obvious. Most soldiers prior to the 1950s never fired their guns at a living target (in war, the majority of death is due to artillery barrages.) The modern armed forces had to develop a conditioning regime to counteract this instinct. But even if you condition a man to kill, that doesn’t mean you’ve made him a killer–thus the high rate of psychiatric casualties in modern wars.

And this aversion to taking a life holds true _even if the other guy is shooting at you!_

I think humans have similar instincts regarding sexual predation as they do around killing another human. I think that this disconnect between how easy people think killing is and how hard it is in reality holds for rape as well.

I believe the average human would not rape under any circumstance except if he or she was conditioned to violate another person’s boundaries by _having his or her boundaries violated in the same way_.

Part of this may be simple social contract–we live by certain rules of behavior because we want others to follow them as well. Implicit in a rapist’s actions is that rape is acceptable behavior to him/her. Which is, possibly, one way of resolving the problem of a child’s inherent belief in the goodness of his or her caretakers and their exploitative behavior by normalizing exploitative behavior as acceptable.

* Part of the reason is that the average action hero (male or female) would have to be a sociopath to behave in real life the way he or she does in fiction.

Motley January 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

@Sam …which is why I find this exchange so helpful
Yeah, me too, though for wildly differing reasons :)

Anyway, I read the “nice guy” post (haven’t read the comments; should I?) And I’d have to disagree on the notion that there isn’t one “root cause” for the Nice Guy phenomenon. To the extent that it is a single phenomenon–meaning that all “Nice Guys” share certain traits and history–it’d be very strange for them not to also share a cause. In the same way that, say, all balloons filled with helium tend to rise; if the same thing keeps happening, there’s probably the same cause at work.

Basically, one guy being an asshole in a particular way doesn’t signify much; a lot of people acting in the same way is a trend, and trends have causes (well, sets of causes).

In this case, I’d say that a lot of the Nice Guy tendency comes from a lack of being honest about what they want from a woman. Which in turn comes (largely) from a fear of rejection, combined with being told that telling a woman what you want constitutes sexual assault. (Ahem, I mean “Pressuring a woman and violating her boundaries.”) You see the problem.

Yeah, incidentally, I often find myself playing devil’s advocate… one useful side-effect of my condition is that it’s easy for me to understand things without condoning or agreeing with them.

@Typhonblue–
I wouldn’t have said that our culture has an idea of inherent female sociopathy–quite the opposite. But I’m basing that notion on, well, not a lot. Either that or I don’t understand what you’re saying at all… could you elucidate?

I’d have to agree with you about the average human not being willing to rape, under any circumstances–but that’s only true using the outdated definition of rape. By law (if I recall correctly), if a man and a woman get drunk and have sex, the man’s a rapist. So by our new definition, every man’s a potential (even likely–since most people don’t carry a breathalyzer to bed) rapist–but the word doesn’t mean anything.

That gets to why I don’t think the term “rape culture” is useful. Using a broad enough definition to make it true, makes it largely meaningless. Unless I’m misunderstanding something somewhere (which is probable).

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

Missed this.

Sam:

Maybe the assumed male sociopathy is too deepy ingrained socially, perhaps even caused by biological/evolutionary differences of the male/female sexual risk/reward structure that are partly incompatible with our desires as human beings trying to culturally transcend much of our biolgical baggage – hence such incongruencies.

I think it’s about as fair to see men as innately sociopathic due to our pre-conceptions about the power differential in courtship* as it is to see women as innately sociopathic due to the power differential between mother and child. There have been societies that have viewed women in this way.

Assuming it favors men over women all that much. I don’t think it does. I think men and women have different types of risk in relation to mating and associated behaviors. And there seems to be evidence that men and women have equal risk of being sexually exploited by their opposite sex partner.

Sam… does evidence regarding the equality of risk for sexual exploitation change your anxieties about overstepping women’s boundaries at all?

Motley:

I might be rather naively hoping that the idea of inherent male sociopathy isn’t yet here to stay.

I just realized my response to your statement doesn’t make any sense in the context of what you were responding to.

Reading comprehension is not my strong suit today.

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

Yeah, incidentally, I often find myself playing devil’s advocate… one useful side-effect of my condition is that it’s easy for me to understand things without condoning or agreeing with them.

Condition?

Or should I not ask?

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

Sorry for the triple post.

I think it’s about as fair to see men as innately sociopathic due to our pre-conceptions about the power differential in courtship* as it is to see women as innately sociopathic due to the power differential between mother and child. There have been societies that have viewed women in this way.

One of the things that struck me most when moving from a middle eastern culture to a western culture is a parallel in the process of ‘sinisterizing’ one gender.

I’m using the word ‘sinisterizing’ to describe a gender being placed in a category outside moral society; a category of innate sociopathy and automatic suspicion.

Another interesting thing is that I noticed the people who are often most culpable in ‘sinisterization’ belong to the gender being ‘sinisterized’. They don’t want to be associated with ‘that woman’ or ‘that man’ so they shout down and punish their own gender with the greatest vitriol.

Motley January 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

Oh, did you mean the assumption of inherent female sociopathy in middle eastern culture? (If not, then I’m still confused).

As to fairness, I’d say that the men-as-automatic-sociopaths (I’ll explain in a moment why I find that hilarious) comes from the fact that our abuse of women leaves obvious, visible, physical results. The immediate results of the reverse tend to be invisible. So they tend to get ignored. I’m not railing against this–that would be pointless. People tend to ignore things they can’t see.

Condition? Or should I not ask?

(Warning: Imminent oversharing. Not sure if this is the place for this. Clarisse, if I’m out of line, feel free to delete. You won’t hurt my feelings.)
I assumed I might end up bringing this up (and the attached issues), which is why I started using this name. I used to refer to that particular personality quirk as “my nature,” but certain persons suggest that anything with which you’ve been diagnosed is something you can get away with calling a “condition,” so I play along.

It’s where my interest in the subject comes from, as it’s led me to think a lot about gender issues an a practical level. People are intensely complicated things, and not all of us came with the same seemingly-innate script hardwired into us.

It’s a little awkward writing about this, and I have no idea how to do it without seeming… odd? Not sure what word to use. I put a lot of work into not seeming strange or threatening. I’ve known since I was very young that I wasn’t like everyone else (until I got to know a few more like me, and was pretty glad that I didn’t know more); I figured out pretty young that I should put a lot of effort into concealing my particular differences. So I have some sympathy, maybe, for invisible minorities. I’m one of them. Though, in many ways, a lucky one–one of the common traits for my condition is a talent for concealing the symptoms, and I’m no exception to that. Basically–skipping all the technical jargon–I don’t really have natural empathy for other people. People who know me very well (and certain professionals) have used the (non-technical) term “sociopath.” All in all, I don’t really object to it. Though the word gets flung around a lot, meaninglessly (Dear Internet: “Sociopath” and “Person who disagrees with me” are not the same thing, even when we’re talking about morals).

So that’s why I care about this topic. I spent a lot of time learning the script, but the script is flawed (everyone who think about it seems to agree on that). Now people are looking for a new script; I’m interested in the results (because I like having a script), and I have a little to offer (as I’ve studied a lot of these things, albeit from a different angle). So I figured I’d join in, and help where I can.

(Silly side note: Almost every time I’ve typed the word “condition” above, I’ve started to type “nature” first. It’s more difficult than I’d expected.)

(Silly side note #2: I do not know if I’m going to actually click the “Submit Comment” button below. I suspect I will, just because a)it’d be absurd of me to’ve typed all this and then not actually put it up as intended, and b)it’d be sloppy of me to mention it and then not explain. I’m rather amused by my own uncertainty.)

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

Oh, did you mean the assumption of inherent female sociopathy in middle eastern culture? (If not, then I’m still confused).

That works. However what I originally meant was an end to female sociopathy.

As to fairness, I’d say that the men-as-automatic-sociopaths (I’ll explain in a moment why I find that hilarious) comes from the fact that our abuse of women leaves obvious, visible, physical results. The immediate results of the reverse tend to be invisible.

Except when it doesn’t.

Basically–skipping all the technical jargon–I don’t really have natural empathy for other people. People who know me very well (and certain professionals) have used the (non-technical) term “sociopath.”

Hm… so nothing stops you from actually harming others in pursuit of your own interests?

BTW, I think I have the opposite problem. My empathy is nearly crippling and I feel it for _everyone_ even people others think deserve no empathy–rapists, child molesters, murderers, etc. I can’t help but wonder what horrible things made them that way.

Motley January 5, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

Except when it doesn’t.

Hey, I said “tends!” :)

Hm… so nothing stops you from actually harming others in pursuit of your own interests?

There’s actually two statements in that one. Lots of things stop me from harming others. By which I mean, there are a great many factors aligning my own (perceived) interests against harming others. There’s a difference between “sociopath” and “mindless destructive monster.”

Put another way: Much as I might enjoy hurting someone, it’s really not worth it. (I’m apparently an atypical example, in several ways, particularly in the extent to which I’ve learned to consider long-term interests over short-term. But I wasn’t born that way.) What stops me from setting anyone on fire (other than the fact that it’d be unethical, without proper cause) is the fact that my wife wouldn’t like it, my friends wouldn’t like it, my employer wouldn’t like it, and the authorities wouldn’t like it. And I have very good reasons to want to keep all of the above-mentioned parties happy with me.

BTW, I think I have the opposite problem.
Oddly, though, I sometimes have a similar…problem? Perspective? Something like that. Does it make sense if I phrased it as “I think that everyone is as deserving of sympathy as anyone else”?

Sam January 5, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

Motley,

“In this case, I’d say that a lot of the Nice Guy tendency comes from a lack of being honest about what they want from a woman. Which in turn comes (largely) from a fear of rejection, combined with being told that telling a woman what you want constitutes sexual assault. (Ahem, I mean “Pressuring a woman and violating her boundaries.”) You see the problem.”

Yeah, if you see that not as symptom but cause, then you’re right about the common cause.

“By law (if I recall correctly), if a man and a woman get drunk and have sex, the man’s a rapist.”

I don’t think that’s the legal definitiona, I think that’s what some feminists would like to be the definition and the burden of proof, remembering a couple of blog posts. But there are also a lot of feminists who insist on a woman’s right to make drunk decisions, and possibly, mistakes, without giving her the right to ex-post label that mistake rape if it really wasn’t.

Luckily, I think most women and men are aware that in dubio pro reo is too important a principle of civilisation to disregard it because some crimes are harder to prove than others, rape being one of them.

I think there is an important difference between a “legal rapist” and a “cultural rapist”. The latter is a construct based on “Dworkinian” feminism and the socialised belief in sociopathic male sexuality. As a cultural concept, I don’t think it has too much to do with the former, it is a problematic consequence of a social discourse about sexuality and personal boundaries that is no longer structured by legal institutions – like marriage – in which, until a couple of years ago, rape was not even considered possible.

While this changing discourse is good and appropriate and valuable, it is mostly based on feminist vocabulary and thus largely exclusive to men – even though there are notable exceptions, like Naomi Wolf, for example.

“Sam… does evidence regarding the equality of risk for sexual exploitation change your anxieties about overstepping women’s boundaries at all?”

Not really. These anxieties are caused by my internalisazion of problematic beliefs about my sexuality and as such need to be dealt with by me. I need to believe and trust in the value of my touch – this is a longer term cognitive-behavioural issue and rational input will only help marginally in the short run. But it’s still an impportant point for our social discourse – something that may have very well had an impact on my perception during my formative years. So, changing the socio-psychological setup in this respect is certainly a valuable aspect.

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

I’ve been doing some thinking on ‘rape culture’ and how it relates to what I’ve been saying about rape and murder being pretty much impossible for the average human to do.

From what I understand, ‘rape culture’ essentially makes a connection between sexual objectification and rape itself.

However, why not posit a ‘murder’ culture based on the same connection? After all, I’ve heard many people say things like, ‘I want to kill him/her!’ Doesn’t that make them complicit in a culture that condones killing?

Or can we make a distinction between what people say and even think and what they do? Because I believe far fewer people are capable of murder then those who talk about it or fantasize about it.

Wendell January 5, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

I’m jumping into this late, and have only read this post and some of the comments on it, so apologies if I stray off-topic.

I dig your post, Clarisse, and I dig the quotes you included from Richard Jeffrey Newman.

@ TS/Toysoldier — You wrote somewhere above: “Feminists should not dictate what men’s identities should be.”

Which feminists are doing this, and which should not be doing this? I’m a feminist and was born biologically male. Am I allowed to?

You also wrote: “Asserting that anyone can be masculine or can adopt the identity is an attempt to decide what masculinity should be.”

How do you feel about women who identify as butch? About genderqueer people? Why feel threatened by people who take on an identity–people you seem to think do so with impugnity–you may share with them? I submit the taking on of an identity is not as frivolous as you imply.

Also, of course masculinity is socially constructed–you pointed out yourself that its definition has changed over history. There’s your social context! The fact that it has also been historically proscribed to people with penises is what those who are playing with ideas of masculinity are “queering.” I, for one, find this refreshing.

What are the specific ways in which masculinity is being defined by people who shouldn’t define it that you find problematic?

And frankly, I’m offended that you are even hinting at rape culture not existing. To me this amounts to rape apology. Why are you on a BSDM blog, where consent is a *critical* element of its foundation, not recognizing its importance elsewhere?

On to my own part 2…

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

To me this amounts to rape apology.

TS, I’m sorry in advance if what Wendell says triggers you.

Crap, I wish there was something more I could do for you as soon as you read his post. I guess all I can do is say you’ve got my support and I hope his words don’t hurt too badly. Good luck.

*hugs*

Wendell January 5, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

I had an exchange about having a men’s space at my college back in the late ’90s, and it was great in that he and I really got to the center of what we thought about it. My position was no, and my reason was that I did not want to have a space that was in reaction to the space for women on campus, because I felt this reason for forming one would create a “safe space” where, among other things, men would gripe about women. As of now, I’m undecided about “men’s spaces,” but I’ll outline what I am clear on.

Around the feminist blogosphere, I’ve seen “PHMT” (patriarchy hurts men, too), and “what about the men?” literally and implied, in many comments on posts I feel aren’t–nor should they–talking about men. I see this fitting into a larger narrative of how many men look to women as their emotional laborers, and when women aren’t being attentive to them, they make a stink.

A phrase I’ve come to find powerful for me is “isn’t not your fault, but it’s your responsibility.” I mean this in keeping with “what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger,” in that whatever trials and tribulations you’ve gone through, you’ve come out the other side *and* learned from them. You’ve grown.

One could also interpret the fault/responsibility thing as (in the context of discussing men), it’s not your fault that patriarchy/kyriarchy exists, but it’s your responsibility to undo it. You still have benefits you cannot undo, because these have to do with others’ perceptions of you as a male person (one main example), but there is plenty you can do to fuck shit up, to change things in your immediate realm.

Now, here’s a bridge: just from reading Clarisse’s post “Sex positive women aren’t out to steal your man,” I see she’s done her own emotional labor *for herself,* feels more true to who she is, and can live in a manner that does justice to this. She’s taken responsibility for herself. Because we raise most boys to believe that women are their emotional laborers, more often than not they don’t even consider that they can take ownership of their troubles, take responsibility for being who they want to be even if they don’t know what that looks like yet, and find ways to do their own emotional labor to get to that point. It is true that girls/women tend to be raised with more training as to how to be emotionally responsible for themselves, but this is almost always part and parcel of also being others’ emotional laborers.

My own story involves being very fortunate that those close to me were there for me in a time of need, but I had to figure out what I needed, and ask for this kind of help. My examples were people–men, women, and otherwise defined–who have gone through rough times and found the courage to ask for help, and define for themselves what they went through. My own story involves having wonderful luck in finding a counselor who was professional and incredibly helpful in giving me tools to realize myself and to continue the process. That’s just one example, but what I want to show is that #1. I’m a ginormous believer in asking for help, and #2. I feel professional support networks of all kinds–even including “mixed” spaces like sexuality discussion groups that Clarisse has both created and proposed–must be in place and accessible to anyone who should want them. I’m wary of “men’s spaces” still, in that I feel homogeneity does not truly forward dialog. There may be some instances where they could help, but from what I’ve seen I’m incredibly skeptical.

If you’re flying and those oxygen masks fall, you must put yours on first before helping the person next to you.

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 11:44 pm #

It is true that girls/women tend to be raised with more training as to how to be emotionally responsible for themselves, but this is almost always part and parcel of also being others’ emotional laborers.

Could you explain this concept further?

I’m wary of “men’s spaces” still, in that I feel homogeneity does not truly forward dialog.

Are you wary of women’s spaces?

Wendell January 5, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

@ typhonblue and TS: If I missed a larger context for his/your words, I apologize, but I’m going to call it like I see it. One can take incredible issue with something someone said, and get passionate about a subject while maintaining some semblance of decorum.

I don’t see an “I statement” as something meant to personally disparage.

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

I don’t see an “I statement” as something meant to personally disparage.

I never said you meant it to disparage, however TS is a victim of rape and being told he is a ‘rape appologist’ is potentially triggering.

I wanted him to know that there was someone who recognized his pain because I know how isolating his situation can be. I wish I could do more to relieve it.

Okay, enough on this, I’m tired of balling my eyes out.

Wendell January 5, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

I’m not wary of women’s spaces because I don’t see a problem with a group of people who tend to be categorically oppressed (obviously I’m not doing justice to race, socioeconomics, sexuality, and all that good stuff).

As far as emotional laborers are concerned–do you notice that when women ask for what they want–like Clarisse did in “Sex positive women aren’t out to steal your man”–her partner at the time brushed off her request? And yet they must be open to a man’s? They have to look after others, at the expense of themselves? Until they are able to use those tools for themselves?

Feminism is an incredibly useful way–among many–of framing things. Shift those perceptions, try new ideas.

Wendell January 5, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

@ TS and typhonblue– No one deserves to have that happen to them. My sincere apologies about the tone of my comments.

typhonblue January 5, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

As far as emotional laborers are concerned–do you notice that when women ask for what they want–like Clarisse did in “Sex positive women aren’t out to steal your man”–her partner at the time brushed off her request? And yet they must be open to a man’s?

By what mechanism are they forced to be ‘open to a man’s request?’

They have to look after others, at the expense of themselves? Until they are able to use those tools for themselves?

I’m just curious what women doing ‘emotional labor’ for men looks like. Does it mean that they take more of an effort to understand the male point of view? In which case they must have a deeper understanding of the difficulties of being male then the difficulties of being female, correct?

As someone who has spent time around women doing the emotional labor of men, can you tell me what they’ve discovered about the difficulties of being male?

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 12:20 am #

Does it mean that they take more of an effort to understand the male point of view?

I’m interpreting ‘emotional labor’ as another way of saying compassion.

As someone heavily influenced by buddhism, I see compassion in terms of recognizing the suffering of others.

So when you say that women do ‘emotional labor’ for men even to the exclusion of doing their own emotional labor, I’m interpreting this to mean that women are recognizing the suffering of men even to the exclusion of recognizing their own.

Because of this, I’m curious what they’ve recognized about men’s suffering vs. women’s suffering. I imagine that although they may never mention nor allude to their own(women’s) suffering, they are scholars when it comes to men’s. Thus I’m eager to learn more about their observations on men’s suffering.

desipis January 6, 2010 at 12:57 am #

Wendell,

I’m not wary of women’s spaces because I don’t see a problem with a group of people who tend to be categorically oppressed

Well I think I see the problem: you’re ignorant (or in denial) of the ways in which men are oppressed.

A phrase I’ve come to find powerful for me is “isn’t not your fault, but it’s your responsibility.”

The responsiblitiy (if any) is to work towards a fair and just society in they way each of us feels is best, not in the way that some feminist chooses to dictate. That said I think I’ll have to pull out that line next time someone makes claims about “victim blaming”.

desipis January 6, 2010 at 1:21 am #

And frankly, I’m offended that you are even hinting at rape culture not existing. To me this amounts to rape apology.

What exactly does this mean? That if you disagree with a particular theroy about what motivates rapists that you must think rape is acceptable? What an intellectually repugnant false dichotomy.

machina January 6, 2010 at 4:09 am #

The problem I have with rape culture is I don’t know what people mean by it. Not that I have no understanding of it, but that I can’t be sure what people mean by it when they bring it up.

Rape culture, as far as I can tell, began as a radical feminist concept, stemming from Susan Borwnmiller’s 1975 book Against Our Will, where rape is a conscious and systematic tactic used by men to oppress women as a class, and that culture such as pornography promoted it. Thus anti- porn, prostitution, BDSM, etc. feminism. Then you have sex-positive feminism developing as a reaction to the “antis” in the eighties. However rape culture has since been integrated into sex-positive feminism, but it seems to be more concerned with how sexism and dysfunctional attitudes towards sex promote rape than the role of rape and rape culture in maintaining women as a subordinate class.

The problem is that the way that rape culture is described often doesn’t specify what, of quite different and at times mutually exclusive, form of rape culture is being talked about. I definitely disagree with the radical feminist argument that the oppressive nature of rape means that any form of rape culture should be opposed, as this leads to individuals who don’t find porn, prositution, BDSM, etc. personally problematic being castigated for their part in rape culture. On the other hand I think discussing how rape can be reduced is an obviously good idea, and there are some interesting feminist ideas regarding it.

Motley January 6, 2010 at 7:48 am #

@typhonblue

From what I understand, ‘rape culture’ essentially makes a connection between sexual objectification and rape itself.

Yeah, hence my comment about shock value–it’s attempting to shock people with the notion that, by objectifying women, they’re essentially participating in rape. Useful in some circumstances, not useful when you’re not trying to shock people. In much the way that –while it’s true that cars kill a lot of people–calling anyone who owns a car “murderer” or “murder apologist” isn’t useful.

And then calling anyone who disagrees with you about that a murder apologist… hoo boy. Name-calling (even implied name-calling) really rarely makes people more likely to listen to you.

As to “doing the emotional labor”–I’m quite curious as to what this actually means. I have a couple theories, but they’re just that. I wonder if this ties into one of my own pet theories–basically, that (to borrow typhonblue’s excellent terminology above) women seem not to have trouble in running the monkey-brain and person-brain at the same time. Read an article about this, ages ago, about how women usually operate both halves of the brain at the same time, while for men, the electrical activity tends to mostly be on one side or the other. Implications are that a man is either feeling an emotion or thinking rationally, seldom both. While women are rarely thinking purely rationally, and are also rarely completely lost to emotion. I suspect that’s why you get the two common-but-contradictory stereotypes about women being a)flighty and irrational and b)cold and calculating in matters of the heart. And yeah, isn’t it a little odd that the contradiction isn’t widely noticed? Similarly, I’d say it’s where (in part, at least) the stereotype about men not talking about their feelings comes from–when we’re thinking–and thus more able to put together words–we’re not really feeling much. And when we’re feeling something, that part of the brain responsible for putting words to perceptions isn’t switched on.

Motley January 6, 2010 at 7:53 am #

Sorry for the double-post.
@Sam–
Yeah, if you see that not as symptom but cause, then you’re right about the common cause.

Yeah, true. Correlation not implying causation (viz. xkcd) and all.

I don’t think that’s the legal definition
Heard somewhere it was… but since my source is “I heard it somewhere” and wikipedia doesn’t seem to say one way or the other… dunno. It’s just something a lot of us were told when entering college–”Don’t have sex with drunk girls, ’cause that’s legally rape” or some such.

Clarisse Thorn January 6, 2010 at 10:34 am #

@Desipis — However I think that if two people rely on implicit communication while sexual interacting then the responsibility for the risks should be shared and not placed solely on the one who went too far.

I really feel uncomfortable with this assertion. I think that if people are going to rely on implicit communication then at the very least the lion’s share of the risk should go to the aggressor. I recognize that this means that in a society where men are expected to be aggressors, men will be at higher risk, but I’m okay with that. Not because I hate men — it’s just that I’m not willing to back off from what I think is the truth just because the whole model is flawed …. In a society where females were expected to be the aggressors, I would hope that I’d assert the same thing.

If someone is prepared to be an aggressor, then they should be prepared to take on the responsibilities therein. This is how things work in BDSM (ideally, anyway) — that is, ideally tops are supposed to take the responsibility of stopping when their partner wants them to stop — and I’m a hell of a lot more comfortable with that than I would be if bottoms were supposed to take on the “responsibility” of routinely enduring more than they want. I say this even as someone who has fucked up as a top. Yeah it sucks to always be on the alert and to have to be paranoid about stopping even when you’re in the heat of the moment. It really sucks. But the alternative is violating my partner, and that’s unacceptable.

rather that people who operate under the model I described shouldn’t be criticised for doing so, even in the cases where someone’s boundaries are crossed

I agree that they shouldn’t be criticized for doing so, generally …. But if we won’t criticize them when boundaries are crossed, then what does that mean? That boundaries are just routinely crossed and it’s okay? To put it in stronger language: that people are just routinely violated and that’s okay? That can’t be the answer.

@Sam — I’m not sure what you refer to with respect to the “lot of examples”

I just meant that you’ve been giving a lot of examples where women told you that you could have “gone further” than you had. Which, I figured, supported my argument that you’re an outlier and that people in general tend to take a lot more sexual risks under the “implicit” model / be a lot more entitled than you are. It’s not to say that your perspective isn’t useful!

I’d rather have a situation in which the populace is forced to learn how to be more careful, and more explicit, in order to have sex than one in which more mistakes are made and more people are hurt while having sex.
I don’t really see how that’s mutually exclusive.

You’re right …. I guess it’s just that I’m a little further on the continuum than I think, say, Desipis is. If we have a continuum where one end is “more risk for the aggressor” and one end is “more risk for the receiver (? not an ideal term, but the best I can come up with)”, then I am much closer to the former than the latter. And I think that a situation in which aggressors are forced to take more of the responsibility will mean that the populace is forced to learn how to be more careful and explicit. And I don’t see that as a bad thing at all.

@TS — You are asserting that “rape culture” exists and that the theory is useful, so it is your burden to prove that.

There are a few links along this thread. Here is one of my favorites. You’re right that it’s unreasonable for me to ask you to “disprove” rape culture, but the point I was trying to make is that (at least from my perspective) you haven’t given any arguments that dismantle those examples in any alternative way; you’ve just made semantic arguments and communication arguments. Not to say those aren’t valid arguments, but they aren’t going to make me think rape culture doesn’t exist — they’ll just make me rename it.

Which, I’m starting to think, is actually a good thing. The amount of feedback just in this thread (most recently from machina) about the concept’s development & lack of clarity has convinced me that I’d better avoid it for the most part (certainly outside feminist circles) just to keep my ideas and language sharp.

So maybe it actually won’t be helpful for us to continue to argue about “rape culture” and what it means. Y’all have convinced me that the term is less than useful, generally speaking. I guess at this point I’m more interested in dismantling what I would normally call “examples of rape culture” mean to you guys. For example: TS, I would really be interested in how you would describe the factors underlying the link I gave above.

And. Ok. I think I grasp your points about identity. But I’m not sure where that leaves us. Maybe it will help if I ask a concrete question. Suppose I was holding a symposium on masculinity. Who would you think I should invite, what would the questions be, and what should I do with the results (papers, art, whatever)?

@typhonblue — How do you know?

You’re right, I don’t know for sure. I’m just almost positive. But speaking of how TS pointed out the logical fallacy of negative proof, I think you’re the one who has to prove that all rapists without exception were abused as children.

Right now it seems like you and I have theories that are not incompatible, except for the part where you assert that all rapists are doing it because of childhood abuse. I’m content to accept that many rapists are shaped by childhood abuse, but I really think that the social factors that feminists usually describe as “rape culture” are at least as likely to create rapists/rape.

Here is a link that will probably trigger typhonblue (since the author could be construed as discounting female aggressors) and that may piss a lot of the commenters on this thread off, but I found it valuable. In other words, radically-tinged feminism warning; feel free not to read it:
yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

@Motley, Sam — Re: Nice Guys, I remember that when I was first writing this masculinity series I sent it to a friend for feedback and he really made me think by saying:
“Perhaps this is a digression — it happens to be in the forefront of my mind at the moment for other reasons — but this reminds me of the complaints I see in online feminist community about Nice Guy Syndrome. Now there’s a lot of valid critique there, but there’s also an unwholesome tone of personal resentment: “how dare these men be so unattractive … and express frustration that I respond to it as unattractive?” There’s no assumption of good faith, that Nice Guys might be trying clumsily to act responsibly in response to women’s critique of the things they don’t like about performed masculinity; no, Nice Guys are obviously only trying to manipulate women into bed. It’s an ugly manifestation of feminist inability to talk about the challenges of finding an un-sexist masculinity that actually falls into a patriarchal script about masculinity.”

@typhonblue — I think humans have similar instincts regarding sexual predation as they do around killing another human. I think that this disconnect between how easy people think killing is and how hard it is in reality holds for rape as well.

You’re talking as if all rape is performed blatantly, with no ability for the perpetrator to indulge in denial about what’s going on, like a battlefield murder. Here’s a question that I think is really dangerous but interesting: What if there were a “manslaughter” option, but for rape? Note that I DON’T actually support the creation of this option, because I think that a lot of deliberate rape (like the sex worker rape that I linked to above in response to TS) would be disappeared under that definition if it were created. But I do think there is a difference between a planned attack, and an asshole who doesn’t have a good sense for his/her partner’s boundaries … and while I wish the asshole would learn to do better, and while I think the asshole should be put in cultural situations where s/he is encouraged to do better rather than encouraged to continue being an asshole, and while I think the asshole IS STILL COMMITTING RAPE … I’m just not sure the asshole is as much at fault as the attacker.

@Wendell — And frankly, I’m offended that you are even hinting at rape culture not existing. To me this amounts to rape apology.

I know where you’re coming from, Wendell, but I think it’s important to keep our visceral reactions tamped down in a conversation like this one where we’ve got a lot of unfamiliar and different perspectives. The idea that “rape culture” doesn’t exist felt dangerous to me too, very dangerous. But yeah, I’m glad you apologized for the “rape apologist” line, because it’s clear that TS has had some experiences that deserve sympathy and respect, and it’s also clear that he’s thought a lot about these issues, and I want to be sure I can listen to and respect his experience even though he was attacking a concept I considered incredibly important (but will henceforth generally attempt to speak about using other terms).

I agree with Wendell on the emotional labor thing, but I would be interested to see him give references/more explanations as well. I’m not sure how best to describe it and this is already such a long comment and I have other things I have to do sometime today …. I’ll try to come back to this, but for now, yeah, I encourage Wendell to go into it more.

The particular situation I outlined in “Sex positive women aren’t out to steal your man” is interesting because I do see it as demonstrating a problematic male-female dynamic, though I wouldn’t have described it as an issue of emotional entitlement myself: rather sexual entitlement. His sexual needs were being met considerably better than mine, and I think he sensed that it would be a lot of “work” for him to try and help me figure out mine, so it was in his interest to slam me down when I asked for more of a focus on my sexuality. After all, shifting the focus might mean he’d “lose out”, right? Or worse, be forced to actually talk out loud about sex every once in a while? Ugh. I’m glad that relationship is distant history.

Clarisse Thorn January 6, 2010 at 10:38 am #

Addendum:

I said,
Yeah it sucks to always be on the alert and to have to be paranoid about stopping even when you’re in the heat of the moment. It really sucks. But the alternative is violating my partner, and that’s unacceptable.

Also, important note: you get used to it. At first you’re like, Damn it, I really have to be so alert and on top of this shit? I can’t just do what I want? Argh! But it is not only worth it, it is also something you get accustomed to.

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 11:08 am #

I think you’re the one who has to prove that all rapists without exception were abused as children.

That is an impossible standard of proof.

that is, ideally tops are supposed to take the responsibility of stopping when their partner wants them to stop

But don’t bottoms also have the responsibility to _clearly_ indicate when they want the top to stop?

In a situation where a bottom never used a safeword even when it was going too far for him/her, would you consider the top to have more culpability or the bottom?

You’re talking as if all rape is performed blatantly, with no ability for the perpetrator to indulge in denial about what’s going on, like a battlefield murder.

Murder can be performed covertly; poisoning comes to mind.

I’m not saying there can’t be denial, in fact a rapist who is trying to reconcile his or her view of her former caretakers as good and nurturing with rape is likely acting in complete conscious denial when he or she rapes.

But on some level s/he knows what s/he is doing. Otherwise there would be no need for the denial.

Deliberate rape(even with denial) is a different thing entirely from unknowingly violating someone’s boundaries.

Imagine this. We have one dominant who has abused his or her subs past the point where they are screaming the safeword that they both agreed upon.

Then we have a dominant who abused a sub past his or her limits because when the sub first indicated his/her safeword the dominant heard it incorrectly.

The first dominant is an abuser; the second dominant is… what?

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 11:17 am #

I read part of your link, Clarisse, at least as much as I could stand. I didn’t see anything on ‘why’ so I don’t see how their findings contradict what I’ve said. These men were never asked about their own victimization so there is no way of knowing if the percentage of men who used force to obtain sex were violated themselves.

I will add this. If you don’t interview women about their sexual exploitation you, of course, will not find it.

So far I’m maintaining and not huddled in a ball on the floor of a bathroom with my husband hiding the knives. :) Getting better.

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 11:22 am #

I will add this. If you don’t interview women about their sexual exploitation you, of course, will not find it.

I mean sexually exploitative behavior.

*sigh*

Clarisse Thorn January 6, 2010 at 11:25 am #

@typhonblue — But don’t bottoms also have the responsibility to _clearly_ indicate when they want the top to stop?

Yes … but there are a lot of factors that can make it hard for a bottom to safeword.

The best tops I’ve played with knew I needed to stop before I did. And I’ve been in situations where my submissive was so far under, so far into the endorphins, so far into the submission itself, that I had to remind him he had a safeword. (And thank God I did.)

I’ve had at least one top that stopped not because he heard the safeword (in fact he misheard it), but because he could tell by my tone of voice that I needed him to stop right now.

If you’re in charge, and you stop, and the bottom doesn’t want you to stop, then maybe you’ve lost a hot moment, but that is infinitely preferable to actually harming someone. I make the same argument for the mainstream vanilla sex scene. I don’t care if being on alert and occasionally stopping to discuss whether the situation is okay might make the moment less hot. It should be the norm anyway. You can reclaim lost hot moments and work your partner up again, especially with practice. It’s much harder to reclaim lost trust and repair broken boundaries.

The point is that the BDSM subculture forces the top to be on lookout, and that just creates a different dynamic and different priorities. Here is a link that, I think, demonstrates what I’m trying to say:
http://bloodylaughter.com/2008/12/18/5-fuck-ups-part-1/
She fucked up, she was made to feel awful about it. So what if it was a small fuckup? It was bad, it hurt the submissive, it messed with their mutual trust. As a result, instead of being all self-defendy, she “became a rabid communicator”. If she weren’t in a (sub)culture where the top is expected to be on lookout, to be the responsible one, then would she have just denied and pretended the incident away? The same way lots of rapists do in mainstream vanilla culture?

Clarisse Thorn January 6, 2010 at 11:31 am #

Also:

That is an impossible standard of proof.

If your assertion demands an impossible standard of proof to back it up, then your assertion is too strong and you should make a weaker assertion that you can support.

Also, one more note about BDSM experiences: As a primary submissive, and a pretty hardcore one, I’ve had a lot of moments where my partner stopped before I wanted him to stop — because he wanted to check in, etc. It was pretty frustrating at first, but as I’ve gotten older I have — again — gotten used to it. Sure, it sucks to be dragged out of my floating happy subspace just because my partner doesn’t know me too well or whatever, and wants to make sure I’m okay … but it is better than the alternative.

Motley January 6, 2010 at 11:31 am #

@Typhonblue –
The article Clarisse linked to mentions at the bottom that the surveys it’s looking at only surveyed men with regards to women. So of the four possibilities, it’s explicitly only looking at one of ‘em. Would probably be better if it mentioned that up front, rather than at the end.

@Clarisse, re: Nice Guys
What you said more or less contradicts what anti-feminist people say about feminists’ inability to self-critique. Bring this up next time someone accuses you of being “one of those man-haters.” (Especially if I’m that “someone.”)

Though the question usually addressed in other circles is: Why are the Nice Guys unnattractive? Probably an issue for some other time, though.

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

If your assertion demands an impossible standard of proof to back it up, then your assertion is too strong and you should make a weaker assertion that you can support.

I said ‘I believe’. I’m not telling other people what to believe, this is what I believe and why.

I believe that deliberate rape is a hard thing to do and only emotionally damaged people do it.

Non-deliberate violation of boundaries is another kettle of fish.

Yes … but there are a lot of factors that can make it hard for a bottom to safeword.

But, as you’ve said multiple times, you had to learn to take responsibility for your desires and to communicate clearly.

Sam brought up a related point earlier. If women don’t want to take responsibility for their desires–if they want to be almost forced into what they want–how do we change this?

If a bottom refuses to communicate clearly, refuses to set a safeword, refuses even to tell his or her dominant what s/he wants and expects the dominant to just guess, what would the BDSM community suggest in that situation?

I, personally, agree with you that men should respect themselves enough to expect clear and unequivocal communication and walk away if they don’t get it.

However, what about the other half of sexual exploitation? What do women have to do to stop sexually exploiting men?

Motley January 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

@Typhonblue–
I, personally, agree with you that men should respect themselves enough to expect clear and unequivocal communication and walk away if they don’t get it.

If I said “Men should respect themselves enough to expect every woman to be as attractive as Kate Beckinsale (or whoever), and walk away from anyone who isn’t,” would that answer the implied question? :)
Not everyone’s perfect. “Clear and unequivocal communication” in a human is about as common.

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

If I said “Men should respect themselves enough to expect every woman to be as attractive as Kate Beckinsale (or whoever), and walk away from anyone who isn’t,” would that answer the implied question?

Implied question?

Motley January 6, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

When someone says “____ should do x” in a context in which ____ is technically capable of doing x, I always hear it as implying the question, “So why don’t they?”

What I mean is yeah, in a perfect world, people wouldn’t accept non-clear communication in a partner. Similarly, in that perfect world, people would regularly be able to find such a skilled communicator.

However, what about the other half of sexual exploitation? What do women have to do to stop sexually exploiting men?

Just off the top of my head, I’d say I could rattle off a fairly comprehensive list of ways in which men sexually exploit women. The reverse, I’m not actually so sure. Far as I can tell, in most circles that think about this sort of thing, it’s not even universally agreed-upon that women do that. I don’t know if there’s a consensus on the specifics somewhere.

I believe that deliberate rape is a hard thing to do and only emotionally damaged people do it.

Yeah, I’m with you there completely. Though I’d have to say that people can be emotionally damaged without all damage coming from sexual abuse, I guess.
I mean, I’ve never raped anyone–but not due to any innate aversion or moral character. It’s almost entirely happenstance, I’d say. But I don’t think I was abused as a child (if we don’t count post-feminist+christian opinions on male sexuality). Consensus seems to be that some of us are born damaged; looking at the statistics, combined with personal experience, I’d say that the rates usually stated (about one percent) are a lowball estimate. Largely because certain conditions are nigh-impossible to detect alone–usually only the spectacularly unsubtle ones get diagnosed.

Wendell January 6, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

@ desipis– I wrote: “A phrase I’ve come to find powerful for me is “isn’t not your fault, but it’s your responsibility.””

You replied: “The responsiblitiy (if any) is to work towards a fair and just society in they way each of us feels is best, not in the way that some feminist chooses to dictate. That said I think I’ll have to pull out that line next time someone makes claims about “victim blaming”.”

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying–what makes victim blaming so repugnant is the very fact that they are being told it’s their fault. And I’m unclear on who you mean by “some feminist.” Which one(s)?

@ Clarisse re: post #270 (!): You’re right to differentiate between sexual entitlement and emotional entitlement, and it makes sense what you experienced at the conference was the former. I see them as stemming from the same place–women’s boundaries, whether sexual, emotional, or otherwise, tend to be expected to be malleable for the whims and needs of others, regardless whether these others are male, female, or otherwise defined.

An example of emotional labor in its most unhealthy is a domestic violence situation–before the man has ever laid a finger on the woman, bit by bit he erodes her self-esteem by emotional manipulation and insisting she focus on his needs and his alone.

Also, think about how differently people take it when they hear a woman say she needs some “me” time compared with a man. It’s expected of men to be aloof and apart, but if a woman asks to put herself first, even her female friends might think her selfish.

There are many other instances, but I’ll quote Jane Jacobs (even though she was writing about cities) from the “Illustrations” page of her “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”: “The scenes that illustrate this book are all about us. For illustrations, please look at real cities [people, interpersonal relationships, etc.]. While you are looking, you might as well listen, linger and think about what you see.”

Peace, I’m out.

Motley January 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

Peace, I’m out.

So is it too late to ask what on earth he meant by “emotional labor?” Other than the fact that some men abuse some women. (That’s not precisely news.)

And is it wrong of me to be amused at how he ignored typhonblue’s questions?

Wendell January 6, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

Pardon me–post #263 was lost to me among much other obligation and distraction. However, your condescending tone is not appreciated, Motley, nor is your remarkable ability to oversimplify in an attempt to absolve yourself of seriously considering thinking in a different framework.

typhonblue – The mechanism is societal expectation and conditioning. Old habits die hard, and too many don’t even know they have other ways of living and being, because they’ve never seen examples of how to do so.

Emotional labor is partially about coddling, saving men from themselves because both the women and men believe men need to be. Women may be more expected to understand the male point of view than men are expected to understand the women’s. This has been the default for such a long time that when feminism dared question such things, it was immediately attacked and put on the defensive to show why it should be listened to, without the hegemonic power structure having to respond to feminism.

Any wonder why feminists get tired of constantly explaining themselves?

I’m amused no one answered any of the questions I posed with my initial comments, but I’m not surprised; those who benefit most from the status quo will not lower themselves to think about questions posed to it.

Charmed, I’m sure! :)

Motley January 6, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

Ok, I’ll bite.

your remarkable ability to oversimplify in an attempt to absolve yourself of seriously considering thinking in a different framework.

I confess to tremendous jealousy for your remarkable ability to ascertain my motives based on close-to-zero information. Where did you gain such astounding powers of mind-reading? If it’s something that can be learned, I’d love to.

More seriously–the questions you asked initially (presumably directed at TS) were mostly addressed upthread.

And I was mostly referring to typhonblue’s final comment in 264. I’ll copy-paste:

Because of this, I’m curious what they’ve recognized about men’s suffering vs. women’s suffering. I imagine that although they may never mention nor allude to their own(women’s) suffering, they are scholars when it comes to men’s. Thus I’m eager to learn more about their observations on men’s suffering.

Essentially, I think typhonblue was asserting that, if what you’re saying is true, then you should know all about the ways in which men are oppressed. I further suspect that she was making fun of you a bit. But I don’t know, as I don’t have any amazing mind-reading powers :)

Any wonder why feminists get tired of constantly explaining themselves?

No. My first three or four answers to that, though, I won’t take the time to explain here. You can probably extrapolate all of them pretty easily, though, from desipis’ and typhonblue’s comments in the upper 260′s.

In general, I highly recommend scrolling up. The whole thread is worth a read.

Sam January 6, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

Wendell,

“Women may be more expected to understand the male point of view than men are expected to understand the women’s. This has been the default for such a long time that when feminism dared question such things, it was immediately attacked and put on the defensive to show why it should be listened to, without the hegemonic power structure having to respond to feminism.”

This is an assertion that in itself requires acceptance of the axioms of feminist standpoint theory, especially regarding the assertion that women do have an epistemic privilege with respect to matters relating to gender. Without acceptance of that logically inadmissible assertion (look at how Judith Butler killed it, for example) your statement about the “default” is not based on anything but your own opinion/perception of the social reality around you. It is not – a priori – more right or wrong than any other perspective and assertions should really be backed up by more than mere articles of faith. This is not to say that such an anaylsis cannot be valuable, it’s just not epistemolgy – and claiming that it is is just wrong.

This goes back to a point that was discussed at at the top of this thread – the extent to which feminism is demanding acceptance of its own premises before even allowing dialogue – quite a privilege, if you ask me ;).

Sam January 6, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

Clarisse,

You’re right …. I guess it’s just that I’m a little further on the continuum than I think, say, Desipis is. If we have a continuum where one end is “more risk for the aggressor” and one end is “more risk for the receiver (? not an ideal term, but the best I can come up with)”, then I am much closer to the former than the latter. And I think that a situation in which aggressors are forced to take more of the responsibility will mean that the populace is forced to learn how to be more careful and explicit. And I don’t see that as a bad thing at all.

Well, it is not a bad thing. But it does create collateral damage. I’m suffering from that collateral damage. In a way, the two ends of that continuum are “yes means yes” and “no means no” – the former logically requires a commonly agreed set of behavioral standards to know and be able to understand what verbal or body language cues constitute “yes”. This is, in my opinion, a very useful model for a general debate about sexuality, about taking responsibilty and being generally more aware of the needs of other people. But for individual encounters it is less appropriate, because a set of rules will likely be too strict – safewording is a “no-means-no” construct, not a “yes-means-yes” one, for example. But, of course, it exists on top of a yes-means-yes discourse. So maybe that’s what’s needed – a “yes-means-yes” approach to talking about sexuality openly, that allows people to learn the skills needed to appropriately deal with the no-means-no approach in specific encounters.

@Motley, Sam — Re: Nice Guys, I remember that when I was first writing this masculinity series I sent it to a friend for feedback and he really made me think by saying:
“Perhaps this is a digression — it happens to be in the forefront of my mind at the moment for other reasons — but this reminds me of the complaints I see in online feminist community about Nice Guy Syndrome. Now there’s a lot of valid critique there, but there’s also an unwholesome tone of personal resentment: “how dare these men be so unattractive … and express frustration that I respond to it as unattractive?” There’s no assumption of good faith, that Nice Guys might be trying clumsily to act responsibly in response to women’s critique of the things they don’t like about performed masculinity; no, Nice Guys are obviously only trying to manipulate women into bed. It’s an ugly manifestation of feminist inability to talk about the challenges of finding an un-sexist masculinity that actually falls into a patriarchal script about masculinity.”

Well said. I couldn’t have phrased it better. Isn’t this (partly?) also the question you asked at the beginning of part one of the series?

And isn’t this the core of the entire question? Given that *all* communication implies at least some kind of intrusion (well, in a practical, not a theoretical manner – according to Luhmann’s system theory, as we’re all autopoeitic/closed systems, afer all, we cannot actually intrude each other) isn’t this really what we’re talking about -

how can it be achieved to be both bold and assertive *and* careful and aware at the same time?

I think Clarisse’s point about the continumm is quite good – and I would say that there is a significant disconnect between implicit popular gender discourse and the explicit discourse we’re having here.

That explains why other’s seem to perceive degrees of freedom I don’t seem to see – they’re just not taking the arguments and positions articulated literally/seriously. They’re merely understood to be points of references, not manuals. And I sometimes wonder if this could also be a matter of gendered communication patterns and different tendencies to abstract.

Yet I’m not sure to which extent it is useful to have an abstract discourse that is apparently *intentionally* incongruent with many/most individual people’s needs.

Clarisse Thorn January 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

@typhonblue — If a bottom refuses to communicate clearly, refuses to set a safeword, refuses even to tell his or her dominant what s/he wants and expects the dominant to just guess, what would the BDSM community suggest in that situation?

The BDSM community would say not to play with that bottom, of course. There are varying degrees of attention to this in practice — a young, hot bottom can get away with being pretty insufferable. But usually the community encourages bottoms to be clear — partly because it protects the top. And I think that bolded part is important.

To put it another way, part of the reason the BDSM community has set such high standards for communication and consent is that the tops stand to lose a lot more if they fail properly communicate or get consent. What we do is illegal in a lot of states, and even when it isn’t, it’s really easy for a bottom to press charges for assault even after a consensual encounter. Which means that tops are highly, highly motivated to demand a high standard of communication.

The situation we have right now is that rape and the violation of women by men is highly stigmatized, and sometimes convictions occur, but in general, there is a huge number of rapes that never go to trial, a huge amount of victim-blaming, a huge amount of making excuses for rapists, and a huge risk run by a person who is violated if they dare to press charges for that violation. If our society were more inclined to blame the aggressor than the victim (as it is with BDSM), then the aggressors would demand better standards of communication and consent. Stereotypical men aren’t just failing to demand ultra-awesome communication and consent because it goes against our social wiring; they’re failing to demand it because they aren’t motivated enough.

Imagine a society in which every time a person pressed charges for rape, s/he would immediately be believed no questions asked. (I am not saying this extreme would be a good model — just work with me here and imagine it for a second.) In such a situation, wouldn’t sexual aggressors be incredibly careful? Wouldn’t all sexual encounters be much better negotiated?

@Wendell — In fairness, a lot of your questions to TS were already asked and answered upthread. One question you asked that I never asked and he never answered, which I would like to see an answer to myself, was this one:

What are the specific ways in which masculinity is being defined by people who shouldn’t define it that you find problematic?

Also — I think a lot of us here are trying pretty hard to think in a different framework, including Motley, who’s been a valuable contributor. I think if you want to change any minds here, it would help if you could give more concrete examples of your thinking (perhaps by linking to other blog posts, studies, or articles).

@Sam — But it does create collateral damage. I’m suffering from that collateral damage

I think you’re suffering more from collateral damage of the old “no means no” model (as opposed to a “yes means yes” model) than you are from aggressor-blaming.

So maybe that’s what’s needed – a “yes-means-yes” approach to talking about sexuality openly, that allows people to learn the skills needed to appropriately deal with the no-means-no approach in specific encounters.

Yay!

Yet I’m not sure to which extent it is useful to have an abstract discourse that is apparently *intentionally* incongruent with many/most individual people’s needs.

Well — it depends on where the discourse is, right? I don’t think that most people are actually heavily exposed to that much gender discourse, except in a very watered-down popular form. So someone who is exposed to more gender discourse, or discourse on a higher level, is bound to feel out of place in “normal” society. It’s not intentionally incongruent, it’s just that the people who are Infinitely Wise About Such Things (like us, of course :grin:) aren’t deciding how the culture is.

Even at Antioch College, which for a short time had a really impressive feminist sexual consent code, most people didn’t get it. Feminists were able to make the policy, but not change the culture.

The feminist dude who wrote me that quote about feminism and Nice Guys has his own blog, by the way, though he only blogs about gender occasionally.

Clarisse Thorn January 6, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

Addendum:

I said,
it’s really easy for a bottom to press charges for assault even after a consensual encounter.

Well … often, anyway. Much easier than it is for a woman to “cry rape”, certainly. But it’s worth noting that victim-blaming happens with us too, and women who are openly kinky are often at a different though still high risk of losing rape trials (because, you know, any woman who dares to admit to liking sex must have been asking for it the whole time, and if she likes rough sex? — well good lord, the bitch might as well have been wearing a miniskirt!). Renegade Evolution wrote a post a while back that I don’t have time to find right now called “Vanilla Privilege” in which she linked to a paper deconstructing an exciting new defense used against women who press charges for rape: the “rough sex” defense.

desipis January 6, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

Wendell,

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying–what makes victim blaming so repugnant is the very fact that they are being told it’s their fault. And I’m unclear on who you mean by “some feminist.” Which one(s)?

The first sentance you quoted was in response to the assertion that men have a responsibility to actively dismantle the “patriarchy”.

The second sentance, a somewhat separate idea, is that while people aren’t at fault if they are victimised they are still responsible for taking reasonable precautions for their own saftey. That’s not to say all, or even many, victims failed in that responsibility. What I have seen however, is a trend of claiming “victim blaming” around a discussion about the responsibility people have to their own safety.

Sam January 6, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

Everyone,

I’m reading the paper recommended by Clarisse above – “Learning from Extraordinary Lovers” by Peggy Kleinplatz – and I think it’s excellent, even though I’m not even halfway through.

Clarisse,

“Imagine a society in which every time a person pressed charges for rape, s/he would immediately be believed no questions asked. (I am not saying this extreme would be a good model — just work with me here and imagine it for a second.) In such a situation, wouldn’t sexual aggressors be incredibly careful? Wouldn’t all sexual encounters be much better negotiated?”

Twisty Fast suggested something like that on her blog a while ago, but I doubt she was the first radical feminist to have the idea of flat out criminalizing male sexuality – every man who has sex is a rapist unless the woman doesn’t press charges.

I doubt all sexual encounters would be better negotiated. In fact, it would be harder for women to have sex with men who would be intimidated by the law because a woman could not credibly committ to not ex-post press charges, which would mean that the the demand for those men who wouldn’t care about being a “rapist” in such a setup would rise. Then, as everyone could become a rapist for “nothing”, there would probably be a point at which being a rapist would no longer be considered a problem – and a new term would be needed to separate ‘normal’ boundary violations that are part of the play from serious boundary violations that were previously considered sexual assault or rape. I suppose such a setup would be creating a classic example of adverse selection. It’s just not possibly stable – we’re probably better off today despite our difficulties in deciding what constitutes appropriate boundary transgressions and what not.

“I think you’re suffering more from collateral damage of the old “no means no” model (as opposed to a “yes means yes” model) than you are from aggressor-blaming.”

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

Wendell:

This has been the default for such a long time that when feminism dared question such things, it was immediately attacked and put on the defensive to show why it should be listened to, without the hegemonic power structure having to respond to feminism.

Really? To be honest, this is how I see the traditional view.

There was a gender script: one for men and one for women.

The gender script was accepted as the proper way to be and thus analysis was subject to hostility by the greater society. Male and female points of view that did not conform to the gender script were marginalized; women were supposed to be acted upon, men were the actors.

Along came feminism. Feminism analyzed how the gender script impacted women negatively and how women were made vulnerable to men via the gender script. Feminism also encouraged the examination of the active female PoV.

We have, as yet, not experienced a widespread examination of how the male script negatively impacts men and makes men vulnerable to women. For example we never hear about the passive/victimized male point of view.

I believe if your assertion was true that women do ‘emotional labor’ for men, then we *would* hear more about the suffering, non-stoic male point of view. In fact if women do more ‘emotional labor’ for men then themselves, we would have heard about it first and foremost when the discussion about gender scripts began.

But I was willing to be wrong. (I wasn’t mocking anything, Motley.)

I’m amused no one answered any of the questions I posed with my initial comments, but I’m not surprised; those who benefit most from the status quo will not lower themselves to think about questions posed to it.

Right. BTW, I’m a handicapped bisexual woman.

As for me not answering the rest of your post. To be honest I was really enjoying the discussion the rest of us we having before you interjected and I didn’t want to derail it with a series of arguments that would take, literally, hundreds of posts.

Clarisse;

Stereotypical men aren’t just failing to demand ultra-awesome communication and consent because it goes against our social wiring; they’re failing to demand it because they aren’t motivated enough.

True. And I’m sure that the women who are aggressing against men are also not motivated enough to demand it either.

My concern is not just for female victims of boundary-violating, but also male. I’m not sure how to address their plight or if it really can be in this social milieu(which is an extremely sad thought.)

Maybe the best way to deal with this situation is to remove some of the pressure from men by having a manhood that doesn’t revolve around being sexual with women. That would both reduce the ‘horn dog’ stereotype that may lead to some women not communicating clearly because ‘he won’t stop anyway.’ And stop women from feeling entitled to men’s consent as a default. But that’s something I don’t think any of us can accomplish.

Motley:

What I mean is yeah, in a perfect world, people wouldn’t accept non-clear communication in a partner. Similarly, in that perfect world, people would regularly be able to find such a skilled communicator.

You’re right. Clear communication is a skill.

From what I’m reading in Clarisse’s comments, there is more control on the bottom’s behavior in the BDSM community then men have over women’s reproductive/dating behavior.

If a man expects clear communication and walks away if he doesn’t get it, that leaves the average woman(who doesn’t naturally have nor has learned the necessary communication skills) with men who won’t walk away. Which increases her chances of having her boundaries crossed.

We can force more men to walk away by increasing the rape-charge risk*, but in the short term that may actually increase the rate of boundary-violation as women are left with men who will respond aggressively to false positives.

*I’m guessing increasing the rape-charge risk will have minimal impact on the behavior of female rapists thus provide no protection to male victims.

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

In fact if women do more ‘emotional labor’ for men then themselves, we would have heard about it first and foremost when the discussion about gender scripts began.

Had another thought.

I think what actually happened was that feminism assumed men had no PoV on suffering. This is likely due to men’s stoic role and their socialization to deny pain or vulnerability(and often mock perceived weakness in other men).

To my mind not seeing the male PoV on suffering(or denying that it exists*) represents a lack of ‘emotional labor’ on the part of women. A failure of compassion.

* All people suffer, to deny a group of people their right to feel suffering is dehumanizing. Particularly when you socialize them to see that denial as part of their identity. Ugly, ugly dynamic there.

Sam January 6, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

Clarisse,

“Even at Antioch College, which for a short time had a really impressive feminist sexual consent code, most people didn’t get it. Feminists were able to make the policy, but not change the culture.”

well, I don’t know what that code was specifically, but after reading the two case descriptions in the paper you recommended I am even more willing than before to suggest that a) feminism *did* change the culture – possibly not overly visible, but likely with respect to declarations about what’s *not* ok (radical feminist “yes-means-yes” setup for accepted sexuality -> BDSM is unfeminist, exploration is boundary violation and Stockholm syndrom based ‘collaboration’) and b) (this based explicitly on the paper) that to actually *understand* their partners sexually the people the paper is based on had to explicitly and emotionally reject and work through (some) sexual barriers imposed on them by feminism/ which they were socialised into by feminism. The rejection of feminist assumptions about boundary violations and appropriateness was a central part of the therapeutic process of the cases explained in the paper.

Motley January 6, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

…they’re failing to demand it because they aren’t motivated enough

What I meant was, we’re failing to demand it because decisions that reduce our available dating pool to “pretty much zero” aren’t ever going to be very popular.

@Sam

… flat out criminalizing male sexuality

To be fair, she did say “person” not just “woman.” Props for that. (Though that means that really it’s criminalizing all human sexuality, without making predatory sexuality any more criminal, I think. Maybe?)

Wouldn’t all sexual encounters be much better negotiated?
I don’t think so. Prison sexual encounters usually aren’t well-negotiated. And we’d all be in prison, if every rape accusation was believed without question. Take, for example, your seventeen-year-old-self. Can that person be trusted with the power to send anyone, anywhere, to prison at any time?
Even if the answer is “yes,” you’d still all be in prison. Because 17-year-old Motley could absolutely not be trusted with that kind of power. That guy probably should never have been trusted with anywhere near the power he already had, by any kind of sensible society.

(I wasn’t mocking anything, Motley.) …Oh. Darn. Well, I kinda was.

typhonblue January 6, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

What I meant was, we’re failing to demand it because decisions that reduce our available dating pool to “pretty much zero” aren’t ever going to be very popular.

Exactly.

If women want to have men take the initiative in their sexual relationships because it’s ‘exciting’ or ‘affirming of their desirability’ or because they’d rather not risk rejection then what recourse do men have but to give women what they want if they ever want to date?**

Clarisse, it seemed like you went through a stage of adjustment to the ‘clear and concise communication’ lifestyle. Likely you did it because BDSM held clear appeal. What’s the initiative for these women to go through the same process?

*I suppose the trade off is the pain of rejection or having your boundaries violated?
**Your solution assumes an amount of control over the sexual marketplace that I don’t think men have.

desipis January 6, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

Clarisse:

The situation we have right now is that rape and the violation of women by men is highly stigmatized, and sometimes convictions occur, but in general, there is a huge number of rapes that never go to trial, a huge amount of victim-blaming, a huge amount of making excuses for rapists, and a huge risk run by a person who is violated if they dare to press charges for that violation.

The biggest barrier to increasing the rate of convictions in rape cases is that proving lack of consent is very difficult. The only way to get around this issue would be to regulate and formalise the act of consent, essentially removing all privacy and spononanity from sexual interactions.

And this problem isn’t limited to the sexual domain; anytime you enter into a private interaction based on verbal agreement with another individual you risk getting screwed over. The only way to get legal protection from the state in such matters would be to have the government completely observe and control the interactions, otherwise there will always be room for doubt.

machina January 7, 2010 at 1:39 am #

A good example of what desipis was talking about is contracts. Contracts have a legal theory behind them that there is an offer and an acceptance. This makes perfect sense in theory, but how does it apply in reality? Let’s say you walk into a store to buy some food. Is the food, with prices given, an offer? Or does the offer occur when you bring the food to the counter? Or does the offer occur when the food is rung up on the cash register? In reality we follow ‘scripts’ when buying food because they are much simpler and accept some risk that things might not turn out great. It’s also common to not take a receipt of the purchase, the only written record of the sale the customer has, because many people aren’t worried about the potential damage.

As the potential damage increases the customary practices follow the underlying legal theory more closely in order to reduce the risk. If you lease household goods, you will almost certainly sign a contract. Buying a house involves a very rigid contractual process in order to minimise the risk of substantial damage by all parties.

I think this is a suitable model what is being argued about here. Where the potential damage is minor, such as touching a breast when you’re making out, following a social script is reasonable. As the potential damage increases, such as caning someone, the process should more explicitly make consent clear in order to reduce the risk.

Motley January 7, 2010 at 7:53 am #

…then what recourse do men have… I think that’s pretty much the entirety of Nice Guy/Pickup Artist philosophy right there.

I suppose the trade off is the pain of rejection or having your boundaries violated? I’d say the trade off is “the pain of rejection, plus the emotional, social, and legal consequences of getting occasionally accused of sexual assault.* And being the sort of person who’s okay with sometimes violates other peoples boundaries**” vs “occasionally having your boundaries violated.”

(This seems not to be a popular thing to notice in feminist circles, in my limited experience, but: rape is already illegal. And very highly stigmatized. And while the allegation’s difficult to prove in a legal sense, it’s impossible to disprove in a social one.)

*Which will happen. Sometimes you guess wrong.

**Which is a real problem, for the vast majority of guys, who are not sociopathic. I’d say without hesitation that forcing sociopathic behaviors on the non-sociopathic constitutes oppression.

**Your solution assumes an amount of control over the sexual marketplace that I don’t think men have. Not sure what you mean. If you’re saying that yes, even remaking yourself into the sort of creature that you (now) think women want (as opposed to before, when you’d heard about boundaries and respect and everything and made yourself into what you thought women wanted then ) doesn’t always work–then yeah, I don’t think it does. (If you meant something else, I missed it)

Sam January 7, 2010 at 9:50 am #

Typhonblue,

“If women want to have men take the initiative in their sexual relationships because it’s ‘exciting’ or ‘affirming of their desirability’ or because they’d rather not risk rejection then what recourse do men have but to give women what they want if they ever want to date?**”

Well, they could also decide to wait and see how/if/when women adjust to their not doing it. Isn’t that what you suggested I should do about it above?

If there is an implicit acceptance that that’s not a viable alternative, what does that tell us about the nature of female and male sexual strategies? Wouldn’t this also have consequences for picking a social optimum on the interaction-risk continuum proposed by Clarisse?

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 10:52 am #

Clarisse,

I finally grokked what you mean about a dehumanizing dynamic leading to rape so I concede the point. Although I still think that this can do damage even to the aggressor. Sort of like how soldiers are taught to chant ‘kill, kill, kill’ and objectify the enemy in order to be able to be effective soldiers. Except that, by accepting this dehumanization, soldiers are also dehumanizing _themselves_ into weapons. And on top of all that they still have strong instincts against killing so they still suffer terribly from having killed after the fact. I think this may also hold true for dehumanization-motivated rapists.

Moving on to the current subject…

Cis het women want assertive men. But they also want men to be sensitive to their needs. So they want a man to be assertive but only when they want him to be assertive, without giving him the benefit of knowing _which is which_.

By focusing so much on this one personal attribute*, you’re going to end up with bizarrely dysfunctional behavior. From objectification to sleazy harassers to bar fights to inadvertent boundary-violators to Nice Guys who don’t get it and resent it.

I suppose what’s going to happen is that feminists will increase the risk to men of adopting assertive strategies–which they’ve adopted to appeal to women–until there is so much risk that becomes a greater force then the pressure for men to make themselves desirable to women.**

The only long-term solution to this is to have men not define themselves by what women want. That way when they approach women in the mating game they are more concerned about their own personal safety then being attractive to women(by being assertive*).

Which is quite hard when women control access to two levels on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

*Sort of like how our society’s focus on beauty leads to eating disorders and other obsessive behavior.
**I wonder how long it will take for this dynamic to play out. A decade? A century?

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 10:58 am #

Well, they could also decide to wait and see how/if/when women adjust to their not doing it. Isn’t that what you suggested I should do about it above?

I know. But now I’m wondering if expecting you to take responsibility isn’t playing into exactly the same dynamic.

Why do we believe men need to take responsibility for the current situation rather then women?

Taking responsibility is the foundation of self-control and personal development. It means you move from being a passive object in your own life to an agent of change.

Denying women the opportunity to take responsibility, denies them self-actualization.

Sam January 7, 2010 at 11:12 am #

Typhonblue,

that’s why it’s a double bind for women and for men. The double binds are just differently sequenced at the moment.

Sam January 7, 2010 at 11:30 am #

Typhonblue,

“I suppose what’s going to happen is that feminists will increase the risk to men of adopting assertive strategies–which they’ve adopted to appeal to women–until there is so much risk that becomes a greater force then the pressure for men to make themselves desirable to women.**”

I doubt that will happen. Assuming unchanging female attraction patterns for the moment, it will just lead to one group of men who ignore the risk, and another group who won’t. Assuming a greater reproductive success of the latter, and the heretibility of higher levels of tolerable risk (and *likely* a higher ability to navigate socially risky situations appropriately), such a selection may even have the effect of selecting risk tolerance as a masculine trait.

In that interpretation, assuming unchanging female attraction criteria, feminism and the social risks associated with it, could be interpreted as another test reproductively favouring males with higher aggression levels rather than lower aggression levels. It would be completely adverse selection to the extent that the unintended consequences of feminism would be the opposite of its ideological position on this matter.

Again, this assumes *unchanging* female attraction patterns and male *inability* to adapt to changing social patterns in other ways than lack of risk avoidance.

I don’t think that’s a viable position, and – if nothing else – on a meta level and disregarding all the bollocks it is producing, on a meta level, the appearance of the “seduction community” is such a social reaction, as it is basically aiming at educating men to *emulate* or give the appearance of risk avoidance while actually minimizing the risk by attempting to give scripts etc.

I think it is also visible that female preferences are changing. If not, I’d still be unkissed – so, yeah – double binds all around us, but things are moving, albeit slowly.

What we can do in threads like this is advance our perceptions of the scripts and roles involved and take the pressure out of it.

I’m going to say more about this with respect to the paper recommended by Clarisse, but that’ll be later.

Motley January 7, 2010 at 11:33 am #

The only long-term solution to this is to have men not define themselves by what women want.

…I don’t think that’s actually a solution. It looks like what you’re saying is “The only long-term solution is for men to just stop having monkey-brains and lizard-brains.” “Just stop caring about what other people think about you and how their opinions impact your life” isn’t particularly good advice.

For instance, me. I don’t define myself by what women want. This is, as far as I can tell, one of my most significant abnormalities. We really do not want all men to function the way I do. Nor do we want all men to interact with women the way I usually do.

I don’t know any other (heterosexual) man who doesn’t, on some level at least, define himself in such a way as to attempt to conform to what he thinks women want. I suspect that’s here to stay.

What I think can and should change is the way we interact, not our natures. I think — but am admittedly not certain– that the interaction-script can change without any kind of fundamental change to the nature of the participants.

I think the existence of the Nice Guys proves that men actually are listening to what women say they want. The problems are (I’m speculating here)
a) Not all men are listening
b) Not all women want the same thing
c)Women seem highly reluctant to actually say what they actually want
d)men (people in general, probably) tend to do what they think works, rather than what people tell them should work (after a few failed attempts, at least).

Sam January 7, 2010 at 11:54 am #

“The only long-term solution to this is to have men not define themselves by what women want.”

I think it is also important to note that women *also* – not exclusively – define themselves by what men want, if they are sexually attracted to them. This isn’t a one way street – feminism has attempted precisely what you’re suggesting for men, Tpyhonblue, but it’s not working, and it cannot work due to the logical restriction imposed by heterosexuality. I mean, there was a time, and that’s a quote from a Britsh feminist, when “a good feminist was a lesbian”. Not a sustainable approach.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

I think it is also important to note that women *also* – not exclusively – define themselves by what men want, if they are sexually attracted to them.

You think that women define their womanhood based on what men want?

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

Nor do we want all men to interact with women the way I usually do.

How do you usually interact with women?

Incidentally men can stop defining themselves by what women want by _defining themselves by other things as well_.

Motley January 7, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

I’d say we do define ourselves by other things as well. The extent to which we define ourselves by a given concept mirrors the extent to which that concept matters to us. Getting attention/affection/sex from women matters to us a lot. (Women seem not to be aware of this. Heard from a woman-to-man trans that the difference in sex-drive was totally unexpected… and I thought _totally_ unexpected? Really?”).

How do you usually interact with women?

Well, my approach changed a lot over the years, up until I got married. If I said it involved a lot of careful deceit and a deliberate breaking of boundaries, would that explain it? I enjoy hurting people. It’s probably better not to go into specifics. And I rather suspect that everyone’s happier not knowing any details. (And no, this isn’t some kind of self-loathing pityfest. I mentioned above the fact that understanding something, for me, doesn’t imply–at all–approval or disapproval.)

Anyway, not trying to derail the thread.

You think that women define their womanhood based on what men want?

I think Sam might be saying that women, too, evaluate themselves, to an extent, on how attractive they think they are to men.

Motley January 7, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

Although I still think that this can do damage even to the aggressor.

That’s what I meant about forcing normal people to behave like sociopaths being oppression. Most people have that ingrained respect for other people, and putting them in a situation where they think they’re being forced to violate other people’s boundaries is not…good?

Toysoldier January 7, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

Wendell, I addressed the majority of your questions up-thread. In regards to your other questions:

What are the specific ways in which masculinity is being defined by people who shouldn’t define it that you find problematic?

The notion that masculinity is only a social construct is itself highly problematic. Firstly, it disregards the impact biology has on human behavior, despite the numerous studies and anecdotal experiences of people confirming that gender interests and behaviors appear to be biologically motivated. Secondly, the idea falls apart when applied to certain groups of people. For instance, if being masculine or feminine and male or female are simply social constructs, how is it possible for a person to be born “male” in a “female” body? Likewise, it begs the question of how a person can be born sexually attracted to anyone masculine, feminine, male or female if those identities are just random human creations.

It also presents the problem of narrowly defining masculinity in order to make it adoptable. It is akin to how adults learn foreign languages. They will either modify the language to fit into their native tongue’s grammar or simplify it so that they can get a grasp on it. This is essentially what butch lesbians and effeminate gay men do. They over simplify (and in many ways exaggerate) the way men and women behave. There is nothing inherently wrong with this except that both are technically stereotypes and if we go by feminist standards, they are stereotypes based on randomly created, sexist concepts.

I mentioned these issues before, but Clarisse avoided addressing the contradictions.

A phrase I’ve come to find powerful for me is “isn’t not your fault, but it’s your responsibility.” I mean this in keeping with “what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger,” in that whatever trials and tribulations you’ve gone through, you’ve come out the other side *and* learned from them. You’ve grown.

The phrase “what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger” is a logical fallacy. There are plenty of people who suffered and lived only to come out worse for it. As for “it isn’t not your fault, but it’s your responsibility,” that statement does not parse because responsibility is fault. People will rightly object to such pronouncements, and this is why men, especially abused men, take offense because the above idea essentially blames them for things they have not done and things done to them. The notion asserts that any boy or man who is physically or sexually assaulted is not only responsible for his abuse, but also that he benefits — at women’s expense — for harm done to him. That is an egregious leap in logic, one feminists would not tolerate in the reverse.

More so, the notion absolves all women of any responsibility for their actions. Curiously, the notion is not applied to other circumstances, such as the fact that women commit most child abuse and there is a correlation between child abuse and future adult violence. No one suggests that women, collectively or individually, have any responsibility to address or undo that.

This shows that “it isn’t not your fault, but it’s your responsibility” is not built on objective reasoning or analysis, but on a politically convenient, personally beneficial bias.

Toysoldier January 7, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

Clarisse,

I am not trying to convince you that rape culture does not exist. Past experience suggests that theories like “rape culture” — theories that form the core of a person’s worldview — rarely change based on external opinions. A person must already internally question the theories in order for outside opinions to have any substantive influence. All I can do is explain why I think the theory is flawed, present the evidence supporting that claim and allow a person to reach their own conclusion. Your request that I prove the theory wrong demonstrates to me that you do not question the validity of the theory, implying that you would find little I present convincing. However, the point was to get you to explain not that you think the theory is true, but how and why the theory is true.

It is worth noting that in any other situation where a theory is so unclear and underdeveloped that it cannot be used outside of a specific set of circumstances or cannot be adequately explained the theory is typically deemed invalid. Obviously, this does not apply to religious views. Feminism, however, is a secular ideology and it is supposedly based not on faith but on ration, logic and reason, so one would assume that when a theory fails it would be abandoned or altered to fit the existing evidence, not kept to be used only by those who will never question it.

As for the link, I think it demonstrates that views the jurors had about sex workers may have caused them to acquit a man who admitted he committed behavior that meets the legal definition of rape. Of course, there is a lot of missing information, such as how the victim testified, how the acquitted testified, the way the evidence was presented, etc. All these factors play a role in the jury’s decision. However, the link do not indicate that there is a culture supporting rape against women. It only imply what is typical of all societies: people will view it as acceptable or less bad to commit crimes against certain groups of people. Had the victim been an upper-class woman, the result may have been different. That is what I meant by “rape culture” being a one-size-fits-all explanation. One must to ignore the all other factors in order for the theory to work.

Regarding your other questions, I cannot adequately answer them without knowing specifically what you are looking to do at the hypothetical symposium.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

Motley:

I think Sam might be saying that women, too, evaluate themselves, to an extent, on how attractive they think they are to men.

Does it make sense to say ‘you’re no woman’ to a female person in any context (except that in which you believe she literally has a penis)? How about ‘be a woman’ or ‘woman up’?

Men can define manhood separately from women’s benefit/attention while defining their personal relationships in terms of reciprocal benefit(with men or women.)

I think I mentioned up thread that our culture’s emphasis on sexual behavior with women as a mark of manhood is quite distinct from most other cultures which don’t.

Toysoldier:

Had the victim been an upper-class woman, the result may have been different.

A male victim would have likely received an even worse outcome then the sex workers.

I’m wondering how ‘rape culture’ fits in with male victims?

Motley January 7, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

Does it make sense to say ‘you’re no woman’ to a female person…

Oh, I think I misunderstood. I meant that women seem to evaluate themselves as a person not as a woman based in part on how attractive they think they are to men. Meaning, a woman who think’s she’s attractive will, all other things being equal, have higher self-esteem than one who doesn’t.

Anyway, yeah–you can’t really take away/call into question someone’s womanhood (as far as I can tell), assuming we’re not counting things like calling her a cow, slut, or any number of gender-specific insults. There are certainly (a lot of) ways you can verbally hurt women that you can’t hurt men, and vice versa.

Men can define manhood separately from women’s benefit/attention

I think–we think, I’d say–that we can, but won’t. (I’m on pretty shaky theoretical ground here–men do not really ever talk about “what is manhood,” as you’re no doubt aware). We don’t ever really think about what manhood is so much as “how can we display more of it so’s to impress our peers and attract female attention/sexual interest.

So, in summary–we perhaps could redefine masculinity to mean something other than “how can I get laid”–but that won’t get us laid. And during our formative years, that’s a very high priority.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

And during our formative years, that’s a very high priority.

I imagine it would be since during their formative years youths are trying to establish their male identity which is–natch–defined by sex with women.

Sort of a chicken and egg problem.

Motley January 7, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

Sort of a chicken and egg problem.

Hmm, point. If there were some way of testing, though, I think I’d still bet on fixation-on-girls being as much a function of biology as of socialization–not least because of the significant sex-drive increase reported by men who used to be women.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

Hmm, point. If there were some way of testing, though, I think I’d still bet on fixation-on-girls being as much a function of biology as of socialization–not least because of the significant sex-drive increase reported by men who used to be women.

Increased sex drive != fixation on girls. There are other sexual outlets as I’ve mentioned in my posts above.

Funny how this has gone full circle. :D

Motley January 7, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

Increased sex drive != fixation on girls

I’m really not convinced that’s the case. Certainly none of my own personal experience seems to support the notion that heterosexual males have other sexual outlets. (I’m here not counting masturbation–including masturbation with a variety of objects/people-to-whom-they’re-not-attracted)

Sam January 7, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

Typhonblue,

“Men can define manhood separately from women’s benefit/attention”

Yes, but our role in the reproductive process is, while necessary, peripheral compared to that of women (in the natural state, in which more than half of a woman’s, perhaps 35-40 years, was spent both pregnant and raising babies). Of course, women were defined by this, while men needed something outside of the reproductive realm to offset the female importance for the community (see the link to the thread about “the origins of male dominance I linked to somewhere).

Thing is, nowadays, motherhood is no longer such a central part of a woman’s life, women have less than or around 2 children in modern countries (and that mentally excludes some parts of the US, sorry), and they live twice as long.

I’m not sure to which extent I would count expressions such as “man up” as expressions of the fundamental difference or merely as a reference to the fact that in the particular socio-economic setup introduced by the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago that effectively lasted until the mid 19th century. I tend to think it’s the latter, but there is, of course, an element of competition in the public realm that *was* particular to manhood – as access to women/to reproductive resources was not easy for most of history – man up could thus be seen as a reference to prevailing in this competition and being allowed / able to successfully procreate – I have to look that up, but I read somewhere that, while the male rate of reproduction was historically about half of the female rates, the current (self-reported) rates are similar. That still leaves open the question of polygyny in the form of female cheating during her fertile days, but I doubt that that will be able to explain the entire shift. So, if anything, the current setup is beneficial to a lot of men in the reproductive realm – it’s a far better way to deal with “excess testosterone” than killing men off in wars (except in Asia, where the sonogramm has already led to a gender imbalance that is considered the biggest security risk by some institutions who are actually looking at the roots of social problems. India and Pakistan are missing 100 million women. Saudi Arabia has 217 men for 100 women (in 2005, I think).

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

Certainly none of my own personal experience seems to support the notion that heterosexual males have other sexual outlets.

In societies that don’t subscribe to the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy men usually have other outlets(sometimes they prefer them, sometimes they have no choice due to the expectation of female chastity).

Even in our society heterosexually-identified men often take the third option. Look up ‘MSM’ and ‘on the downlow’.

As I said above, considering the preference for young, attractive partners holds constant I think ‘people-to-whom-they’re-not-attracted’ may be discounted.

Also, an interesting possible factoid: Straight-identified transexual men often worry about taking testosterone because other transmen have reported that initiating hormone therapy makes them desire other men(when they didn’t before.)

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

While men needed something outside of the reproductive realm to offset the female importance for the community.

In India manhood is defined by fatherhood.

In most of the world men don’t define manhood by women’s benefit or sexual behavior with women*. I know that doesn’t help men in our society but it’s hardly a fact of biology.

*Outside of the mutual dependancy of reproduction.

Sam January 7, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

Typhonblue,

I’m sure that reality is more complex than the simple statement, but as a rule, I would say that my experience supports Motley’s observation. And Midnight Express and tales from prison and monasteries aside, I doubt there are many “functional” homosexuals/bisexuals, even in countries where access to females is socially made particularly difficult.

Motley January 7, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

Even in our society heterosexually-identified men often take the third option.
And heterosexually-identified politicians often… yeah.

This is something I often find myself arguing about with avowed Republicans–the existence of falsely self-identified heterosexuals does not disprove the existence of men who are actually heterosexual. Gay men cannot “recruit” straight men into homosexuality. By the definition I’m using, at least, if someone’s sexually interested in people who aren’t of the opposite sex, “heterosexual” they aren’t.

…sometimes they have no choice… Ah. I’d say, without qualification, that one’s conduct in a situation in which one has no choice indicates nothing of one’s preferences. By definition.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

I doubt there are many “functional” homosexuals/bisexuals, even in countries where access to females is socially made particularly difficult.

What do you mean by ‘functional’?

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

I don’t believe I have to prove anything about preference.

The male sex drive exists in the absence of women therefore it isn’t defined(entirely) by them. (As I said above.)

Anyway, we’re sort of going over old ground.

Motley January 7, 2010 at 7:40 pm #

Yeah, true. I’d just point out that if you have, say, a craving for chocolate, and can’t get any chocolate, and settle for something else–that’s not evidence that your craving isn’t for chocolate.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

I’d just point out that if you have, say, a craving for chocolate, and can’t get any chocolate, and settle for something else–that’s not evidence that your craving isn’t for chocolate.

But it is evidence your hunger isn’t defined by chocolate. If hunger was defined by chocolate, it would cease in the absence of chocolatey stimuli.

Sam January 7, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

Typhonblue,

by functional I mean the chocolate example. If my hunger is for chocolate, it’s hard to be satisfied with something else, even though you could certainly say that chocolate is only a specific form of carbs. By “functional” I mean someone who will eat other forms of carbohydrates in the absence of chocolate. I doubt there are many people who would do that.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 9:36 pm #

By “functional” I mean someone who will eat other forms of carbohydrates in the absence of chocolate. I doubt there are many people who would do that.

I grew up in the Middle East. From my own experiences I don’t doubt that people will eat other forms of carbohydrates in the absence of chocolate.

http://www.gaymiddleeast.com/news/news%20177.htm

I think most men in the west need hunger to be defined by chocolate. But it’s fairly obvious to me from studying historical societies and having lived in another social milieu that hunger exists outside of chocolatey cues.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

Most of the article is about having a gay identity in Saudi Arabia–a society in which homosexual behavior is not stigmatized but a homosexual identity is.

Here’s a quote pertinent to the convo:

John Bradley, the author of Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis (2005), says that most male Western expatriates here, gay or not, have been propositioned by Saudi men driving by “at any time of the day or night, quite openly and usually very, very persistently.”

Jives with my experience.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 10:01 pm #

Here’s some more on India. I’ve never lived there but there seem to be some similarities to Saudi Arabia:

The assertion that there are hardly any homosexuals in India and yet there is considerable same-sex-involvement seems contradictory, yet simple to reconcile. Sex between men, especially among friends or within the family during adolescence and youth, is not regarded as sex, but masti, an exciting, erotic playfulness, with overtones of the mast elephant in heat.

Outside male friendship, it is a way to satisfy an urgent bodily need or, for some, to make money. Sex, on the other hand, is the serious business of procreation within marriage. Almost all men who have sex with other men will get married even if many continue to have sex with men after marriage. Sexual relations with men are not a source of conflict as long as the person believes he is not a homosexual in the sense of having an exclusive preference for men and does not compromise his masculine identity by not marrying and hrefusing to produce children.

http://www.littleindia.com/news/145/ARTICLE/1835/2007-08-17.html

As a recent study (Asthana & Oostvogels) tells us, “Even effeminate men who have a strong desire for receiving penetrative sex are likely to consider their role as husbands and fathers to be more important in their self-identification than their homosexual behavior.”

Sam January 7, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

Typhonblue,

well, I’ve never been to Saudi Arabia, so I can’t argue with this. But I’m not quite sure if you’re arguing that their homoerotic behaviour is caused by the lack of available female sexuality or if you consider it to be the normal state of affairs and the western male “chocolate only” heterosexual socialisation to be “unnatural”?

Also, if you take your last paragraph, the role they consider more important is still derived from reproduction, if not sexuality itself.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

But I’m not quite sure if you’re arguing that their homoerotic behaviour is caused by the lack of available female sexuality or if you consider it to be the normal state of affairs and the western male “chocolate only” heterosexual socialisation to be “unnatural”?

Both are unnatural, IMHO.

More natural is the kind of female-preferring yet fluidly opportunistic sexuality seen in nature.

Also, if you take your last paragraph, the role they consider more important is still derived from reproduction, if not sexuality itself.

Yep. But, like I said, I’m looking at how other cultures frame manhood _differently_, not in complete isolation to reproductive sexuality with women.

typhonblue January 7, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

Although this goes against everything everyone says today in our culture, I think male sexuality may be more malleable then female sexuality due to women’s stronger sense of reproductive identity.

So male sexuality is often a marker of a culture’s norms. In patriarchal Saudi Arabia where women are ‘sinisterized’ and their influence removed as much as possible, young men are policed to avoid too much corrupting intimacy with them.

In our society…

Motley January 8, 2010 at 6:42 am #

Oh, fer…

I think most men in the west need hunger to be defined by chocolate

I think most people maintain that their sexuality is the normal/natural one. Specifically, bisexual women may need heterosexuality in men to be unnatural :) (Yeah, pickin’ on ya, a little)

More natural is the kind of female-preferring yet fluidly opportunistic sexuality seen in nature So “wants a female but sometimes has to settle for something else?” That’s pretty much what I’m saying.

…are likely to consider their role as husbands and fathers to be more important in their self-identification… I think this passage proves the opposite of what you want it to prove.

As does my personal experience. As it happens, that’s relevant. Men who are purely heterosexual are not simply deluding themselves, no matter how much certain people may wish it so. Nor are they simply deluded by socialization.

Case in point: People whose preferences are not influenced by society at all, and don’t care in the least about shame or cultural norms.* And who spent some time trying to find any attraction to males, eventually to be disappointed (by the discovery that only half of the human race was useful in the satisfaction of certain urges). As it happens, I happen to be one of those people. If I had the slightest attraction to men, nothing would have stopped me from acting on it (any more than our cultural mores stopped me from acting on the desires I do have).

*I don’t mean “free spirits” (Hah!). I mean “people who do not have monkey-brains.” (Yeah, I really like that analogy–though I’d rephrase it as lizard-brain, monkey-brain, and calculator rather than human-brain; I’d say the “human-brain” is the sum total of the three)

Although this goes against everything everyone says today in our culture Actually, almost everyone in our culture who does not have standard-issue male sexuality says that. It is a very common misconception (as is the idea that it’s not common). (Feminist-identifying people also seem to have a lot invested in believing that the sexual identities of men of their society are somehow unnatural) While it’s true that a large number of non-heterosexual men claim to be heterosexual in our society (due to societal norms) this is not actually evidence that heterosexuality is imaginary. Nor is the fact that non-heterosexual behavior is more common in some places than others prove that it’s unnatural. Nor does the fact that some animals have exhibited homosexual behavior. (In the same way that the behavior of helium balloons does not prove that gravity is imaginary)

A norm is a norm because that’s the way most people are. Seriously.

Sam January 8, 2010 at 9:11 am #

Motly,

“A norm is a norm because that’s the way most people are. Seriously.”

True, but the way “normative” is understood in much of social science research is “opinion/value based”.

typhonblue January 8, 2010 at 9:28 am #

Specifically, bisexual women may need heterosexuality in men to be unnatural :) (Yeah, pickin’ on ya, a little)

Don’t attack the messenger! :P

I have a different observational base then most people having grown up exposed to a radically different culture. I think that’s probably the main point of departure.

For my own personal interest I really don’t need everyone to be bi–one guy is enough. And that one guy spot is already taken.

Nor is the fact that non-heterosexual behavior is more common in some places than others prove that it’s unnatural.

But it certainly introduces the question of why and how. Particularly in places where homosexual behavior is more prevalent then heterosexual.

It also introduces the distinct possibility that manhood need not be defined _explicitly_ by sexuality with women.

…are likely to consider their role as husbands and fathers to be more important in their self-identification… I think this passage proves the opposite of what you want it to prove.

What would we say about such a man in our society?

Would we emphasize his role as husband and father, or would we point to his sexual behavior as the source of his true identity?

That’s what I’m getting at and the passage illustrates it perfectly.

While it’s true that a large number of non-heterosexual men claim to be heterosexual in our society (due to societal norms) this is not actually evidence that heterosexuality is imaginary.

I never said that an exclusive preference for women was imaginary only malleable in many men. How many? I have no idea. Thirty percent? Fifty percent? Seventy? (From my experience in Saudi, I’d say somewhere around 70-80%, but the only place more socially extreme then Saudi is prison so…)

If you never have had any attraction to men, I’m not going to argue that you actually have as I’m not an expert on your thoughts.

Motley January 8, 2010 at 9:35 am #

Hmm. Not a ton of respect for social “science” research on my part, I admit (Similarly, the Tobacco Institute “scientists” have found that smoking isn’t bad for you).

Anyway, I was under the impression that “normative” usually assumed pressure applied by the “normal-people” upon the non-normal to pretend to conform with the normal. The fact that this pressure exists doesn’t mean that nobody’s normal. Quite the opposite.

My point was that accusing straight men of being secretly gay isn’t actually new to our culture. And that I’m pretty sure that feminists are aware of that, which doesn’t reflect well on their own motivations when they call heterosexuality in men unnatural*–and claim that people don’t often make the claim…as if it’s been more than five seconds since some kid yelled “fag” on a playground. More charitably, typhonblue (sorry to pick on you again, TB, nothin’ personal**) for example, probably just doesn’t realize that she’s doing precisely that.

(It’s a little like my irritation about Wendell popping on to a feminist site 300 comments in to a conversation, rattling off five standard feminism-101 talking points, and claiming that anyone who acts as though they’ve heard this before and still don’t agree are “rape apologists” trying to avoid “thinking in a new framework.” Similarly, so-called “Christians” who seem to think that the reason we don’t agree with them is because we’ve never heard anyone say “Jesus saves” before.)

*There’s a chance I’d mistakenly give some credence to the idea, if I didn’t happen to know that heterosexuality isn’t a myth or a cultural construction. No amount of examples of some-people-being-different-from-me will convince me that I don’t exist.

**In general, I hope everyone understands that me picking on somebody doesn’t mean dislike or disapproval.

typhonblue January 8, 2010 at 9:46 am #

More charitably, typhonblue (sorry to pick on you again, TB, nothin’ personal**) for example, probably just doesn’t realize that she’s doing precisely that.

You think I’m calling you a fag? Interesting.

Except that as far as I can tell the most I’m calling you is bi! :D

Yes, you’re secretly bi!

Hehe… I guess it would be sexy if (I’m Canadian) 10 million guys were bi, but really, that’s too much for one woman.

Motley January 8, 2010 at 9:48 am #

(Wrote 338 before seeing 337)

…having grown up exposed to a radically different culture… What I was trying to say is that that seems even more oppressive than ours–and thus the behavior of its members is less indicative of “nature.”
(Random pet peeve moment: People who think “natural” and “good” are related in any way. It’s natural to be eaten by wolves, folks. And you don’t want to know what’s “natural” for ME. :)

Would we emphasize his role as husband and father…
“Role as husband and father” = “heterosexual identity,” no? So that passage illustrates that the men in that society consider their heterosexual, woman-oriented behavior as more a part of their identity than their homosexual behavior.

How many? I have no idea. Thirty percent?

That’s mostly what I’m saying, too. Some (maybe most) straight men will have sex with anything–including other men–if there’s no women available. In that culture, “other men” is the acceptable release; if it were sheep, it wouldn’t prove that bestiality was “natural,” either. Notice the “if there’s no women available” part.
What you’ll eat when there’s no chocolate available says nothing about your preferences with regard to chocolate.

If you never have had any attraction to men… People who have no idea as to my nature often say things like “All men are secretly attracted to other men, but are ashamed to admit it because of our oppressive society.” I laugh at these people. (I was a little disappointed at not being attracted to men, for much the same reasons that, if I got to choose my preferences, I’d choose to stop disliking fish. And while notions of social acceptability may influence other men in their choice of what-preferences-to-admit, that’s not the case for me.)

Motley January 8, 2010 at 9:50 am #

Gah. Given the topic, I should’ve been more clear. “disliking eating fish” is what that probably should’ve said. To avoid any goofiness. ;)

Motley January 8, 2010 at 9:52 am #

You think I’m calling you a fag? Interesting.

Except that as far as I can tell the most I’m calling you is bi

More specifically, “calling in to question someone’s sexual identity,” which is what we’re doing when we holler “Fag!” at people we don’t like.

typhonblue January 8, 2010 at 9:57 am #

More specifically, “calling in to question someone’s sexual identity,” which is what we’re doing when we holler “Fag!” at people we don’t like.

Except that I’m not passing judgement on you.

In fact, these are my observations and my conclusions, I don’t expect people to accept them whole-cloth unless they find some worth in them.

Motley January 8, 2010 at 10:07 am #

In a society where one of the most common ways to insult someone is to suggest that their sexual preferences aren’t what they say they are… (Fag, slut, etc.) it’s probably not useful to announce that you’ve concluded that most people’s preferences are not what they say they are. Maybe you’re not passing judgment when you do it, but people are going to tend to take it the way it’s usually meant.

Yeah, this tendency annoys me a lot–since I don’t pass judgment*, morally speaking, I end up offending people unnecessarily, whenever I say something that, when it’s said by other people, usually is accompanied by a passing of judgment.

*I’m not claiming this is due to any superiority on my part; quite the opposite. My lack of passing moral judgment isn’t a matter of self-restraint, it’s a lack of having a moral judgment capacity. You may hear me claim an ethical high ground (probably often, ’cause I enjoy being an asshole) but you’ll never hear me claim a moral one.

typhonblue January 8, 2010 at 10:13 am #

it’s probably not useful to announce that you’ve concluded that most people’s preferences are not what they say they are.

When did I say that?

Changing something socially constructed about yourself is about as easy as being able to stop understanding English.

It might as well be biology.

I’m sorry for whatever offense you took and/or think others might take.

This topic is pretty much over anyway. C’est la vie.

Motley January 8, 2010 at 10:23 am #

It might as well be biology.

Yeah… there’s a lot of argument over what’s biology and what isn’t, in this area. Not so sure of the point–since a lot of social constructs are about as easy/difficult to change as biology.

Clarisse Thorn January 8, 2010 at 10:47 am #

@Sam — I doubt she was the first radical feminist to have the idea of flat out criminalizing male sexuality – every man who has sex is a rapist unless the woman doesn’t press charges.

Yeah, I’ve occasionally been influenced by Twisty via Thomas. But where did I say all aggressors are men? Quit assuming I’m a man-hater, please. Seriously.

In fact, it would be harder for women to have sex with men who would be intimidated by the law because a woman could not credibly committ to not ex-post press charges, which would mean that the the demand for those men who wouldn’t care about being a “rapist” in such a setup would rise.

Don’t imagine this society imposed on our current society. That obviously makes no sense and makes the scenario easy to poke holes in. Imagine it from the ground up.

Quite frankly, I think this society already exists (or at least something a lot closer to it than mainstream America), and it’s called BDSM. As I was trying to explain. What did you think of the first two paragraphs of my comment #288?

I think you’re suffering more from collateral damage of the old “no means no” model (as opposed to a “yes means yes” model) than you are from aggressor-blaming.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

You seem to think that you’re suffering because society stigmatizes aggressors. I disagree. I think you’re suffering because we aren’t trained to communicate enthusiastic consent or discuss our sexual tastes openly (ie we aren’t trained in a yesmeansyes model, we’re only trained in a nomeansno model).

(later) True, but the way “normative” is understood in much of social science research is “opinion/value based”.

Yes, this. Really important, I think, and one of the reasons I’m enjoying typhonblue’s cultural notes.

@typhonblue — Maybe the best way to deal with this situation is to remove some of the pressure from men by having a manhood that doesn’t revolve around being sexual with women. That would both reduce the ‘horn dog’ stereotype that may lead to some women not communicating clearly because ‘he won’t stop anyway.’ And stop women from feeling entitled to men’s consent as a default. But that’s something I don’t think any of us can accomplish.

Heh, and here we come to the problem of utopia: we can imagine how to make things better but don’t feel like we have the power to create a better situation.

What are steps we can take as individuals to combat negative stereotypes? To encourage an enthusiastic consent, clear communication, “yes means yes” model of sexuality?

@Motley — Because 17-year-old Motley could absolutely not be trusted with that kind of power. That guy probably should never have been trusted with anywhere near the power he already had, by any kind of sensible society.

I feel like you’re missing my point. I already said that I don’t actually support the creation of this policy. The holes that can be poked in it are incredibly obvious if we’re taking it as a serious suggestion of policy. I am curious about what you, as well, think about the first part of comment #288, rather than the paragraph you addressed here.

@Sam — The rejection of feminist assumptions about boundary violations and appropriateness was a central part of the therapeutic process of the cases explained in the paper.

That’s interesting. I don’t get an antifeminist vibe from that paper at all, possibly because a feminist freak-out was a central point in my own coming-out process and I’ve long since dealt with it (coming-out story is forthcoming, stay tuned!)

You can attack feminist ideas about boundary violations all you want, but be careful about doing it while ignoring all the excellent work done by feminists around boundary violations, and how many women feminism has empowered and given more bodily control. Additionally, it’s important to note that many people argue that major leaps forward in BDSM communication derived partly from the feminist revolution — people thinking carefully about consent, etc. BDSM has existed throughout time — but back in the day, sadists were more likely to be terrifying upper-class monsters who abused nonconsenting lower-class partners with no rights (cf. the Marquis de Sade, who was an awful person, and who — by all evidence — did awful things to the peasants on his estates) or men who indulged in partner abuse that was, let’s remember, seen as a normal and reasonable thing to do. (And still is here in Africa. But don’t get me started.) I’m sure some people had consensual SM relationships in these conditions, but it has to have been much harder to do that in circumstances where your partnership was sexually adversarial, women had little recourse for nonconsensuality, etc.

@typhonblue — Clarisse, it seemed like you went through a stage of adjustment to the ‘clear and concise communication’ lifestyle. Likely you did it because BDSM held clear appeal. What’s the initiative for these women to go through the same process?

I get your point, and I agree with it. I just wanted to make sure that we didn’t disappear mens’ (and generally, aggressors’) responsibilities in the picture. I still think that if all stereotypical women were in a situation where all the stereotypical men demanded high standards of consent/communication, then all women would communicate better/consent more clearly.

In short, I think the problem exists on both sides of the gender binary. I thought I’d made that obvious already, but here I am saying it again, Christ. I just also think that it makes more sense to move the lion’s share of responsibility onto the aggressors than it does to the receivers.

@desipis — The biggest barrier to increasing the rate of convictions in rape cases is that proving lack of consent is very difficult

I’d like to see you back up this assertion. Me, I think that the biggest barrier to increasing the rape conviction rate is the tendency for victims not to speak up and for society to blame victims.

@machina — I think this is a suitable model what is being argued about here. Where the potential damage is minor, such as touching a breast when you’re making out, following a social script is reasonable. As the potential damage increases, such as caning someone, the process should more explicitly make consent clear in order to reduce the risk.

Our current societal stereotypes hold that potential damage is greater for caning than breast-touching, yes. And so the current standards for communication are lower for breast-touching than they are for caning. But I’m not convinced that vanilla sex ought to have lower communication standards than BDSM. I think we just happen to live in a time when it does.

@typhonblue — I finally grokked what you mean about a dehumanizing dynamic leading to rape so I concede the point. Although I still think that this can do damage even to the aggressor

Thanks. Yes, I completely agree. There are some essays by men about masculinity in YMY that talk about the predator/prey breakdown and how it fucks up men as well as women.

I’m wondering how ‘rape culture’ fits in with male victims?

Didn’t we already talk about this for like, 20 comments? This is starting to feel repetitive.

@Toysoldier — I mentioned these issues before, but Clarisse avoided addressing the contradictions.

Could you please assume good faith on my part? Please? It would really make my day. I didn’t understand your point the first time around, which is why I “avoided” it. I think I get it better now.

Regarding your other questions, I cannot adequately answer them without knowing specifically what you are looking to do at the hypothetical symposium.

Then propose a symposium for me. The goal is to create conversations about masculinity. What would you say the topics should be? And the rest of my questions apply from there.

…

Sort of a chicken and egg problem.

I mean, yeah. All of these problems can be framed as chicken and egg problems, distributed on both sides of the gender binary, etc …. This is why I tend to put my focus on actions, and which actions I can concretely take: what I can say to be non-oppressive, what I can write on my blog to raise awareness, who I invite to my film series (or masculinity symposium), etc.

Clarisse Thorn January 8, 2010 at 10:51 am #

Rereading my comment, it sounds snippier than I meant it to. Sorry!

Also, I think the “Learning From Extraordinary Lovers” paper may be available here:
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JH

typhonblue January 8, 2010 at 11:36 am #

One last note:

As far as I can tell, beastality is viewed with as much disgust in the societies I mentioned as it is in our own.

Motley January 8, 2010 at 11:44 am #

Hey, you’re back!

I am curious about what you, as well, think about the first part of comment #288

Not sure I understand the point you’re getting at. It seems as though you’re saying that a)The BDSM community (tops in specific) is very careful about consent, which is a good thing (No disagreement from me)
b) The reason that tops are extremely careful about consent is because they run tremendous risk (No disagreement there–though I might suggest that “because they’re not sociopaths” is an additional factor*)

From here, I’m not really clear. Are you suggesting:
That increasing the risk for the male/initiator in ordinary relationships will result in men refusing to have a relationship with the average woman (that’s who typhonblue’s describing in the line you quoted in the beginning)?
And that that, in turn, would lead women to learn to communicate and become willing to do so?

I don’t agree with either of these two things. I’d say that the likely result of further criminalizing male sexuality would be to select for (and I don’t just mean in a “natural selection” sense) men who don’t care about risk. (If the men who don’t care about risk get more female attention than the ones who do, that suggests to the rest of us that we should stop caring about risk**) Similarly, since (I think) that would effectively remove the set of men who can be deterred, it’d result in women’s dating selection pool being restricted to men for whom the strength of their urges always outweighs any concern for consequences. I don’t think that’s the desired effect.

*In my experience, they’re not. Almost none of the sociopaths I’ve met (quite a few) were into BDSM at all (the one exception I know of was exclusively a bottom).

**I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that the set “Men who do not care about the risks incurred by their behavior” contains a lot of rapists.

Didn’t we already talk about this for like, 20 comments? This is starting to feel repetitive

Yeah, and yeah. :)

Could you please assume good faith on my part? Yeah. I think TS has had a lot of negative experiences arguing with feminists. Every movement has its noisy jackasses (and those are always the ones people notice). Clarisse, as far as I can tell, is one of the rare open-minded ones (most movements have those, too).

Clarisse January 8, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

Sorry, I’ve been sick. Also internet access costs a fair bit for me, electricity goes out, etc ….

Oh also, CarnalNation just published a piece by me for the first time!
http://carnalnation.com/content/44250/1133/rest-peace-pitseng-vilakati

(this is probably more exciting to me than it will be to y’all, who probably haven’t even heard of CN. but it is a semi-big deal for me as a sex writer! go me!)

That increasing the risk for the male/initiator in ordinary relationships will result in men refusing to have a relationship with the average woman (that’s who typhonblue’s describing in the line you quoted in the beginning)?

I don’t suggest blindly increasing, for example, the legal punishment for sexual aggressors — I think that’s a really narrow focus for the solution, and is likely to not work and cause backlash.

I guess my point is that when I hear people critiquing women/receivers for “not communicating well”, it bothers me because you could just as easily say that men/aggressors are not listening well.

I think that if there were a way to create an even-handed, evenly-spread-out cultural conception of “more risk for the aggressor”, that would be a good thing. But that’s not the kind of thing you can accomplish via law or policy (the Antioch code already tried).

*In my experience, they’re not. Almost none of the sociopaths I’ve met (quite a few) were into BDSM at all (the one exception I know of was exclusively a bottom).

That’s interesting. How do you meet other sociopaths? Is there, like, a convention or something? Not trying to be snippy, just wondering.

Clarisse January 8, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

You know, I’ve been thinking that this thread is sort of evolving more into a chat room with regulars and occasional drop-ins. You know what I mean? I feel like we’re all Internet friends now, the way I got to be friends with gaming buddies back in high school when I spent 6 hours a day in online games.

Clarisse January 8, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

I kind of want to do a “classic moments from the masculinity thread” followup post, but I’ve already done one followup, plus it would kind of feel like an inside joke at this point.

Ok, enough from me. I have a short story to work on. … I keep thinking that at some point I should scale back the time I spend on this thread (for one thing, I pay by the byte here and the length of this thread is starting to be pretty expensive), but it keeps being interesting, damn it.

Motley January 8, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

Is there, like, a convention or something?

LOL. Yeah, we have separate meetings for sociopaths-only at those Patriarchy Conventions you mentioned in the beginning, where The Patriarchy gets together and discusses how to oppress women :)

Not really, but they’re pretty easy to spot if you know what to look for. (Though you do get some false positives) Don’t think we’ll ever have support groups or anything like that–as “inability to function as part of a group” is a common trait.

Which is why I sometimes joke about being the Last Minority–I mean, frickin’ pedophiles got to be accepted sometimes–I’m pretty sure it’ll always be okay to hate on sociopaths. Which is something I’m okay with.

I guess my point is that when I hear people critiquing women/receivers for “not communicating well”, it bothers me because you could just as easily say that men/aggressors are not listening well.

Evidence seems to indicate that we’re trying. (viz, “Nice Guys”). Women, in my (admittedly non-infinite) experience really seem not to, as a group, be attempting to make their needs/boundaries clear. “He should just know” still seems to be the going theme, whereas the “Just persuade her” theme for guys seems to be (gradually, in fits and starts) fading. (Three steps forward, two steps back–since persistence and boundary-ignoring still seems to work more often than respect and politeness, it’s probably going to be the dominant approach for the near future, at least).

(Haven’t checked out the CN piece, as I’m at work, and while I know that it isn’t porn, someone skimming web addresses wouldn’t necessarily know that)

But that’s not the kind of thing you can accomplish via law or policy (the Antioch code already tried).

Oh, you could. Just nobody ever seems to like my suggestions as to how ;)

Motley January 8, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

…more into a chat room with regulars and occasional drop-ins. You know what I mean?

Yeah–and, for me, it’s been one of the most interesting places on the web for a while. For what it’s worth: thanks.

I feel like we’re all Internet friends now…

Also yeah. I’ve been experimenting with honesty, here, so y’all probably know me about as well as nearly anyone else does, now.

Sam January 9, 2010 at 12:09 am #

Clarisse,

“That’s interesting. I don’t get an antifeminist vibe from that paper at all”

sorry, I probably shouldn’t comment coming home drunk, and I’ll address the other points tomorrow. But this one, I think, requires immediate attention. I don’t think what I said – The rejection of feminist assumptions about boundary violations and appropriateness – is about ANTIfeminism at all, quite to the contrary, it’s BEYONDfeminism. It’s what we’re talking about here, in a way, it’s taking feminism seriously (well, taking critical theory seriously, something feminism hasn’t done particularly well), it’s an attempt to sort out the double bind issue. It’s MORE THAN, not merely against.

And seriously I don’t think you’re a manhater. I really don’t. I was merely looking at the most common exyample and what Twisty Faster had written. Sorry if you felt I was implying I felt you were a man hater. I don’t even think Twisty is a man hater – she just looks at the world through a paricularly clouded lense.

desipis January 9, 2010 at 1:36 am #

Clarisse:

Me, I think that the biggest barrier to increasing the rape conviction rate is the tendency for victims not to speak up and for society to blame victims.

I think the inabilitiy to prove lack of consent is a key factor in why rapes aren’t reported more often and why rape allegations are so often challenged. The other thing I see is that the significant stigma associated with a rape allegation creates a motive for a very aggressive defense to minimise the harm from the (false) allegation.

Clarisse January 9, 2010 at 10:22 am #

@Motley — Evidence seems to indicate that we’re trying. (viz, “Nice Guys”). Women, in my (admittedly non-infinite) experience really seem not to, as a group, be attempting to make their needs/boundaries clear.

Yeah, I have to give you that one. The women who are concerned with gender dynamics are usually too busy trying to make the situation better for women to examine how women are tending to fuck up. The women who aren’t concerned with gender dynamics, well, aren’t concerned.

@Sam — And seriously I don’t think you’re a manhater. I really don’t. I was merely looking at the most common exyample and what Twisty Faster had written. Sorry if you felt I was implying I felt you were a man hater. I don’t even think Twisty is a man hater – she just looks at the world through a paricularly clouded lense.

Fair enough. It’s my fault really; I should’ve taken a deep breath before writing that comment. In case it’s not obvious, I have a bad history with my temper. But I really try very hard not to be mean to or presumptuous about people who I know are well-intentioned. It’s just that sometimes I fail.

@desipis — well, I think all of the above can be key factors, etc. I’m just wary of phrases like “the biggest factor” etc.

Toysoldier January 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

Clarisse:

Could you please assume good faith on my part? Please? It would really make my day. I didn’t understand your point the first time around, which is why I “avoided” it. I think I get it better now.

I am not assuming you spoke in bad faith. Based on your response to my questions I got the impression that you did not want to address those specific issues because you preferred to focus on “describing how masculinity currently appears and how it functions and how people are using it.”

Didn’t we already talk about this for like, 20 comments? This is starting to feel repetitive.

Actually, there was no direct description of how “rape culture” fits in with male victims. There was only the assertion that it does, sans any explanation how or why it does, which in comparison to the typical discussions about “rape culture” makes the assertion fairly skimpy.

Then propose a symposium for me. The goal is to create conversations about masculinity. What would you say the topics should be? And the rest of my questions apply from there.

Again, I cannot answer the questions without knowing specifically what it is you wish to discussion. Saying it is to create conversations about masculinity is too vague. There must be something specific you wish to discuss, and depending on what that is I can tell you how I think it may play out.

Motley:

Yeah. I think TS has had a lot of negative experiences arguing with feminists.

If I based my responses on my past experiences with feminists, I would never speak to feminists. However, there are topics I no longer discuss with feminists, particularly offline, in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.

typhonblue January 9, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

Thought about it a bit and I figured I would post one last time on the male-sexuality tangent as I realized there were some points that might add to the thread topic. (And it seems to have gotten quiet so time for some more controversy.)

**Warning: This post may offend some heterosexually-identified men.**

First off:

My own personal approach to dealing with concepts I find offensive or triggering is to _avoid internalizing them_ rather then asking others to cease speaking about them. First step is to avoid people/places I know will present those arguments; second step is to only expose myself as much as I know I can handle; third step is to simply allow people to have their opinions, observations, arguments without taking it personally, sort of let them flow over me without sticking. (I’m in between step two and three on a lot of things.)

In a thread that is challenging traditional notions of manhood–traditional notions that a lot of men hold dear–I think people should be given more latitude for ‘feeling up sacred cows’. Even if said ‘feeling up’ is going to leave some people offended. (Although, conversely, if some men are offended at what my observations, other men may be relieved.)

On to the post:

Motley,

So that passage illustrates that the men in that society consider their heterosexual, woman-oriented behavior as more a part of their identity than their homosexual behavior.

Which is the reverse of our own society. We believe that a man’s homosexual behavior is more an indicator of identity then his heterosexual behavior. For example, one of my friends—who has had a lot more sex with women then the average straight guy—is forever a ‘fag’ or non-man because he has screwed around with other men. For Indians that would be irrelevant.

It’s interesting that our notions of manhood now revolve around ‘proving a negative’ rather then ‘proving a positive’—a nigh impossible standard of proof. This seems to be leading to some very bizarre self-policing behavior. For example, I’ve noticed male friends won’t sit beside each other in a movie theatre*. I guess they’re afraid that if their arms brush that means they’re gay? Some guys recoil violently at the sight of a naked man; could you imagine if they did the same at the classic ‘naked baby on a bearskin rug’ or at a picture of Fido? People would think they were nuts or actually did experience feelings of pedophilia and beastiality.

A female friend of mine calls it ‘the wall’—the neurotic, insecure behavior of many heterosexually-identified men. Prior to meeting her husband, she had resigned herself to it; a lot of other women I know seem to be in the same boat.

What’s even more interesting is that not all heterosexual men behave this way.

Some (maybe most) straight men will have sex with anything–including other men–if there’s no women available.

Some areas of the Middle East have sayings about young men being better sex partners then women. Again I think there is a strong element of social conditioning**. We find eating bugs disgusting; some societies consider them a delicacy.

My point was that accusing straight men of being secretly gay isn’t actually new to our culture.

What I meant was new was the idea that male sexuality is more mutable then female(not that men are secretly all gay**). From my observations having lived in very different cultural milieus, male sexuality _is_ more mutable. This is because, wherever you go, female sexuality seems to be more firmly associated with reproduction.

As far as I can tell, everyone in our culture believes the reverse. Female sexuality is more flexible then male–but even in societies where heterosexual behavior with men is seen as ‘corrupting’ to women, they still don’t seem to reach the rates of homosexual behavior as men in societies in which the reverse is true. Maybe this is because a species can’t afford a large number of non-reproductive females like it can with males.

Similarly, so-called “Christians” who seem to think that the reason we don’t agree with them is because we’ve never heard anyone say “Jesus saves” before.

Just a reminder to everyone else tuning in, this convo started when I said ‘I think men need their sexuality to be defined by women’. I still believe this and I’d like to add, ‘because they’re trying to prove a negative.’

The comparison between me and feminists and/or Christians is, in my opinion, erroneous. I’m not expecting anyone to take what I say as an article of faith or base public policy on it. I offer arguments and observations free of expectation, if someone thinks they’re useful then they are welcome to them.

Also when I said ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ I was referring to the fact that you chose to question me and not my observation. It doesn’t matter if I want every man on Earth to be gay or if I’m bisexual***, observations and arguments exist independent of the motives and features of the person espousing them**** and need to be judged on their own merits.

I have experienced this with a lot of different people who believe in various ideologies. Particularly when I put forth something that challenges a concept they hold very dear but is largely indefensible(not that I’m saying this is the case here). Recently I was told by a feminist that an argument of mine regarding domestic violence was compromised—thus she could dismiss it—by my having been a victim of female violence.

Finally as far as I can tell, you’ve identified yourself as a sociopath. Which means you don’t feel empathy for others. However from other things that you’ve said, I get the impression that you’re not immune from social pressure. You actually care about what other people think of you, even if you don’t care about them. And, again, I haven’t said all men are sexually mutable… even if most are, there is still likely a proportion who aren’t. (Which explains the heterosexual men who don’t exhibit insecure behaviors.)

To conclude. I think natural male behavior(whatever that is) is less gay then Saudi Arabia and more gay then Western society. Maybe it averages out to Latin sexuality. In the memorable words of one of my Brazilian acquaintances, ‘it isn’t gay if you’re not penetrated!’ He also, rather amusingly, argued that there was only one real gay scene in Brokeback Mountain, when the two guys were hugging each other. Actually it wasn’t much of an argument because no one present was arguing with him; possibly because he’s the scariest man I’ve ever met*****.

*Straight female friends don’t seem to have an issue with this, so it can’t be a feature of heterosexuality.
**One can say that male sexuality is mutable while still saying that it’s extremely hard to change once ‘fixed’. Just like it’s very difficult to learn a new language after a certain age. Thus social constructs might as well be biology.
*** I don’t, really. I think that would result in a society very much like Saudi Arabia, where women have little existence outside of providing legitimate heirs to men.
**** Assuming they don’t is one of the things I dislike most about identity politics. How does an anti-abortion black person have a different view of abortion then an anti-abortion white person? Also, Christians can present valid critiques of evolutionary theory while having somewhat suspect motives.
*****Tied with a Russian who took out an entire Asian gang bare handed when they stiffed him for the cost of the pizza he was delivering.

Sam January 10, 2010 at 11:33 am #

Clarisse,

still needed to address these points you made -

Quite frankly, I think this society already exists (or at least something a lot closer to it than mainstream America), and it’s called BDSM. As I was trying to explain. What did you think of the first two paragraphs of my comment #288?

Well, I think they are spot on, both with respect to the required kind of communication and the realization that the initiator/top needs safety as well – if you loosely equate masculinity with initiation, something that I think is at least culturally true, possibly even an aspect of underlying biology, then you’re getting to the core of the problem at hand, in my opinion. The thing is – on a social discourse level “not playing with the bottom” isn’t an option. On a social discourse level, the bottom/receiver doesn’t even have the option of clearly communicating.

And even WITH clear communication, there is still the logical problem that *all* intition/domination logically means, as the lesbian woman mentions in the paper – finding her boundaries and then pushing them. That’s why, again, I think that “yes means yes” doesn’t work for individual encounters in any way – as it requires complete information about something/ preferences the reveiver/bottom may not even know ex-ante. It is, as I have said, a very useful way to think and talk about sexuality.

You seem to think that you’re suffering because society stigmatizes aggressors. I disagree. I think you’re suffering because we aren’t trained to communicate enthusiastic consent or discuss our sexual tastes openly (ie we aren’t trained in a yesmeansyes model, we’re only trained in a nomeansno model).

I think, yes, there is a double bind that at the same time requires aggression from males and condemns it. It’s a logically impossible and behaviorally quite difficult situation. I think it speaks for the masculine ability to deal with complicated social setups to have – by and large – managed to live with such contradictory messages. But I also agree that it would be great to have a yes-means-yes setup for sexuality discussions as such, as per the above.

“You can attack feminist ideas about boundary violations all you want, but be careful about doing it while ignoring all the excellent work done by feminists around boundary violations, and how many women feminism has empowered and given more bodily control.”

I absolutely respect that. And I think there is a consensus among people in this thread that feminism isn’t the origin and not the only social force responsible for the problems we’re adressing here – but it is – I would contend – currently the most powerful, and certainly the one for which the propagation of such positions is most contradictory, as it is continuing to taint heterosexual (most!) women’s sexual desires as wrong, if not overtly (as in the case of Alice Schwarzer, whom you mentioned in the other post) at least implicitly.

I’m thinking that the real feminist sex wars haven’t been fought in the early eighties, not even in the nineties, simply because at that point, the ideological propositions about male violence and the individual male’s – as opposed to social responsibilities to deal with this – hadn’t quite made it into the popular conscience. Now they have – I think what is needed now is a discourse that helps free the initiator/top and *THEREBY* frees the receiver/bottom from feeling exploited.

And given that men are facing the problem that we need to appear strong to be attractive to women, I doubt that we will ever be able to demand such a discourse on a broader scale – and there’s the added problem that feminists usually try to kill every debate that’s not based on their premises – so getting this debate going is a feminist responsibility, in my opinion. Maybe it’s the last one, but it’s a feminist responsibility. Some have anticipated it explicitly, as, say this quote by Naomi Wolf illustrates -

“Wolf famously wrote in her book Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How It Will Change the 21st Century that she finds shelter and solace in the male body, and that “there is an elaborate vocabulary in which to describe sexual harm done by men, but almost no vocabulary in which a woman can celebrate sex with men.”

(taken from here -http://www.alternet.org/sex/103035/)

- some more implictly, like Foster-Wallace. But, I think, this is the kind of debate that needs to be broadened. And I doubt the current forefront of feminism, either in the US or Western Europe are able to do it, as they seem to be constantly trying to prove to the second wave that they’re worthy feminists and are able to use equally big words… Well, maybe the forth wave will finally see the problem ;)

typhonblue January 10, 2010 at 11:49 am #

Sam:

“there is an elaborate vocabulary in which to describe sexual harm done by men, but almost no vocabulary in which a woman can celebrate sex with men.”

And no vocabulary to describe sexual harm done by women to men.

As a meta-observation of this entire thread, I find it interesting that, even in the presence of evidence that women sexually exploit men in dating relationships at the same rate as the reverse, we’re still putting the onus on men to stop ‘date rape.’

Men may be socially the aggressors in sexual encounters, but that’s not protecting them from being victims nor is it preventing women from being victimizers.

There must be another dynamic here, yet almost the entire thread is focused on pinning the blame on men’s socialization to be sexual aggressors for date rape.

What responsibility do women have to take? What do they have to change about their behavior? How can we protect male victims?

Toysoldier:

Actually, there was no direct description of how “rape culture” fits in with male victims. There was only the assertion that it does, sans any explanation how or why it does, which in comparison to the typical discussions about “rape culture” makes the assertion fairly skimpy.

Exactly.

Clarisse January 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

@Toysoldier — Actually, there was no direct description of how “rape culture” fits in with male victims. There was only the assertion that it does, sans any explanation how or why it does, which in comparison to the typical discussions about “rape culture” makes the assertion fairly skimpy.

Well, okay. But I fail to see why it would be interesting or relevant to discuss how rape culture fits in with male victims when you (and typhonblue) don’t even think it’s a reasonable phrase (or “theory”) in the first place. I mean, I could go into it, but it just seems like a waste of effort when you don’t accept my starting definition of terms. I’ve already acknowledged that the phrase isn’t going to be helpful in conversations with y’all (and probably the majority of the population) and that generally I’m going to try to avoid it and phrase my ideas using other terms, if only to keep my ideas sharply communicated … I guess I just fail to see how continuing along this line of inquiry could possibly be productive.

Again, I cannot answer the questions without knowing specifically what it is you wish to discussion. Saying it is to create conversations about masculinity is too vague. There must be something specific you wish to discuss, and depending on what that is I can tell you how I think it may play out.

Well, okay, but aren’t there already discussions and conventions on topics as vague as “masculinity”? What is this thread exactly?

How about this:
1) If I were to define and give the history of “masculinity” in, say, a gender dictionary or something weird like that, who should I consult?
2) If I were trying to design a character for a popular TV show who is intended to give a “positive portrait of masculinity”, who should I ask for input? (and what would the character be like?)
3) If I were hosting a discussion at a university intended to explore the “state of masculinity today” for whatever academics chose to attend (probably mostly gender studies scholars, but doubtless soc and anthro etc would be represented), who should I invite as speakers?
4) How would you design a masculinity-related event? What kind of masculinity-related events do you think are (or could be) important in an activist context and who would you ask to help you design them, given the chance?

Are those good starting questions?

@typhonblue: As far as I can tell, everyone in our culture believes the reverse.

During a … I think it was the bisexuality discussion at my film series, one of the older Black dudes in the audience said that he was surprised that so many people were talking about male sexuality as less flexible, because when he was growing up it had always been seen as more so.

@Sam — The thing is – on a social discourse level “not playing with the bottom” isn’t an option. On a social discourse level, the bottom/receiver doesn’t even have the option of clearly communicating.

One thing some of us talk about in HIV mitigation is the need to deal with problems on three timescales — the short term, medium term and long term. Maybe that’s where this conversation needs to go ….

I’d say that in the long term, a viable strategy would be to generally destigmatize sexuality, encourage everyone to have a better grasp on their sexual needs, and increase pressure on aggressors to get consent before acting.

The short term is the trickiest part. The system is so fucked up, how do we act as reasonable agents within the system? One thing I have done a lot is have a lot of male friends and then just end up dating some of them when one of us falls for the other one and makes a move within the friend-territory. This short-circuits a lot of the usual and most blatant problems of dating within the gender binary, and means that we actually have some grasp on who the fuck the other person is when we date them, but I can’t tell if it’s a reasonable strategy to propose to other people.

Sam January 10, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

Clarisse,

“I’d say that in the long term, a viable strategy would be to generally destigmatize sexuality, encourage everyone to have a better grasp on their sexual needs, and increase pressure on aggressors to get consent before acting.”

Well, short term, long term – I think this really depends on whether you’re looking at when things should be started on when they may have a social impact. I agree that the time lages are important (Keynes’ “nothing else” quote comes to mind). But then, when it comes to starting this, I think we should all do it, to the extent that we can. For those involved in feminist discourse, that would, in my opinion, imply vocal opposition to implicit notions of exploitative male sexuality. I mean, it’s probably not easy to make such points in such an environment, even as a woman, as the reception of feminists who do make such arguments has usually not been friendly, but it’s still something that can be done in the short term. Developing the appropriate vocabulary will probably be a medium term affair, but it still requires an effort that, in turn, requires acceptance of the discourse within the space where people who can develop the language can meet.

Short term, individually. Well, there’s lesson 10 of the paper you mention, which isn’t really proactive, to be true. But maybe it’s really the only thing available.

I think it’s always a great strategy to get to know people you’re interested in sexually. But being friends ‘first’ doesn’t really seem like a viable strategy for everyone, in my opinion. I actually think it’s even a particularly risky strategy, as it’s about switching from a non-romantic to a romantic relationship, and, with all disclaimers about my limited experience in romantic relationships invoked, friendship is quite a bit different from a romantic relationship. One may end up losing both.

desipis January 11, 2010 at 3:36 am #

Clarisse,

How about this:
1) If I were to define and give the history of “masculinity” in, say, a gender dictionary or something weird like that, who should I consult?
2) If I were trying to design a character for a popular TV show who is intended to give a “positive portrait of masculinity”, who should I ask for input? (and what would the character be like?)
3) If I were hosting a discussion at a university intended to explore the “state of masculinity today” for whatever academics chose to attend (probably mostly gender studies scholars, but doubtless soc and anthro etc would be represented), who should I invite as speakers?
4) How would you design a masculinity-related event? What kind of masculinity-related events do you think are (or could be) important in an activist context and who would you ask to help you design them, given the chance?

Are those good starting questions?

I think the best way I can respond to those questions would be to point out that you’d require similar answers as if you’d replace the word “masculinity” with a word equally broad in meaning and fundamental to someones identity. Try replacing it with something like “religion” or “patriotism” and see how you’d answer the question.

typhonblue January 11, 2010 at 11:02 am #

Try replacing it with something like “religion” or “patriotism” and see how you’d answer the question.

Er… I’ve noticed that religious people tend to be rather ignorant of the history of their own religion.

Sometimes an ‘outside looking in’ perspective is useful; particularly in situations where the belief system is self-regulating–ie. stigmatizing for those who fail to adhere and live up to it.

Motley January 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

@Typhonblue–

We believe that a man’s homosexual behavior is more an indicator of identity
Hmm, good point.

Particularly when I put forth something that challenges a concept they hold very dear but is largely indefensible
Not sure what you’re talking about here. In my case, there are are a lot of things I value, some of which are (generally held to be) totally indefensible, but I don’t think there are any ideas I hold particularly dear that I don’t also think are almost self-evident (Kant, for example).

A female friend of mine calls it ‘the wall’—the neurotic, insecure behavior
Ha. As someone who’s careful to exhibit this “neurotic, insecure behavior,” no. It’s not neurotic, it’s not insecure. Well, it is if and only if one pretends that the consequences for failing to stay on the right side of “the wall” are imaginary. They aren’t. Are you unaware of this? (I don’t know how much exposure to American culture you’ve had).

Also when I said ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ I was referring to the fact that you chose to question me and not my observation.

No, I was parodying your response in hopes that you’d understand why I thought it was goofy. You responded to someone (possibly me, I don’t recall) claiming that his sexuality was “natural” by saying that no, your sexuality was natural, and he only thought that because [people of his sexuality] needed their sexuality to be called natural, and that [your sexuality] was actually the natural one.

So I said that maybe [people of your sexuality] need their sexuality to be the natural one, and that no, mine is totally the one that’s actually natural. Totally :p
I wasn’t attacking you, I was making fun of you. (In a more well-meaning way than how I was making fun of Wendell, for example. That might’ve constituted an attack, I suppose)

The comparison between me and feminists and/or Christians is, in my opinion, erroneous
I wasn’t making such a comparison. I was comparing my reaction to Wendell to my reaction to a particularly obnoxious form of “Christian.”

To conclude. I think natural male behavior(whatever that is) is less gay then Saudi Arabia and more gay then Western society.

Agree completely. Sometimes I think a majority of the population is faking “normalcy” every bit as much as I am. On the topic of me (a topic of which I’m quite fond:)
However from other things that you’ve said, I get the impression that you’re not immune from social pressure

Immune in what sense? I care what some people think of me (it would be inconsistent not to, and I’m not fond of inconsistency). I care (quite a bit) about how society in general perceives me–for much the same reasons. The opinions (and actions) of those around me have a lot of impact on my life. So I’m quite influenced by social pressures–in that seeming to be so influenced is an extremely important blending-in technique. I’d say I’m pretty good at it, too, as most people don’t know that I’m not like them. Decades spent learning to blend in, and all that.
But anyway, if what you mean by “not immune to social pressures” means “able to internalize them in some way,” then, well, I’m not sure what that even means. “Unable to internalize social pressures” might be as good a description of my nature as any. And I’ve tried.

@Toysoldier:
If I based my responses on my past experiences with feminists, I would never speak to feminists.

I meant that your perceptions of feminists would be colored by your previous experiences with feminists (you’d have to be amnesiac or wildly insane for that not to be the case), and that you might be a little less likely to cut a feminist some slack as a result. (Note–I’m saying things like “colored by” or “influenced by” rather than “basing your responses on” for a reason. *A* factor, not *the* factor).

@Clarisse
The women who are concerned with gender dynamics are usually too busy trying to make the situation better for women to examine how women are tending to fuck up. The women who aren’t concerned with gender dynamics, well, aren’t concerned.

Agreed, and agreed. Which is part of why my primary interest in this is a tactical one–how to get uninterested people interested in thinking about gender dynamics. Not assigning blame, not even about how society could be better–but just in how to convince people that they should give these topics some thought. As far as I can tell, the most useful approach I’ve seen so far is bringing a subject’s attention to the ways in which our current gender-dynamics model has negative consequences for everyone in general and them, specifically. Essentially, convincing people that “gender issues” actually affect their own lives–and that it’s in their interest to think about it a little. (That’s how I ended up here, mostly)
Okay, the other really good approach was why I occasionally look at Feministing: Their logo is funny. Seriously–I probably wouldn’t have spent nearly so much time there if not for that.

Sam January 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

Anyone had a look at the news from Northern Ireland today? Weak signal of slow social change in social structures – I cannot imagine something like this happening even ten years ago. A 60yo First Minister’s wife with a 19yo lover forcing her husband to step down because of potentially unethical behaviour on *her* part… Things are changing. Best thing – her name is actually Mrs Robinson. Not kidding ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8450854.stm

typhonblue January 11, 2010 at 1:22 pm #

Well, it is if and only if one pretends that the consequences for failing to stay on the right side of “the wall” are imaginary. They aren’t.

I know they aren’t imaginary, however a lot of the men I’ve observed this behavior in are shielded by their socio-economic group from much of the hard and fast consequences of transgression. The most they’re going to get is social censure, not physical retaliation. But that’s enough.

I’ve also noticed that the men who exhibit these insecure behaviors tend to be what people would call ‘beta males’. (For whatever reason ‘alpha males’ seem to be more comfortable dealing with ambiguity.) So I don’t know if it’s because they’re actually dealing with feelings of homosexual desire, or because their sense of masculinity is compromised to begin with so they feel they have to overcompensate.

This brings up another point. It seems to me that men think they can have more or less manhood, generally based on their status as ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’.

Is it possible to have a definition of manhood divorced from this status jockeying?

Motley January 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

For whatever reason ‘alpha males’ seem to be more comfortable dealing with ambiguity

Odd. I would say, given my experience, that the people exhibiting the least “insecure” behavior are the people who’ve smoked the most marijuana. (Which does not correlate with “alpha maleness”–quite the opposite). I’d say perhaps half of the “alpha males” I know are terrified of being labeled homosexual. Though it seems that one’s alpha-ness might be judged based on one’s lack of such concern by some people.
How are you defining “alpha male?” (meaning, are you defining it as “unconcerned with seeming gay?” If you are, there’s your answer right there).
The stereotypical alpha-male that I usually portray (And I find it amusing that people who don’t know me very well use me as an example of alpha-maledom) does indeed fully (or maybe that should be “somewhat?”) participate in these “insecure” behaviors; hell, I even openly mock myself for doing things that might seem gay.
Though perhaps less, as years pass and my identity is more well-defined in the eyes of people with whom I interact. (Meaning that, to most people I see on a daily basis now, I’ve already defined myself as “normal” in their perception).

typhonblue January 11, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

The stereotypical alpha-male that I usually portray (And I find it amusing that people who don’t know me very well use me as an example of alpha-maledom) does indeed fully (or maybe that should be “somewhat?”) participate in these “insecure” behaviors; hell, I even openly mock myself for doing things that might seem gay.

My definition of alpha male generally revolves around a lack of insecure behaviors.

I see guys who don’t get rattled easily as more dominant. As soon as a guy starts acting defensive, he seems far less dominant to me.

I guess it’s that control aspect; it’s hard to be in control of a situation if you’re not in control of yourself. And it’s hard to be in control of yourself if you let other people control you through words.

So I said that maybe [people of your sexuality] need their sexuality to be the natural one, and that no, mine is totally the one that’s actually natural. Totally :p

Yes I see. I wouldn’t have acted defensively if there wasn’t truth in what you say.

We all want to be normal, except when we want to be special snowflakes of specialness.

typhonblue January 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

To put it succinctly.

Dominant men have an internal locus of control; non-dominant men have an external locus of control.

Motley January 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

My definition of alpha male generally revolves around a lack of insecure behaviors.

Yeah, that’s what I meant. Saying that “lack of insecurity tends to coincides with alpha-maleness” isn’t terribly meaningful when you define alpha-maleness as lack of insecurity.

And it’s hard to be in control of yourself if you let other people control you through words.

Totally. There’s a problem, though, in that if you seem too un-influenced by other people’s words, everyone will think you’re a psycho. (Which can have consequences as negative as seeming overly influenced.) Designing an identity that will come across as attractive/pleasant/admirable-but-not-psycho is rather difficult.

But I suppose that’s not a dilemma faced by everyone (if it were, I suspect we’d use a more explicit means of social communication, for one thing).

We all want to be normal, except when we want to be special snowflakes of specialness.

Truer words were seldom spoken. I’d speculate that it’s because we want the benefits of both–we want to be noticed, but not in a bad way.
Certainly when I was growing up–during that period where everyone wants to seem like the person who doesn’t care what anyone thinks–it was a bit confusing, as it seems like everyone looks up to someone who seems like he/she doesn’t care what anyone thinks, but is still aware that there’s something terribly wrong with anyone who actually doesn’t care what anyone thinks. Makes image-management a bit complicated.

Dominant men have an internal locus of control; non-dominant men have an external locus of control.

In my experience, almost everyone* has an external locus of control… but I’m a bit of a cynic about things like “human nature” and “free will.”

*Everyone normal.

typhonblue January 11, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

There’s a problem, though, in that if you seem too un-influenced by other people’s words, everyone will think you’re a psycho.

Except that selfishness is it’s own form of insecurity.

I think the people with the highest degree of internal control are likely Buddhist monks. Yet they are hardly psychos. In fact by needing less from others they are in a position to give more.

In my experience, almost everyone* has an external locus of control

I won’t argue with that; but it’s a matter of degree.

For me, the more internal a man’s locus of control is–the more he looks to himself and his own actions to define him–the more dominant he appears.

That means if someone calls him gay, he just laughs it off or plays with it, because it has no real meaning to his self-identity which he controls.

Certainly when I was growing up–during that period where everyone wants to seem like the person who doesn’t care what anyone thinks–it was a bit confusing, as it seems like everyone looks up to someone who seems like he/she doesn’t care what anyone thinks, but is still aware that there’s something terribly wrong with anyone who actually doesn’t care what anyone thinks.

I don’t think not caring what people think is really sociopathic behavior, though.

In a lot of ways I don’t care what people think–or I’m willing to accept negative opinions about me as the price for doing what I believe is right. However I still care about people.

Actually I would say that not caring what people think makes it easier to care about them.

That’s what I think the ultimate alpha male is; self-defining, not concerned with what other people think of him, and able to give more to others because he needs less.

In terms of the dating script, from what I can see there are a lot of beta males willing to ape being alpha through aggressive, bullying behavior in order to attract females. But the irony is that I don’t think the females they’re attracting really know what an alpha male looks like in the first place! (Possibly because they’re beta bullies themselves.)

typhonblue January 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

An addendum; I think a lot of people care a hell of a lot more about being liked then they care about other people.

Clarisse January 11, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

@Sam — For those involved in feminist discourse, that would, in my opinion, imply vocal opposition to implicit notions of exploitative male sexuality.

I agree, but it’s worth noting that this has all the same problems as vocally opposing all other implicit cultural notions (an issue that comes up a lot in feminist discourse normally, of course). For example, how much are you obliged to offend your friends?

@desipis — I get that it’s broad, but even if it were replaced with religion or patriotism, I’d still be able to imagine these situations and try to describe them. I’m not looking for the most exact answer in the world, I’m just trying to get a handle on how TS’s theories actually work in practice. If you’ve got a better idea for how to do that, then I’m all ears, but all this theoretical hair-splitting is starting to feel like a waste of time without any actual clue how to apply it.

@Motley — As far as I can tell, the most useful approach I’ve seen so far is bringing a subject’s attention to the ways in which our current gender-dynamics model has negative consequences for everyone in general and them, specifically.

Yeah, it’s really true. This goes back to my point from the Entitled Cis Het Men series about how it’s annoying to have to market anti-oppression — shouldn’t it market itself? — but I’m willing to do it, partly because I legitimately do want people to have a sense of their own boxes and thereby hopefully learn to be happier.

Motley January 11, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

Except that selfishness is it’s own form of insecurity.
Oh, absolutely. I only mentioned it because “avoid seeming like a dangerous psycho” has long been a significant priority, for obvious reasons.

For me, the more internal a man’s locus of control is–the more he looks to himself and his own actions to define him–the more dominant he appears.

My first thought was “So, narcissists and sociopaths?” (In that certain people don’t define themselves by other people at all ) Though I suppose that I don’t think that abnormal psychologies fit on that scale, really. One could just as easily say that I don’t define myself by anything–neither by my own actions nor by others’ opinions. So, I guess I’m not a good example.
Incidentally, trying to find definitions for myself is something of a pastime of mine–I’m currently trying to figure out whether I’d be alpha or beta under your definitions above. I certainly don’t define myself by anything external to myself (and arguably not by anything else, either)–but I certainly ape stereotypical alpha-male behaviors whenever there’s no cost to doing so (though not to extremes)–the object being to avoid excessive scrutiny, and so I usually play to stereotypes whenever doing so isn’t problematic.

I think a lot of people care a hell of a lot more about being liked then they care about other people.

Agree and disagree. Caring about being liked seems to be a side effect about caring about other people (even if it’s “caring about people a very, very little”). In my experience (backed up by a quick Wikipedia check, to see if my impression was accurate…it’s been quite a few years since I was “up” on the psychological terminology)– indifference to the feelings of others is one of the markers for sociopathic behavior. (Well, psychopathic/antisocial personality disorder; I’d say that well-controlled psychopathic disorders have received very little study, for obvious reasons)

Clarence January 11, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

Clarisse:

Quite awhile ago, and I do apologize for the delay, you asked me an important question, which I feel deserves an answer. At the time I had no idea you were paying by the word for your internet access, so I was intending to continue a senseless side argument about nature vs nurture. Now that I’ve seen how this thread has evolved, and with the knowledge of how you pay for your time, I think I’ll simply answer your question and go back to lurking like I have been the past day.

You wanted to know more about the so-called “glass floor”.

Briefly that is the phenomenon that is the opposite of the much cited male advantage in prestigous and high-paying professions. A far greater number of men are the miners, garbagemen, trappers, and other professions where death or injury is far more likely and the pay is often less to boot. Encomppased is also another phenomena wherein male “losers” tend to fall farther and harder than female losers, possibly because most females can, if they must, find some man to help or support them, and that they tend to be treated better by welfare and the safety nets esp if they have minor children. This helps explain why the majority of homeless are men.

typhonblue January 12, 2010 at 12:17 am #

Motly:

Caring about being liked seems to be a side effect about caring about other people (even if it’s “caring about people a very, very little”).

Let me give you an example of caring about people but not caring about what they think of you.

A buddhist teacher had a student who was very aggressive and bullying towards his other students. One day, after tolerating his behavior for a long time, the teacher confronted his student while he was bullying another student. The teacher told him in no uncertain terms that what he was doing was monstrous and that he had to leave his sight.

Another of the teacher’s students approached him later to tell him how glad he was that the bully was gone and said, ‘he was such an awful person, wasn’t he?’

The teacher replied, ‘what are you talking about? He and I are the best of friends.’

Later the bully said that being thrown out of the temple was the best thing that ever happened to him; it made him realize he had to change.

That’s the difference between caring what people think and caring about them.

I think our neediness, including caring what people think, can clutter our natural compassion and empathy for others. It can even justify nasty behavior: ‘I need X so bad, and s/he has X, so I can take it from him/her because keeping it from me makes him/her a bad person and it’s okay to do bad things to bad people.’

So, yes, it’s possible to have an internal locus of control and yet be compassionate and empathetic. In fact I think the more internal a person’s locus of control, the more likely they are to feel compassion and empathy because both are so integral to the normal human.

Finally, I think maybe your disability is making this point difficult but it boils down to this: I don’t do bad things because I don’t want to be seen as bad, I don’t do bad things because I don’t want to hurt people. Big difference.

Clarence:

This helps explain why the majority of homeless are men.

As far as I’m concerned any social theory of gender has to account not just for the glass ceiling but the glass floor as well.

Financial rewards may be higher for men, but the risks are far, far greater and more men end up in the gutter then the board room.

Motley January 12, 2010 at 6:05 am #

@Clarisse–

shouldn’t it market itself?

I’d say it never has before, so why would it start now?
More seriously: Anti-oppression’s easy to market to anyone who doesn’t think that you’re claiming that they’re oppressing you, when they’re sure they’re not.
Laymen interpret most feminist statements and terms to mean “men oppress women” and such–”Hey, we’re being oppressed” markets itself a little better than “Hey, stop oppressing us.”
However, “This current system has negative effects for pretty much everyone, including you. We should change it” markets itself a lot better (assuming you can get people to actually notice their own negative experiences).

@typhonblue–
That story oddly mirrors one from my own life. Perhaps I’m secretly a Buddhist teacher. (Yes, I doubt that, too).

t can even justify nasty behavior
I’ve seen this alot, and, while I don’t really understand it at all, it never fails to amuse. This idea that somehow one’s own actions must be just–not in the sense that one’s actions must conform to a concept of justice, but the way people shape their concept of justice to conform to their actions. At that point, I always feel like asking why they care about being able to think of themselves as good.

Also, incidentally, in my experience, nearly anyone, if they want something, will justify to themselves the actions required to get it. Inevitably, absurdly, and often hilariously.

it’s possible to have an internal locus of control and yet be compassionate and empathetic.

Hmm. In my experience, I’d say the two are mutually exclusive. The extraordinarily selfish and the extraordinarily compassionate are equally (and by this I mean extremely) easy to control.

maybe your disability
I should totally start calling it that! :)

I don’t do bad things because I don’t want to hurt people.

So you were taught to fear being seen as bad at a young enough age that you’ve internalized it? :p

typhonblue January 12, 2010 at 10:49 am #

So you were taught to fear being seen as bad at a young enough age that you’ve internalized it?

In my life I’ve become less and less influenced by the negative opinions of others; however I haven’t lost that twinge when I see other people in pain. In fact it’s become stronger.

Perhaps that actually makes me a sociopath.

The extraordinarily selfish and the extraordinarily compassionate are equally (and by this I mean extremely) easy to control.

Okay.

Motley January 12, 2010 at 11:11 am #

In my life I’ve become less and less influenced by the negative opinions of others

I think that’s the case for everyone–the more experiences you have, the less each one affects your self-concept. Doesn’t make you a sociopath. That twinge when you see other people in pain? Not having that, might. (I mean, I don’t. I think it’s one of the markers).

Clarisse January 12, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

@Clarence — with the knowledge of how you pay for your time

Oh, well, that wasn’t meant to guilt-trip anyone. I am paying in the local currency, so it could be a lot worse. On the other hand, I am also paid in the local currency … but on a third hand, my savings are in dollars …. :grin: Point being, if it were a terrible situation then I wouldn’t keep coming back, so don’t feel bad. I do, after all, have the power to close comments, or even just depart the conversation.

You wanted to know more about the so-called “glass floor”.

That’s interesting. I know I’ve thought (in very limited and incomplete ways) about how the phenomenon of “loserhood” seems a lot worse for men than for women, but again, it was limited and incomplete.

On the other hand, “loser women” are just invisible in so many ways …. For example, at least “loser guys” have a lot of media telling them that they still deserve hot, rich, talented women (think zillions of movies eg “Wayne’s World”). But how many movies celebrate female down-and-outness in anything approaching the same way? Again again again, I’m not trying to get into Oppression Olympics, just trying to think through the differences in how loserhood acts between genders.

typhonblue January 12, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

Clarisse;

But how many movies celebrate female down-and-outness in anything approaching the same way?

Movies tend to make female down-and-outness a dramatic plea for social awareness and support.

On the other hand movies seem to obscure male social disenfranchisement with wish fulfillment fantasy instead of presenting it as a serious problem worthy of general concern. Sort of ‘we have no intention of actually helping, but here’s some absurdist nonsense to make you feel better about your life! Enjoy!’

typhonblue January 12, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

It’s the same dynamic as having highly visible minorities on TV. Since they’re now in the public eye, the racism is a thing of the past and white people don’t have to worry about the disenfranchisement facing people of other races and ethnicities.

Male losers win out in the end, so what’s the problem?

Toysoldier January 13, 2010 at 10:53 am #

Clarisse:

Well, okay. But I fail to see why it would be interesting or relevant to discuss how rape culture fits in with male victims when you (and typhonblue) don’t even think it’s a reasonable phrase (or “theory”) in the first place. I mean, I could go into it, but it just seems like a waste of effort when you don’t accept my starting definition of terms.

Explaining the theory is relevant as it would demonstrate the methodology behind the it. If one presents an idea one cannot explain the idea will appear to lack merit. Avoiding discussing the subject with people who disagree with it only leaves the impression that one either cannot or will not explain the theory. That is not meant to be confrontational, but it is the most logical conclusion.

In my experience the situation is usually the former: a person cannot explain the views they hold, usually because they never had to think about it because no one bothered to ask. Given my experiences, I would like to hear an explanation for how male victimization fits into “rape culture.”

Well, okay, but aren’t there already discussions and conventions on topics as vague as “masculinity”? What is this thread exactly?

I think you missed my point. We have two very different views about masculinity, meaning what I would do, in regards to your later questions, is irrelevant. From those later questions I gather that you want a feminist-led discussion about masculinity as social construct. As I stated before, that will not appeal to many men and I do not think most men would be inattentive enough to fail to notice the feminist perspective just because specific feminist phrases were not used. At some point one must address men’s concerns and opinions regarding gender as a social construct, masculinity as an adoptable identity and women informing males on how to be masculine. If one does not wish to discuss those issues, then it would be best to only allow in those who support feminist views. That seems to be the core issue here, i.e. that feminist views will be challenged. They should be as they are only theories and every theory should be scrutinized and examined. If there is no answer to the challenge, no explanations that can or will be given, then those theories should not be presented at all.

I’m not looking for the most exact answer in the world, I’m just trying to get a handle on how TS’s theories actually work in practice.

In practice, my theory about masculinity works as any other identity works. Obviously United States citizens are not the only people in the world interested in individuality. Obviously the Japanese are not the only people in the world who publicly act humble to avoid confrontation. Those are just behaviors each culture chose to focus on and they became the norm, i.e. the expected behavior. That does not mean there are no US citizens concerned about other people or no rude Japanese people. It only means that each culture adopted a set of behaviors they push as what members of those groups should behave like.

The same is true with masculinity. There are no set behaviors that only males possess and there are no set behaviors males are incapable of possessing. Every human is capable of courage, assertiveness, submissiveness and cowardice. These behaviors may be limited for individuals, but as a collective all humans can experience any number of characteristics. That is why there are males who do not fit the cultural norms. That suggests that every culture picks a set of behaviors it expects males to follow and presents those behaviors as the epitome of masculinity. However, those characteristics are not chosen at random. They are usually based on some existing male’s pattern of behavior — a famous leader, a cultural hero, a legend, etc. That these cultures also view some males as less masculine for not behaving a certain way demonstrates that their view of masculinity is on behaviors exhibited by males, not just the behavior itself. Only after some time has passed does a certain behavior gets “intrinsically” linked to being male.

What this suggests is that masculinity is simply the way males exhibit random characteristics and behaviors, i.e. to be male is to be masculine. Masculine norms are simply the behaviors and characteristics of males valued by a culture. The reason masculinity may appear to be a “social construct” is because it does not take long for social norms to become ingrained and most social norms are regularly enforced.

Motley:

I meant that your perceptions of feminists would be colored by your previous experiences with feminists (you’d have to be amnesiac or wildly insane for that not to be the case), and that you might be a little less likely to cut a feminist some slack as a result.

I am not inclined to cut anyone slack, particularly when a person presents ideas intended to affect other people’s lives and perceptions of themselves. I respond the same way even when I agree with an idea. It is important to confront questions and challenges to ideas and theories not only because of the impact both can have on people, but also because the inability to do so makes one look uninformed. We must get pass the notion that ideas presented by certain groups or people deserve less scrutiny.

typhonblue January 13, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

We must get pass the notion that ideas presented by certain groups or people deserve less scrutiny.

Indeed. When a group abandons logic and reason it descends into tyranny.

Logic is the only refuge of the disenfranchised. They hold no other power to persuade _but_ reason.

Clarisse January 14, 2010 at 6:07 am #

@TS — I would like to hear an explanation for how male victimization fits into “rape culture.

Given my definition of rape culture as “a culture in which rape is prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence”, I think that the situation Cara outlined over at the Curvature (while yes, you have pointed out some gaps in her analysis) is a good example. You seem to think it’s not, because you identify a host of smaller issues contributing to the problem, and are unwilling to label them “rape culture”. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve fulfilled your request, and I think your perspective is interesting — and that it is worth enumerating the issues that you have described but refused to see as “rape culture” — but that you aren’t seeing the big picture, which is about society-wide sex-negativity and entitlement.

I am really tired of this line of inquiry; can we move on?

From those later questions I gather that you want a feminist-led discussion about masculinity as social construct

What? Where did I say that they had to be feminist-led? Where did I say it couldn’t contradict feminist views? Why are you continuing to constantly assume that I’m saying Feminist Control Is Everything? I just want discussion, somewhere, somehow, to happen, and I would like advice on how to facilitate it (if I’m too feminist to lead it, then I’m too feminist to lead it, but am I barred from facilitating it too?). Can’t you give me a single example of what this would look like? Anything? Something written? Some public forum? Something?

If I’m too feminist, then is there any way I can help create discussion about this or is my alleged pernicious feminist influence just too much? By your lights, should I just give up now? I mean, I seem to be succeeding at least somewhat so far (stay tuned — I’m hoping the author will give me permission to post some recent fan mail in which she talks about how my posts inspired her to create a college discussion of men, feminism and male sexuality). If you continue to refuse to answer my questions about how to facilitate events that are actually centered on men and what men want, then I’m probably going to keep doing them, but just fuck up more. And if I stop, then there will probably continue to be successful feminist events around masculinity that are held, like the one recently profiled at feministing, and they will be defining the dialogue, while people like me who tried to play ball with you decided to quit because we couldn’t match your standards.

@typhonblue — Male losers win out in the end, so what’s the problem?

That’s interesting. My kneejerk response is to say “Well at least they’re not savagely punished in a morality tale, the way female losers are (cf. every story about sex workers ever)”, but that’s Oppression Olympics. So, you’ve got a point.

Random aside: I am really starting to fucking hate gmail. My gmail account has been attempting to load for an hour. Gmail also does its level best to make its accounts inaccessible to Africans (for instance, I recently got locked out of one account and was forced to “verify” with a phone number … but gmail’s system doesn’t support my phone network, so I had to call a friend in America and get them to authenticate my account). I am nearly at the point where I will create a hotmail account or something and have my gmail forward to it.

Clarisse January 14, 2010 at 6:16 am #

Addendum to previous comment: I don’t mean to imply that female sex workers are automatically losers, at all! But I think that a lot of narratives use female sex workers (or just “sluts”) as the archetypal female loser, and when they do, they are then eager to punish them.

Oh, here are some interesting links that have turned up recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/review/Roiphe-t.html?pagewanted=all — NYTimes article on sex in writing that makes some interesting points about modern men feeling tentative about sex.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/review-dude-youre-a-fag/ — Thomas reviews a book on masculinity. I don’t think this review is negative about men, but commenters here may disagree.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/compulsive-heterosexuality-and-rape-culture/ — Thomas again, and more from the aforementioned book. This post talks about rape culture a lot, so it may not be accessible, but it also talks a lot about performance of masculinity and how “masculinity requirements” can be rooted in sexual aggressiveness / opposition to women.

typhonblue January 14, 2010 at 11:24 am #

But I think that a lot of narratives use female sex workers (or just “sluts”) as the archetypal female loser, and when they do, they are then eager to punish them.

Could you give some examples?

I, personally, think slut shaming is ultimately male-negative*. Sort of like how the term carpet-bagger is very racist even if the insult is applied to white people by white people.

* It assumes women are actually harmed by sex with men; just like whites are harmed by association with people of color.

typhonblue January 14, 2010 at 11:44 am #

Another thought. If male losers are elevated by female sexuality and female losers are created by male sexuality, what does that really say about our attitudes towards sexuality?

My kneejerk response is to say “Well at least they’re not savagely punished in a morality tale, the way female losers are (cf. every story about sex workers ever)”, but that’s Oppression Olympics.

Don’t worry about it. As far as I’m concerned the whole idea behind Oppression Olympics is absurd.

Whatever you do to men, you also do to women and vice versa. For example, you can’t control male sexuality without controlling female. You can’t force men to take responsibility for everything without forcing women into learned helplessness.

We really are that tied.

Sam January 14, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

Clarisse,

I read the two posts by Thomas Millar and they, partly, did make me both a bit sad and a bit angry.
Everytime I read something by Millar I feel like he’s using the term boy/men/masculine like he’s talking about some strange species that he has nothing in common with. I can only hope that the book he’s reviewing isn’t as one-sided as his selection of quotes and posts. I’ll be back and write about my impression, but before I’m meeting with a friend to deny girls’ subjectivity over a beer in order to pretend I can avoid the clearly abject identity of a guy thinking about this stuff…

Sam January 14, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

Clarisse,

“our stern belief that sex is no cure for what David Foster Wallace called “ontological despair”?”
(NY Times link above)

I suppose Foster Wallace has never seen a late Picasso. Of course sex can be a cure for ontological despair – and in my case, the desire for it was a big factor in curing my depression, which was palpable ontological despair.

Wow, thanks for the three links, there’s so much in there, that I want to take and connect to the various threads we’ve had here. And I think Katie Roiphe’s essay in the NY Times could be considered evidence that my interpretation of Foster Wallace as speaking implicitly about masculinity (up in #70) wasn’t too wrong.

Not surprisingly thus, I think the essay sort of underscores my point about the additional double-bind with respect to sexual initiation as the main current cultural expression of the problematic assumption of an exploitative male and exploited female sexuality. As was said in the Kleinplatz-paper you referred to (and I referenced in #348), the top/initiator needs the certainty that he’s operating within accepted reasons – trusting that it’s OK to find, and possibly, push the receiver’s/bottom’s boundaries, because that is what is both want. The logical structure is the same in teenage dating, sexual exploration as it is in the BDSM article you linked to. If we are actually to learn from extraordinary lovers, I think this is the most important lesson.

And with that, I’ll address some parts of Thomas Millar’s essays. Before I do get a bit critical, I would like to emphasize that I completely agree with the sentiment he puts forth in the conclusion of his post about compulsive heterosexuality and rape culture -

We have to, as a culture, want — yes, I said want — girls to know what they want, and to go about getting it; in order that they may also know what they don’t want, and understand clearly that they are entitled to reject that. And our boys — for some of us, our sons — must be made to understand that … “girls have a say.” In fact, girls have an equal say, and if she’s not having fun, you have to stop.

I think this pretty much equals what I have said about the stacking of “yes-means-yes” and “no-means-no” approaches – one for the social discourse, the other for individual interactions. Although, in my opinion, girls usually have a much bigger say in all this than boys/men – just last night I talked to a girl in a bar and she said she could walk out with any guy in three minutes if she wanted to (I doubted that, to be honest – and she didn’t want to go through with the bet ;)… but the point stands.)

That said, there’s a couple of things that I really didn’t like about Millar’s posts.

The review of Pascoe’s book (http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/review-dude-youre-a-fag/) is by and large fair enough, I have been to school – in Europe, though – and I certainly understand how socialisation works in schools. It’s often not pretty. And I’ve seen both the bottom and the top of the popularity hierarchy.

But here is something that I find problematic – men are usually talked about by feminism, not with, as their experience is axiomatically of less interest, and they’re usually considered to be busy anyway, probably running the patriarchy machine. But somehow I find it strange that I didn’t get the feeling from the review that a book attempting to be an ethnography of young male socialisation actually tried to get to *their* point of view instead and understanding it within their frame of reference instead of putting it into a different one, one possibly more familiar to the author, certainly more familiar to the author of the review. And I do not appreciate a depiction of male socialisation as if it was independent of female socialisation. Taking this quote -

“These repeated acts involve demonstrating sexual mastery and the denial of girls’ subjectivity.”

I think I know exactly what kind of locker-room discourse this is about, and everyone who’s ever been in such a locker room knows that it has exactly nothing to do with actual girls/women. If the recent wave of tv series and movies dealing with outgoing female sexuality has taught us anything, it is that female discussion of boys/men may not be as general, but certainly don’t respect their subjectivity – I doubt that’s even possible in intra-gender chats about the other sex, or individual specimen thereof. I don’t know the book by Pascoe, so I cannot and do not want to directly comment on whether I think she’s looked at the female side of the equation as well, but Millar certainly hasn’t. He’s taking what he sees and puts it into his common ideological framework.

I think unwittingly, he managed to use another quote that perfectly illustrates this – the paragrpah describing Pascoe’s interaction with a boy, J.W., who apparently stepped over the line and challenged the author. The quote is there to describe J.W.’s misbehaviour, but the author’s reaction is at least equally over the line, and I think it is a perfect example of female ability to be sexually violent, even if not physically violent.

The post about “compulsive heterosexuality and rape culture” was harder to read for me. I have mentioned before the extent to which I am incapably to sexually escalate, how, even at the top of the popularity hiararchy in school, I wasn’t even able to kiss a girl I liked because I had internalised a view of my own sexuality as exploitative – pretty much in the way it is described in this essay/the quotes from the book. Even today, while having been kissed numerous times, I have only once initiated a kiss myself – this isn’t really shyness. It’s a fear that I could become “one of the guys” so beautifully described at proto-rapists in the quotes in Millar’s essay.

What Millar perceives to be the reality around him – a world in which

- boys’ physical abuse of girls who shut down and barely complain is normal;
- boys’ pursuit of sexual activity that girls do not want is normal;
- boys’ sense of entitlement to date women of their choice is normal;
- girls’ assertion and determined defense of bodily boundaries is not normal.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/compulsive-heterosexuality-and-rape-culture/

and -

“In fact, the dynamic is so clearly one that negates girls’ autonomy that it’s a wonder our culture doesn’t teach all high school boys to rape. ”

is not a reality I recognize – a reality in which boys/men are on average physically larger and as such potentially intimidating (but also potentially protective) of girls/women, but in which men are progressively incapacitated in the dating/mating realm by the double binds of being told about their exploitative sexuality and the female desire for them to initiate.

Isn’t it at least a bit ironic how he manages to stereotype boys/men in a post critizising stereotypical gender roles? I think it is. It’s some kind of feminist privilege, I suppose ;)

Take the mistle tow story – and just look at the frame in which it is presented. It’s not looking at the episode saying – “creative guy managed to overcome the awkwardness of teen gendered interaction by using a mistletow gadget, allowing the girls to interact with him and overcome their social script of playing generally hard to get to keep their market value high”. I’m not saying this is what happened – I wasn’t there -, but what I get from the quote is a frame that is only looking at the phenomenon from one side, entirely disregarding the other and framing the guy’s attempt to make the girls kiss him (he did not even kiss them, (the quote refers to ‘forced’ kisses)) is framed as sexual assault – while at the same time recognizing that this is a framing that the people experiencing the episode would not have used (so, sociologically, they had been assaulted, but not in their own experience). Now that seems like an interesting application of standpoint epistemology…

“Of course it is unlikely that boys, or girls, would recognize these sorts of daily rituals as sexual harassment; they are more likely seen as normal, if perhaps a bit aggressive, instances of heterosexual flirtation and as part of normal adolescence (N. Stein 2005).”

And with this I return to the statement I agree with -

We have to, as a culture, want — yes, I said want — girls to know what they want, and to go about getting it; in order that they may also know what they don’t want, and understand clearly that they are entitled to reject that. And our boys — for some of us, our sons — must be made to understand that … “girls have a say.” In fact, girls have an equal say, and if she’s not having fun, you have to stop.

- because there is one problem with this – we are taught and we believe that girls are equals, yet when it comes to romantic/sexualised interaction, we are taught that we are dangerous and they are not, we are taught that our touch is exploiting and they are taught they are being exploited. Our touch is dangerous, their’s is wanted. We both may have a hunch what we want, but we have no way of really talking about it with each other, and we, particularly men, have no way to talk about it even among outselves, because talking about this is, in a way, as I mention above, for most women, accepting an abject masculine identity… not one particularly attractive to women. And that’s where the hermeneutic cirlce closes, I think.

This is long. It’s late. Hope it’s a least rudimentarily coherent.

Clarisse January 15, 2010 at 11:22 am #

@typhonblue — Could you give some examples?

Well, the “sex worker loses in the end” narrative has been around as a morality play type thing for a long time … a recent manifestation, “The Girlfriend Experience” — she’s not a loser, but she is a sex worker who is basically horribly punished in the end. Did you see the recent stuff about Hope Witsell?

@Sam — Sorry your comment was held for moderation; I’m not sure why it was (did you get a message about it?)

Ok, I’m going to shift my emphasis on urging you to read YMY to the other manliness essays in there. I think one of the reasons I’ve sometimes had trouble feeling like we’re communicating in this thread is that you echo current sex-positive stances on sex and also masculinity so eerily that I assume you must know all about them, but I think maybe you don’t? So I’ll sort of assume we’re on the same page, and then we won’t be. Anyway, those two YMY essays (not by Thomas) are both about men’s experience and how men’s socialization isn’t independent of women’s, etc.

Although, in my opinion, girls usually have a much bigger say in all this than boys/men – just last night I talked to a girl in a bar and she said she could walk out with any guy in three minutes if she wanted to (I doubted that, to be honest – and she didn’t want to go through with the bet ;)… but the point stands.)

Oh my god I hate that point (so, let me assure you that any venom that surfaces in my next statements is not aimed at you). Everyone makes it, especially MRAs but sometimes girls who think they are So Clever To Reject Feminism And Impress The Boys Thereby Teehee!*, and they always ignore the same points while making it: yes women have a much easier time “getting laid” than guys, but (1) we face considerable social stigma for doing so, (2) we are consistently shamed if we actually like doing so … I could go on but I’m going to halt this budding rant right here.

* This is kind of a bitchy line, and I’d take it back, but I’m going to leave it there because I think it reveals one of my nastier biases and I don’t want to gloss it over. So, my bad. But the rest of the paragraph still stands.

is not a reality I recognize – a reality in which boys/men are on average physically larger and as such potentially intimidating (but also potentially protective) of girls/women, but in which men are progressively incapacitated in the dating/mating realm by the double binds of being told about their exploitative sexuality and the female desire for them to initiate.

Point, but haven’t we already agreed that you are extremely unusual? I mean, do you know any other men who are incapacitated the way you are? Again, I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, and I love your perspective, but I just think you may incline towards overstating the overall problem due to your own experience.

The quote is there to describe J.W.’s misbehaviour, but the author’s reaction is at least equally over the line, and I think it is a perfect example of female ability to be sexually violent, even if not physically violent.

I think I understand what you are saying, but could you go into it more?

Take the mistle tow story – and just look at the frame in which it is presented

Heh, interesting. This part actually really resonated with me because I’ve been in the exact same situation he described — with a guy who made a mistletoe hat and used it as an excuse to kiss me (and other girls) in a forum where it would be “awkward” to say no because that would make me “bitchy” and a “bad sport”.

Going off the grid again for the weekend starting tomorrow. Should be back on Monday, but may not be.

Toysoldier January 15, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

As far as I’m concerned, I’ve fulfilled your request,

You did not, however, as I typically do not discuss male victimization with feminists, let us drop the topic.

Why are you continuing to constantly assume that I’m saying Feminist Control Is Everything?

I do not assume that you are saying feminist control is everything. All I am saying that perspective may impede your intended goal of discussing certain topics with non-feminist men, particularly considering your original set of posts suggest your purpose is to bring more men into feminism.

If you continue to refuse to answer my questions about how to facilitate events that are actually centered on men and what men want, then I’m probably going to keep doing them, but just fuck up more.

You did not ask me about events centered on men. If I recall correctly, when I suggested that discussions about masculinity should focus on men you disagreed. If you wish to facilitate such events and feminists are involved, I would suggest involving individuals from the men’s movement to balance it out (or preferably avoid both groups) and also individuals knowledgeable in the history of masculinity.

And if I stop, then there will probably continue to be successful feminist events around masculinity that are held, like the one recently profiled at feministing, and they will be defining the dialogue, while people like me who tried to play ball with you decided to quit because we couldn’t match your standards.

It is unlikely that those profiled at Feministing will define the dialogue on masculinity because the event did not include non-feminist men. My standard would only require such discussions not include the pretexts found that event, i.e. the negative framing of masculinity and manhood, something also demonstrated on Alas. I do not think that standard discourages feminists to try to discuss masculinity on men’s terms, unless discussing it on men’s terms presents an issue.

Sam January 15, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

Clarisse,

you echo current sex-positive stances on sex and also masculinity so eerily that I assume you must know all about them, but I think maybe you don’t

I’m self trained in these things, like you – I’ve read quite a bit of feminist theory (MIT OCW in feminist philosophy syllabus – ok not all of it) and I’ve occasionally participated in online discussions about it on moderate blogs – which are, alas, usuallly not as helpful or productive as this one, but mostly echo chambers. So, I certainly don’t know all of the terminology, but a bit.

yes women have a much easier time “getting laid” than guys, but (1) we face considerable social stigma for doing so, (2) we are consistently shamed if we actually like doing so … I could go on but I’m going to halt this budding rant right here.

And if that was all I had said I’d actually subscribe to your point of view. Maybe it wasn’t too clear, then I’m sorry, but I mentioned that episode merely to back up this part -

“- Although, in my opinion, girls usually have a much bigger say in all this than boys/men”

– of my statement, something that was constantly denied in the review/essay, in which the women were presented as passive and, due to the opression of the implied violent male discourse, unable to voice their own opinion.

To be clear: I agree with the two points you make, and I have always said so – most prominently in #70. But I do think that the *real* reason for the shaming is the perception that it is giving away something that ought to be protected from what is considered exploitative male touch. If his touch were socially considered as valuable as hers, this imbalance wouldn’t exist.

Point, but haven’t we already agreed that you are extremely unusual? I mean, do you know any other men who are incapacitated the way you are? Again, I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, and I love your perspective, but I just think you may incline towards overstating the overall problem due to your own experience.

Yes. I may be overstating – actually, I think I am overstating it. But overstating means there is something to state. And doesn’t the NY Times piece you linked to most excellently make that point? Apart from that, yes, I do know men who are incapacitated by this, not to the extent that I am, I think, but they have a much harder time talking/flirting with women, so they probably feel worse about it than I do.

“I think I understand what you are saying, but could you go into it more?”

Sure – she cut off his balls, plain and simple. She used her knowledge of the social context and the male competition as a weapon against him. He put himself out there, for whichever reason, to impress her, but likely the other guys – and he did so using his physical appearance. She used her superiour grasp of the social setting and cut his balls off, leaving him open to ridicule. I would call that sexual(ised) violence. I’m not saying it wasn’t provoked, but it was, I think, sexual violence – and it wasn’t physical at all…

Boris January 18, 2010 at 11:23 am #

Clarisse,

This is a really interesting conversation. I’m delurking to say that I’m one of the men who are incapacitated in the way Sam’s talking about; his experiences sound remarkably like mine. (Of course, that doesn’t mean that the problem is common, or uncommon, only that it’s not unique.) I’m able to have rewarding relationships, but it has taken many years — decades — of consciously trying to overcome the sense that male sexual expression is basically toxic, and I’ll probably always be marked by that belief, in the same way that girls who grow up learning that they are less worthwhile than boys probably are marked by that belief even when they explicitly repudiate it.

I wonder if this “incapacitation” has something to do with internalizing a certain kind of feminism before adolescence. I was raised by feminist parents, but I developed most of my thinking by reading mainstream feminist magazines like Ms. Magazine and Mother Jones, starting at the age of eight or nine. Those magazines (maybe especially in the early 1980s when I was reading them) contained messages that women and women’s preferences and desires are extremely important; and that’s great, and a needed counterbalance to the larger culture’s message that men are extremely important. The problem is that I wasn’t growing up in the larger culture hearing those counterbalancing messages, but in the mini-culture of my family, a pretty self-contained group. The effect was that I grew up without the sense that boy’s and men’s preferences and desires, and specifically my preferences and desires, had any particular value.

Having a feminist upbringing was positive on the whole, but the particular set of beliefs around men’s toxic sexuality was damaging. The thing that makes me angry is that valuing boys or valuing male sexuality is not incompatible with the type of feminism I was raised in. If I should end up raising a son, I’ll definitely raise him as a feminist (and to be concerned about rape); but I will not raise him to believe that his desires and preferences are of less value than a girl or woman’s desires and preferences.

typhonblue January 18, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

Boris,

and to be concerned about rape

Hopefully in the context of protecting his own sexual vulnerability as well.

Clarisse;

There was a point made early on in the discussion that didn’t go anywhere, possibly because it was off-topic.

Girls in Ghanna express the same interest in technology as boys yet girls in Sweeden don’t.

Now, if women express less interest in technology when they enjoy greater liberty, what does that say about the theory that men prevent (western)women from participating in technological fields?

Clarisse January 20, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

@TS — You did not, however, as I typically do not discuss male victimization with feminists, let us drop the topic

I can’t even …. You know, I’m really trying hard not to be offensive and to take your perspective into account and all that stuff, and I’m having a hard time putting my finger on why I keep feeling like we’re fighting and getting irritated by your responses. Maybe because you say things like I’m not letting you drop the topic? Who dragged you here? Who forced you to respond to my posts in the first place?

particularly considering your original set of posts suggest your purpose is to bring more men into feminism

It suggested that one of my purposes was to bring more men into feminism, and concluded by explicitly saying that perhaps that isn’t the way to go.

when I suggested that discussions about masculinity should focus on men you disagreed

Where did I disagree? As I recall, I suggested that, for example, trans men and butches might reasonably have a voice in those discussions … which is a far cry from disagreement.

@Sam — But I do think that the *real* reason for the shaming is the perception that it is giving away something that ought to be protected from what is considered exploitative male touch. If his touch were socially considered as valuable as hers, this imbalance wouldn’t exist.

I think our disagreement is just a matter of emphasis. It seems like you (not just you, but other commenters like Tamen and desipisis) place a lot of emphasis on certain reasons by saying stuff like “the *real* reason”, which is bound to get me to push back and say, “But also there are these reasons and these reasons!” It seems like you and I never substantively disagree about actual problems, just degree of problems.

To summarize: I hate it when people say “the *real* reason” or “the most important reason” or “the biggest reason” or whatever. I get that it may be rhetorically effective, in that it sometimes makes people listen better, but this is an especially bad place for it, since we’re more interested in batting around ideas than in (for example) winning funding :P

I’m not saying it wasn’t provoked, but it was, I think, sexual violence – and it wasn’t physical at all…

That’s pretty much what I expected you to say. So how do you think she could have dealt with it better? As I recall, she tried to be nicer about it first, and he just refused to take the signal and continued being aggressive. At some point there has to be an allowance for fighting back against an unwanted aggressor, even if that could harm the aggressor.

@Boris — Thanks for sharing. I don’t have much to answer with, but I am glad to have your perspective.

@typhonblue — Now, if women express less interest in technology when they enjoy greater liberty, what does that say about the theory that men prevent (western)women from participating in technological fields?

You’re setting up this theory as if I posed it. Where did I say that men prevent Western women from participating in tech? Seriously, track down the place where I actually said that and I will apologize, because all I wanted to say is that cultural norms discourage women from participating, and that some of those cultural norms involve endemic sexism.

But even if I had said that, the Ghana thing only demonstrates that women in extremely disadvantaged situations are willing to break gender norms if it means getting out of those disadvantaged situations — or that the gender norms are different in Ghana from those in more “developed” countries. You seem to have traveled a lot — have you ever spent much time in a third world country? Because I live in one, and believe me, people here are so fucking desperate to get out of their situations that they will do just about anything. Breaking norms is just the beginning of what they’ll do. Try this article about Sierra Leone if you really want to be depressed for a while. Excerpt:

The amputee camp on the western end of Freetown is a warren of plastic tents housing about three hundred amputees and twelve hundred relatives. There’s a satellite dish by the entrance. Mirones’s arrival drew a large group, who passed around my photographs of the children and exclaimed over how much weight they’d gained. As we walked up a dirt road toward the camp’s prosthetics lab, a man who was missing a hand shyly approached and said that he wondered if by some chance he would be the next one to be taken away. Mirones wasn’t the only foreigner to have removed people from the camp. Groups with names like Feed My Lambs International and Christ End Timer Movement were regularly spiriting away amputees from under the noses of the N.G.O.s that were supposedly providing prosthetics and therapy. Outsiders described the camp as “the national holocaust museum” and “a freak show” that ought to be shut down, but no one seemed prepared to take that step. The camp received attention, money, and consignments of goods that benefitted the government, the N.G.O.s, and the amputees. It attracted visitors like Madeleine Albright, Kofi Annan, and Matthew Mirones. A Dutch physical therapist who had worked in Sierra Leone sixteen years ago told me that he recognized a man in the camp who had lost part of his leg to diabetes long ago and was now presenting himself as an atrocity victim.

Another group, known as the War Wounded, had originally been sheltered with the amputees, but fights kept breaking out between the two groups over donations that were meant for amputees, and the War Wounded were moved to a camp about ten miles outside town. There they showed me deep machete gashes, bullet wounds in the face, and terrible burns. Two women said that they’d been shot in the vagina. A botched amputation had cost a man the use of both hands. But the War Wounded felt ignored by the world and envious of the amputees, who ranked higher on the scale of suffering. A joke was making the rounds in Freetown about how many fingers one would be willing to lose in order to go to America.

A woman and her husband, who was missing one arm and both ears, claimed a family relationship with Memuna, the poster child, but their claim was false. They said that a twelve-year-old rebel had chopped off the little girl’s arm, but I discovered that it had been surgically amputated after being infected with fragments from the bullet that had killed her grandmother. One of the children on Staten Island had told me that she’d seen both her parents shot to death; I learned in Africa that her father had died of natural causes and her mother was still alive. The logic of survival, the need to be noticed, drove people to exaggerate already unspeakable horrors.

Emphasis mine.

typhonblue January 20, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

But even if I had said that, the Ghana thing only demonstrates that women in extremely disadvantaged situations are willing to break gender norms if it means getting out of those disadvantaged situations — or that the gender norms are different in Ghana from those in more “developed” countries.

For some reason I thought you had said that, sorry for misinterpreting but this has been a particularly long and involved thread.

Your main point seems to be that women will defy gender norms if desperate enough. Wouldn’t that suggest that gender norms are more of a luxury?

My own personal take is that in other societies women aren’t valued as much for their femaleness–as they are in the west–so they have to create value via some other accomplishment. Personal virtue being one of the most common, but also material production and earning potential.

Sam January 20, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

I think our disagreement is just a matter of emphasis. It seems like you (not just you, but other commenters like Tamen and desipisis) place a lot of emphasis on certain reasons by saying stuff like “the *real* reason”, which is bound to get me to push back and say, “But also there are these reasons and these reasons!” It seems like you and I never substantively disagree about actual problems, just degree of problems.

Yes (and a little no). This is, I agree, probably primarily a language issue – when I say “real” I did not mean to imply “only” or even more important. What I tried to say, even though I am not so sure of it anymore, was that I consider(ed) the “discrimination” of male touch as the root cause (as opposed to “only problem”/”more important problem”) of the imbalance we’re talking about. In a way though, I suppose that seeing it this way may be soem kind of “optical illusion” caused by the sequencing of human mating and its cultural translations. The equivalence of the double binds/the imbalance becomes particularly apparent when we realise that they cannot be solved on their own – which, again, makes sequencing an important element.

That’s pretty much what I expected you to say. So how do you think she could have dealt with it better? As I recall, she tried to be nicer about it first, and he just refused to take the signal and continued being aggressive. At some point there has to be an allowance for fighting back against an unwanted aggressor, even if that could harm the aggressor.

Well, I think the main point was a demonstration that sexual violence need not be physical. And secondly, to hopefully get to a consensu on how to cut people some sociological slack. My main problem with the quotes and the article was the frame of constant violence – as exemplified by the mistle tow story – and even sexual assault for seemingly every kind of interaction that was ascribed to the guys. To use my metaphors – everything they do is described as “taking” not as “bridging”, “opening possibilities”, etc.

This may well be partly my preconception speaking, but when all you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails – that’s also true for this kind of cultural anthropology from a female perspective. And it’s, unfortunately, impossible to overcome – there is no neutral position, there only is a feminist claim to an epistemic privilege of women due to the common female experience of gender based oppression (feminist standpoint epistemology).

So, personally, I wouldn’t want to call the guy’s behaviour “violent”. He was playing a game, probably trying to prove something, but not being “violent”. I actually think it was intended to be playful. But that doesn’t matter – what matters is that the author apparently still felt intimidated by the guy’s physique – “their sheer size and manipulated my body with their strength.” Yes, he invaded her space, but, I assume, what was threatening wasn’t the invasion as such, it was the invasion by someone who was larger and stronger. Had it been a smaller, weaker guy trying to play that game, would she have felt threatened in the same way? I doubt it.

So what was most threatening about the guy was – my interpretation – who he *was* (his very body), not just what he *did*.

And this is, again, the heart of what we’re talking about here. His touch is perceived as threatening/taking because of his being stronger and larger (and by the way of social generalization this is applied to the generally stronger and larger gender, men).

I don’t know what the guys reasons for his attempt to play with the author were, but I suppose it was more about a demonstration of value to his peers than about playing with her – if he had any idea about social appropriateness. As with all “dares” he must have known there was a risk to doing what he did, and he got hit over the head.

Would there have been a different way to deal with the situation? How could I tell? This was her way and even though I would say it was violent – and, from my perspective, even disproportionally violent compared to his playful “you would like that, wouldn’t you” (but again, I wasn’t there and I suppose my perception may be biased by my attempt to present a slightly alternative frame, plus I don’t think anyone can ever say something like “you would like that, wouldn’t you” in such a situation and be serious about that) – I think it was – as she wasn’t a teacher, just an older, more experienced observer – ok to say what she said. Violent, but ok.

So, that said – I’m just not sure to which extent the term violent is really applicable to such an exchange (or much of the other examples). Of course, if his actions are considered violent, or even sexually assaulting, then hers are, too. But in that frame, as we can read in the quotes, everything is violent (and we do live in a “rape” culture). But then the term really loses descriptive power.

Of course, using that standard, I suppose all women and all men are guilty of some kind of sexual violence/boundary transgression. And of course, if that’s the frame of explanation for “rape culture”, I’m not quite sure why Thomas Millar is surprised that only a small percentage of people become “actual” rapists -

“In fact, the dynamic is so clearly one that negates girls’ autonomy that it’s a wonder our culture doesn’t teach all high school boys to rape. And yet, most don’t.”

It’s a mystery… but is it really? Or is the mystery predominantly a consequence of looking at the world from one particular angle with a particular set of concepts and a very particular language?

From the mistle tow quote – again -

“Of course it is unlikely that boys, or girls, would recognize these sorts of daily rituals as sexual harassment; they are more likely seen as normal, if perhaps a bit aggressive, instances of heterosexual flirtation and as part of normal adolescence (N. Stein 2005).”

Sam January 21, 2010 at 12:12 am #

Rereading what I just posted, I think my comment comes across as too critical of the ethnography, even though I am only referring to the quotes in Thomas Millar’s post.

That’s unfair, and I would like to say that I think such research is very valuable, but also, as all qualitative social research, very difficult to do – particularly in a truly balanced manner despite the best intentions, which I assume.

My intentions are also to be balanced in my critique, yet I do realize over and over again how my personal point of view of having been sexually incapacitated to a significant degree by internalising the pathological view of (socialised) male sexuality that is presented here, does seem to influence my comments more than I wish it would.

I think my points stand, but they probably needed the qualifier for balance.

Motley January 21, 2010 at 9:50 am #

Holy crap, 400+!

Amusing logical fallacy for the day (I’ll pile on just briefly, as this is a pet peeve of mine):

“In fact, the dynamic is so clearly one that negates girls’ autonomy that it’s a wonder our culture doesn’t teach all high school boys to rape. And yet, most don’t.”

Translation: “Given [claim I'm making], it’s a wonder that [thing that is not happening but that would happen if my claim were correct] is not happening.”

How about: Given my math, it’s a wonder that gravity works and we’re not all falling off the planet into space! Since I refuse to question my math, then clearly we are all in imminent danger of falling off the planet!

Dear humanity: If reality seems to contradict your preconceived notions, it is time to reconsider your preconceptions.
(See also: Economics, Trickle-Down, and Bible, Contradictions Therein)

On to pet peeve number two:

Of course it is unlikely that boys, or girls, would recognize these sorts of daily rituals as sexual harassment; they are more likely seen as normal, if perhaps a bit aggressive, instances of heterosexual flirtation and as part of normal adolescence”

Dear humanity: If everyone seems to think something is normal, it is normal. That’s what “normal” means.

On to slightly more substantive things:

@Boris–thanks for mentioning. My experience isn’t infinite, but it seems that the general themes of your and Sam’s experiences are far from unique (like I said, I’m pretty sure that’s where the “Nice Guy” archetype comes from).

To summarize: I hate it when people say “the *real* reason”…

Fair point. I should amend the last parenthetical statement of the above paragraph to say “I’m pretty sure that’s a significant contributing factor to where the ‘Nice Guy’ archetype comes from.”

In short, I’d say that feminism has changed the culture. A lot. And not always in a good way. (Nothing against feminism for that–any change will have some positive, some negative effects).

@Sam

So, personally, I wouldn’t want to call the guy’s behaviour “violent”…

Agree and disagree. I wouldn’t call his behavior “violent;” violence is violence, other things are not. (Pet peeve #3 for the day: This is the same problem I have with calling flirting “sexual assault” or calling a culture of sexual disrespect “rape culture;” words have meanings). To be fair, though, I might call it “social violence” or something–the guy and the author, in the anecdote cited, were doing essentially the same thing to each other (and the author’s “social violence” was more severe). If one is violence, than the other is too–but I’m not sure I like the phrase “social violence.” On the other hand, though (I think I’m up to three hands, now), I can’t really think of a better description off the top of my head.

But in that frame, as we can read in the quotes, everything is violent (and we do live in a “rape” culture). But then the term really loses descriptive power.

Absolutely. If every interaction is violence, there’s no point in saying that. Broadening a term to the point where it becomes meaningless is not useful.

@typhonblue

Wouldn’t that suggest that gender norms are more of a luxury?

I’d actually go one further, and suggest that all social traits are something of a luxury (in that we only care about ‘em once our actual necessities are provided).

Clarisse January 21, 2010 at 11:09 am #

@typhonblue — Your main point seems to be that women will defy gender norms if desperate enough. Wouldn’t that suggest that gender norms are more of a luxury?

Well … I think it’s still possibly a big mistake to conflate Western gender norms and those of, say, Ghana. I mean, my whole argument that Ghanaians will defy gender norms to get out by studying science assumes that the gender norms in Ghana militate against women in science in the first place, which they very well might not. Since I don’t buy the “girls don’t like science for innate/biological reasons rather than cultural reasons” argument for one second, it seems reasonable to me to propose that it’s possible those cultures are just better for women in science than ours.

More on this when I get to Motley’s comment. But first,

@Sam — The equivalence of the double binds/the imbalance becomes particularly apparent when we realise that they cannot be solved on their own – which, again, makes sequencing an important element.

Does it? I worry that sequencing distracts us by making us talk about “root causes” as if any one of these problems could be solved (ha! what an arrogant verb) without addressing the others.

So what was most threatening about the guy was – my interpretation – who he *was* (his very body), not just what he *did*.

This makes me think of an anecdote that I think came from YMY (might have come from elsewhere, though) about a tall Black trans man who told one of his trans friends that he felt gaining male privilege to be almost completely disappeared/overruled by the cultural stereotype of large Black men as particularly masculinely threatening. In other words, he acknowledged that he gained useful male privilege by transitioning, but he felt like he lost a lot of control over his space and the way he was perceived just because he was seen as so much scarier.

even disproportionally violent compared to his playful “you would like that, wouldn’t you

Heh, oh my God, that’s so interesting. “You would like that, wouldn’t you” strikes me as such an intrinsically violent, dark and threatening thing to say that it has figured prominently in quite a number of my submissive fantasies. Seriously, I can think of five scenarios off the top of my head in which I have imagined play-nonconsensually violent men saying that to me.

I suppose all women and all men are guilty of some kind of sexual violence/boundary transgression

I think that’s probably very likely. I keep meaning to write a post about the times I consider myself to have Seriously Fucked Up — I’ve written a couple of posts already about BDSM screwups, but nothing covering the once or twice that I’ve done something Really Wrong by my own lights — and it is so scary, because it means taking on all that stigma surrounding Being The Assaulter. But I have to, because it’s good for me and will hopefully assist in preventing me from doing that shit again.

(One example … and it would require a whole blog post for me to describe what happened, but I’ll try to do it briefly …. Before I had a real grip on my BDSM identity — though I had experimented somewhat and was slowly wrapping my head around it — I was at a party at which I was drunk and unhappy and incredibly sexually frustrated. I tend to get a bit violent at those times, and in the past this would manifest in nonconsensual aggression — though not to an incredible extent, and certainly not past the point that people could write off, because indeed, I hid in those same tall grasses and my gender gave me an advantage. Anyway, so I scratched some people very hard, which I had done in the past and had received a variety of feedback ranging from positive-to-only-slightly-negative-ie-confused for, right up until I scratched a guy I knew who got incredibly angry and threatened to press charges the next day. I apologized extensively, promised to give him lots of space, and emerged incredibly shaken. I think it’s a positive thing for me to see this as an invasion of his space and to police myself more carefully in its wake. I think it would be a negative thing for me to write him off as “overreacting” or pretend that I had no further responsibility after I apologized.)

My intentions are also to be balanced in my critique, yet I do realize over and over again how my personal point of view of having been sexually incapacitated to a significant degree by internalising the pathological view of (socialised) male sexuality that is presented here, does seem to influence my comments more than I wish it would.

I feel you there, man. I mean, we’re all biased to some degree, and the idea that society is Not Our Bubble is a tough one to really internalize. This is actually one of the cool things about being part of a tiny expatriate community …. I just had some conversations the other day about drugs in which I was reminded that, wow, when I have a cross-section of America that’s more representative of its diversity than my group back home, I’m forced to acknowledge that people actually exist who still stigmatize drug use. It’s been good for me, though it can be a bit anxiety-inducing — I spoke to a fratboy recently who was telling me all about his “dealbreaker list” and, leaving aside how screwed up the concept of a “dealbreaker list” is in the first place, he might as well have written my name at the top of it. Like ferrets? Check. Unshaven legs? Check. Drug usage? Yes please.

@Motley — If one is violence, than the other is too–but I’m not sure I like the phrase “social violence.

Yes! I’ve thought about this a lot too, though not recently. Social violence is so hard. It definitely exists, and women are definitely better-trained at it than men (which is not to say that women don’t get emotionally abused — they do — but I think we generally get more social backup/training on how to use social norms/tactics in an aggressive/cruel/”violent” way). There have been studies that show that certain types of “social violence” like humiliation, heartbreak, being shunned, etc. cause more actual pain (as measured by brain chemicals) than “actual” violence. But where does that leave us? How do we assess it? How do we even detect it most of the time? How do we create consequences for people who utilize it unacceptably? What does it even mean to use it unacceptably?

I’d actually go one further, and suggest that all social traits are something of a luxury (in that we only care about ‘em once our actual necessities are provided).

Right! Are any of y’all familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? Worth looking up if you’re not. It basically notes that human needs form a hierarchy, and one need (eg, good sex or even any sex at all) will go unaddressed and even seem unimportant if a more important need (eg, food) is not being met.

I believe there has been research indicating that people who are richer, such as those who live in very developed countries, tend to have and/or take more space to explore their identities, and to be more flexible and experimental with their identities. I believe this research was cited in a recent amazing book that I read, Letting Them Die, which is seriously incredible (though probably less incredible for people who are not trying to design HIV programs in Africa).

Point being: someone who is in a situation where they don’t have as much food, electricity, water, education, status, space for aspiration, etc as we developed Westerners do is likely to worry a lot less about whether her beautiful-snowflake identity is being well-expressed at every possible moment — and more about whether she can feed her kids, get out of the country, secure electricity and regular water access, etc.

Motley January 21, 2010 at 11:53 am #

Re: Social violence

…women are definitely better-trained at it than men…

Tangent:
I actually think that has a lot more to do with neurology than socialization. Women (due to brain-structure differences) are more often able to think rationally about emotions; men less so (as our thinking-brain tends to go dark whenever our feeling-brain lights up).

Doesn’t make a lot of difference, though (as brain-structures can be a result of socialization–so I should say I think it’s a direct result of the way the brains work, which may in turn be a result of socialization.) Incidentally, I reject the assertion that there are no real differences in neurology between men and women with the same reflexive certainty that you reject “Girls don’t like science because of biology.” Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. Claiming one or the other is ideology, not analysis.

Anyway–I suspect that neurological discrepancy is responsible for nearly everything gender-related (it’s my pet Grand Unified Theory of Gender Issues); I can probably explain any gender-issue using that theory.
In this case, I’d say men (as a group) don’t really know anything about emotional violence, as we’re not equipped to perceive it. Some men can (by which I mean “perceive the action” rather than just “perceive the consequences”), – I mean, I can, for example – but such men are generally atypical. And from a rule-making perspective, it seems so subjective as to be nigh-impossible to quantify.

As to how to assess it, create consequences, or even define “unacceptable” in with regards to social violence, I don’t think I can be of much help, unfortunately.

…certain types of “social violence” like humiliation, heartbreak, being shunned, etc. cause more actual pain…

Out of curiosity, how on earth would you measure that? How much physical violence equals how much social violence? Or does that mean that “the types of physical violence an everyday person encounters cause less pain than the types of social violence that same person usually encounters?” I’d also point out that extreme emotional trauma doesn’t kill you (making comparisons harder); there’s a limit to the amount of physical violence that can be applied to a person, as the subject dies after a certain point. Furthermore, I rather doubt that this study involved torturing someone to death (though I’m curious, now).

Motley January 21, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

Pardon the double-post

…telling me all about his “dealbreaker list”…

In defense of people with dealbreaker lists: I’ve got one, and so do you (That’s not an assertion; remember what you said about won’t-date-vanilla-guys? That’s what a dealbreaker list means*)
And they’re legitimate. I wouldn’t date a girl who didn’t shave her legs. I find hairless legs attractive. Hairy legs, not so much. Hairy-legged girls=girls who are not interested in being attractive to me. Why would I date someone who doesn’t care what I think of her?

Similarly, I don’t like Mexican food. Someone who won’t eat anything other than Mexican food? Not for me.

(Though I suspect everyone has another deal-breaker: Must Not Remind Me Of Disliked Exes. Which is probably where that “like ferrets” thing comes from. It’s certainly where the “no drugs” entry on my dealbreaker list comes from. Meth is bad for you, folks :)

Seriously, I can think of five scenarios off the top of my head in which I have imagined play-nonconsensually violent men saying that to me.

(bolding mine)
Can you think of one scenario from real life in which a man said that in a threatening, serious manner? (That’s Sam’s point, I think)

Right! Are any of y’all familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?

That’s what I was referring to–we can draw the needs/luxury line wherever we want.

Clarisse January 21, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

@Motley — Out of curiosity, how on earth would you measure that?

I can’t enough to Google the actual study … I wish I could. It was something about how they literally put electrodes on people’s brains and measured emotional response to being socially hurt in laboratory circumstances (they set up some kind of experiment that meant one person would definitely be socially excluded). The results showed that the perceived pain was remarkably similar to, like, a broken bone or something. Shame I can’t recall the details better.

Also, going back to the “women and emotional labor” thing, I found this post by Hugo Schwyzer:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/04/07/my-wife-is-my-best-friend-the-guy-code-and-the-inability-to-get-naked-without-getting-naked/

Excerpt:
We all pay the price for the Guy Code. Wives and girlfriends pay the price by being the sole source of emotional support for husbands and boyfriends. It’s often thankless work, mind you — many men, recognizing how dependent they become on their wives, become resentful of that dependence.

Jackson Katz and I had a brief conversation about this when I saw him speak, actually. It was about abuse of women and how it ties into this emotional labor dynamic. The idea being that many men (I think especially those who are a few generations ahead of me) have been so badly enabled to deal with emotions that they often have no way to do it except for through/with the help of their female partners. Their female partners can get overwhelmed, feel responsible, etc, and if their female partners withdraw support then men may become violent.

Motley January 21, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

Gah, triple-post, as I forgot to put the footnote in:

it should’ve said:
*And the fact that you’re dating a non-BDSMer illustrates that dealbreaker lists aren’t ironclad; nobody else’s is, either, I think.

Motley January 21, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

Also, going back to the “women and emotional labor” thing, I found this post by Hugo Schwyzer…

Yeah, agree completely. Being a guy requires that you only share your feelings with someone you’re sleeping with. And sometimes not even then. Several years back, I was quite surprised to find out that women have that same relationship with their friends. Weird.

Though when framed the way you do it (“Guys are forbidden from having any close friends other than their wife”) I’m amused that people (feminists, in particular; someone earlier in this thread, I think) state that it’s an example of oppression of women.

Toysoldier January 21, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

I can’t even …. You know, I’m really trying hard not to be offensive and to take your perspective into account and all that stuff, and I’m having a hard time putting my finger on why I keep feeling like we’re fighting and getting irritated by your responses.

Most likely my responses irritate you because of their bluntness, coldness and the constant questioning of ideas. That is likely why you may regard our discussion as “fighting.” You are not alone in that regard. However, you should feel free to say whatever wish as I am not easily offended.

Maybe because you say things like I’m not letting you drop the topic? Who dragged you here? Who forced you to respond to my posts in the first place?

I did not say you would not allow me to drop the topic. I stated that we should drop the topic. You no longer wished to discuss it and it is a topic I do not typically discuss it with feminists, so dropping it seemed an amicable solution to our disagreement. As for the other questions, imagine if this thread was a trial run for the discussion about masculinity you wish to have with men and imagine you posed the same questions to a random man who challenged some of the ideas you hold. What do you think his response would be?

As I said on my blog and which you acknowledged, you appear more interested in discussing these issues with feminist-leaning men and not necessarily non-feminist men. There is nothing wrong with that.

It suggested that one of my purposes was to bring more men into feminism, and concluded by explicitly saying that perhaps that isn’t the way to go.

Yes, and at the end of this post you also stated “I’m still not sure how to attract lots of men to feminism, to convince them to identify as feminists — or even if we can. But the question of creating conversations about masculinity is separate from the question of attracting men to feminism. And I am sure that if feminists want to influence the masculinity discourse, we have to be open to it. Telling men who disagree with us to go elsewhere and stay away from us is all well and good — but then they’ll go elsewhere. And they may or may not incorporate feminist ideas when they do.”

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the statement, but it appears that you do want men to incorporate feminist ideas and you do want feminism to influence the masculinity discourse. If I misread the intent, my apologies.

Where did I disagree? As I recall, I suggested that, for example, trans men and butches might reasonably have a voice in those discussions … which is a far cry from disagreement.

You did not agree with idea that butch lesbians and trans men should not have an equal voice in those discussions, which means any discussion about masculinity which gave women and trans men equal voices with men would not be centered on men. The issue goes back to allowing men to define masculinity and to define the terms of the discussion.

Sam January 22, 2010 at 1:39 am #

Clarisse,

“Does it? I worry that sequencing distracts us by making us talk about “root causes” as if any one of these problems could be solved (ha! what an arrogant verb) without addressing the others.”

True,”solving” is a big word in the context. And, again, I agree that this is all one big intertwined mess and addressing it probably requires different things from different people. I do what I can against slut shaming. But I think, given the already debated deplorable tainting of (conservatism: collective, feminism: individual via patriarchy/collective) of male sexuality I think the world needs more Naomi Wolfs in feminism.

“Heh, oh my God, that’s so interesting. “You would like that, wouldn’t you” strikes me as such an intrinsically violent, dark and threatening thing to say that it has figured prominently in quite a number of my submissive fantasies. Seriously, I can think of five scenarios off the top of my head in which I have imagined play-nonconsensually violent men saying that to me.”

Well, maybe that’s our different perspectives again. Yeah, I can imagine The Joker telling this kind of thing to Batman – “Imagine you could kill me… you would like that, wouldn’t you.” But in an interaction with a woman? The closest thing to reality I can imagine with this is a guy with a mischievous smile, whispering “dirty” stuff in a woman’s ear, finishing his fantasy narrative with “you would like that, wouldn’t you”. Could be kind of sexy, I suppose. Possibly. But violent or threatening scenarios? And apart from such an already rather intimate setting, I can really only think of humorous applications. In which ways do you think this suggestive question can be actually considered violent on its own?

“I think that’s probably very likely. … “

Well, yes and no. If you define minor transgressions as “violent”, then yes, but as I already said, that may be the way to get you to a definition of “rape culture” (except for the “rape” part), but it’s a definition that seems almost completely useless in people’s lives.

(One example … )

I think it’s very courageous of you to actually mention that story. It leaves me thinking. I wouldn’t want to call it sexual assault. It was a transgression and I think you’re doing the right thing by actually taking his reaction seriously, but I would not know how I’d call this kind of thing. Was there a context for your scratching him? Were you flirting? Or was this out of the blue? I think it really depends on the context whether something like that should be considered an “ok-option” for the initiator (as per your “extraordinary lovers paper”) or an inappropriate transgression.

When I was groped by a drunk woman at a party, who was trying to make another guy jealous, I felt she had crossed a line. Not to a degree I would want to call sexual assault, but I suppose there are people who would call it that way. In the mistle-tow-violence frame, it certainly was. Another example – I have a female friend with whom I am always flirting – and for her, also particularly when she’s drunk, that regularly means taking fingers and biting on them. Now I know. At first I didn’t. And she actually bit a bit harder than I expected, though I think unintentionally. She didn’t get through my skin, but if we hadn’t been flirting before, I may have reacted aggressively – but since we had flirted before, that bite was within her zone of “ok-options”, I think. The context is what defines the appropriate options for extending the conversational space – including physically. The point is though – people are different, and there can never be a general rule about how far the contextual ok-zone for any individual person extends.

I feel you there, man. I mean, we’re all biased to some degree, and the idea that society is Not Our Bubble is a tough one to really internalize.

Yes, but our bubble is a part of the bigger bubble, even if not recognized by the big bubble discourse.

“Like ferrets? Check. Unshaven legs? Check. Drug usage? Yes please.”

The guy had a “like no ferrets” policy? Interesting… Are we talking about the animal? If this is code, I don’t understand. As for dealbreaker lists, I think people have them and don’t have them at the same time. In a way, I think they’re some kind of soft restraint, and a signaling and screening device, as Motley mentions. Don’t like ferrets? Don’t go to places where people who like ferrets hang out. Plus, certainly with some men, I wouldn’t take seriously what they say about list as I’d assume it’s some kind of peacock tail, a virtual status symbol (“I only date women who have/do/are”) – but I guess it’s different if guys talk to guys about this stuff or they actually mention it to women. In the latter case, outside of a discussion about such lists, I can’t really see much reason to talk about them to women. If the woman is on the list, great, if not, not so great, but then there’s probably no reason to talk to her anyway, certainly not about the list she’s not on – if he takes his list seriously, which, to be honest, most people wouldn’t do if there’s actual mutual chemistry. I mean, maybe most men prefer women with shaved legs to women who don’t shave their legs. But in my opinion, if most of those guys with a preference for shaved legs met a woman who doesn’t shave and liked her, it would be difficult for her hairy legs to turn that attraction off.

Motley,

“Yeah, agree completely. Being a guy requires that you only share your feelings with someone you’re sleeping with. And sometimes not even then. Several years back, I was quite surprised to find out that women have that same relationship with their friends. Weird.”

I’m a guy and I think that’s bollocks. In my experience men talk about things differently, but not less emotional. Sometimes it’s great to have a conversation about a romantic problem that doesn’t need more than two words and two bottles of beer – “Yeah. Sucks. (bottles clinking).” But I’ve also spent an hour ruminating about ONE sentence a woman had posted on Skype. We don’t talk about that stuff in public that much, precisely because it has a feminine connotation to it, but it certainly happens (at least in my larger social group). Since one of my three best friends is a woman, I am fairly confident in my assessment that differences in this respect are much more about style than substance.

Motley January 22, 2010 at 6:59 am #

Today begins, as it always does, with making fun of people for things that aren’t their fault.

I’m a guy and I think that’s bollocks.

Bear with me a moment, and we’ll see if our sample guy will demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about:

But I’ve also spent an hour ruminating about ONE sentence a woman had posted on Skype…

Did you discuss that sentence with another guy?
Did you even consider doing so?

No? That’s precisely what I mean.

If you had, (or if you did) would he have attempted to help ruminate, or just made fun of you for giving a shit? Or would he have just dismissed it with a platitude like “Yeah. Sucks.”?

(I know which I’d expect from nearly any man I’ve ever met, and they’d expect the same from me)
If he did actually help you ruminate about it for an hour, would he or you admit that in public?

We don’t talk about that stuff in public that much, precisely because it has a feminine connotation to it…

So my point was that talking about that stuff has a feminine connotation*. Still think that’s bollocks?

@Clarisse
Incidentally, as I’m still in my pre-caffeine silliness, I’ll take the opportunity to poke a little fun at you, too:

And why, pray tell, is it anxiety-inducing to learn that a guy who you presumably don’t want to date, also wouldn’t want to date you?
Female privilege! Nyaa nyaa! :p

*First serious thought for the day:
Why do you think it has a feminine connotation?

Do you think these connotations just fell from the sky and attached themselves to the first thing they landed on? (Okay, that first part was serious, this part, not so much. But the point is a valid one, I think)

Sam January 22, 2010 at 10:32 am #

Motley,

“Did you discuss that sentence with another guy?
Did you even consider doing so?

No? That’s precisely what I mean.”

Yeah, sorry, I wasn’t clear, the sentence was in a friend’s conversation, I went over to get him to go somewhere, we ended up discussing this sentence for an hour.

“would he or you admit that in public?”

I don’t know about him, but I do admit this in conversations with peolpe who claim that “men don’t do that”, and not just on the web.

“So my point was that talking about that stuff has a feminine connotation*. Still think that’s bollocks?”

No, I agree with the feminine connotation, but I think that there is a masculine way of talking about this stuff, that goes beyond the “yeah. sucks.” level, but doesn’t amount to a Carrie Bradshaw column. And it happens all the time.

Motley January 22, 2010 at 10:46 am #

That link Clarisse posted
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/04/07/my-wife-is-my-best-friend-the-guy-code-and-the-inability-to-get-naked-without-getting-naked/
rings completely true to my experience.

Incidentally, the fact that you did it doesn’t disprove the “men don’t do that.”

In precisely the way that the fact that, somewhere, you could find a man who’s smaller than a woman does not disprove the fact that men are larger. One exception does not disprove a trend. (And taking “Men don’t do that” to mean “no man anywhere, ever, has or would do that anywhere, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever” is deliberately misreading a statement.)

Sam January 22, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

Motley,

“Incidentally, the fact that you did it doesn’t disprove the “men don’t do that.””

yes it does. It doesn’t disprove the weaker assertion that “men – in general – don’t do that. I think I think I would agree with an even weaker version – “A significant majority of men in general don’t do that”.

But you’re right, this is about semantics.

Motley January 22, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

Pretty much. What I meant was that taking “Men don’t do that” to mean
a) “no man anywhere, ever, has or would do that anywhere, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever”
rather than
b) “men – in general – don’t do that” (which, I’d say, is the same as “A significant majority of men…”) is a misinterpretation so obvious as to indicate a choice.

I mean, does anyone honestly think that when I (or anyone) says “Men don’t do that” that they actually mean option A and not B?
Seriously?
(I suppose that should go on the “pet peeves” list: #4: “Interpreting people’s statements in the most obviously incorrect manner possible.” Please don’t do that.)

but I think that there is a masculine way of talking about this stuff, that goes beyond the “yeah. sucks.”

Interesting. I’m not sure what you mean, though. I mean, I’ve had a conversation or two that might qualify, but those were largely the same as I’d have with my wife, and pretty atypical (and probably fairly Carrie-Bradshaw-ish, though I don’t know much about that show). Can you go into that more?

On an unrelated note, the “ferrets” thing makes less and less sense the more I think about it. Assuming I’m interpreting the word “likes” correctly. Which I hope I am.

Clarisse Thorn January 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

@Motley — Can you think of one scenario from real life in which a man said that in a threatening, serious manner?

Um, the one cited by the author of the book he’s indirectly criticizing? Why are we discounting her experience of that phrase just because Sam “has trouble taking it seriously”? By the way, his “having trouble taking it seriously” is a reaction that is bothering me more, the more I think about it. I get that he doesn’t like the author’s frame, but I see no reason to disbelieve that she felt unsafe when that guy said it, and it’s really not cool to question that. In fact I will assert that it’s dangerous, for reasons I think are probably obvious by this point in the conversation ….

Why would I date someone who doesn’t care what I think of her?

Why would she want to date someone who forces her to jump through annoying hoops?

Side note: Personally the leg-shaving thing is less because I want to seem like a rebel (I do a good enough job being different already, thanks) and more because I can’t stand the feeling of shaven legs, and get razor burn very easily. Ugh, I twitch just thinking about how it feels.

@Toysoldier — Most likely my responses irritate you because of their bluntness, coldness and the constant questioning of ideas.

Actually, this entire thread and most of my friends question my ideas regularly, and I don’t think you’re being much more blunt than most people I know. Maybe it is the coldness, which I might call rudeness. If you’re interested in having conversations with people who disagree with you (and I assume you are, otherwise why else would you be here?) then wouldn’t it serve your aims to frame your words like a friend rather than an attacker? Do you really think that the only reason you get banned at feminist blogs because you’re “blunt” and “question ideas”?

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the statement, but it appears that you do want men to incorporate feminist ideas and you do want feminism to influence the masculinity discourse. If I misread the intent, my apologies.

You didn’t misread the intent, you just (here, and in other places) are constantly overstating my opinions and approach. You (and Daran, incidentally) accuse me of “demanding”, “insisting”, “forcing”, etc. You consistently disavow any greyscale to my statements.

You did not agree with idea that butch lesbians and trans men should not have an equal voice in those discussions, which means any discussion about masculinity which gave women and trans men equal voices with men would not be centered on men.

Leaving aside what I actually said, let’s talk about the trans men thing. Are you seriously asserting that trans men aren’t “actually” men?

@Sam — In which ways do you think this suggestive question can be actually considered violent on its own?

I don’t understand this question. Also, see my response to Motley above.

The point is though – people are different, and there can never be a general rule about how far the contextual ok-zone for any individual person extends.

This is true. And like I say, I’d done the scratch thing to tons of people before Freakout Dude, and none of them cared (some of them asked me to do it again). But I think the only effective way to actually reduce assaults is for people to worry about assault more. If we see the possible negative effect of not making a move as “missing a chance”, and the possible negative effect of making a move as “assault”, then I think the latter is more important to risk than the former every single time. I’d rather I’d never scratched someone at a party and not fucked up with Freakout Dude.

Are we talking about the animal?

Yeah. No code. He said he’d never date a woman who owned a ferret.

In the latter case, outside of a discussion about such lists, I can’t really see much reason to talk about them to women.

In this case I think it was just because it came up in conversation (expats end up talking to each other about a lot of weird things — normal social boundaries kinda dissolve during culture shock).

And yes, one reason to talk about them is just to scout out a potential partner (though in that case, if it’s a soft limit, why frame it as a dealbreaker? all you’re doing is reducing your own options). But here’s a nastier reason to talk about dealbreaker lists: policing gender or sexual norms. Nothing like telling a girl that hairy legs are a “dealbreaker” to make her feel like she “ought to” shave her legs. It can an underhanded way of telling someone they should do something, without having to take ownership of your attempt at dominance.

I think that there is a masculine way of talking about this stuff, that goes beyond the “yeah. sucks.” level, but doesn’t amount to a Carrie Bradshaw column. And it happens all the time.

What does it look/sound like? Out of curiosity, is “The 40-Yr-Old Virgin” at all true to life, with the dude conversations?

@Motley — And why, pray tell, is it anxiety-inducing to learn that a guy who you presumably don’t want to date, also wouldn’t want to date you? Female privilege!

Wait, female privilege what? I’m confused.

Do I really have to explain why this is anxiety-inducing? I mean, yeah, to some extent finding new criteria actually assists in finding mates (the BDSM thing has done this for me to some extent), but isn’t it obvious why not meeting widespread social criteria for attractiveness would be anxiety-inducing?

Motley January 22, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

Wait, female privilege what? I’m confused.

Heh.
In my early-morning state, I read your statement about how knowing that some guy is not attracted to certain girls, of whom you happen to be one, causes anxiety as a lot of “How dare you not be attracted to me!!!!”

It looked like a goofy flipside of that “all women owe it to me to be sexually attractive” bit of “male privilege” that one hears now and then. Sorta like “all men owe it to me to find me sexually attractive.”
If you don’t owe it to him to shave your legs, he doesn’t owe it to you to be attracted by your unshaven legs. Not sure where the confusion’s coming from.

why not meeting widespread social criteria for attractiveness would be anxiety-inducing?

Well, in that case, let me be the first to reassure you that the ferret thing is by no means widespread. :p

(I mean, ferrets? WTF?) Incidentally, if you meant “Isn’t it obvious to you, Motley,” then I should answer: No, it isn’t. But I suspect I’m atypical.

Nothing like telling a girl that hairy legs are a “dealbreaker” to make her feel like she “ought to” shave her legs.

Quick question: Had you told that guy that you wanted to date him? If not, then there’s no reason to interpret it as an attempt to force you to do anything. I like steak, but typing that isn’t an attempt to force you to cook me one.

Why would she want to date someone who forces her to jump through annoying hoops?

Presumably, she wouldn’t, so what’s the harm?
Also, why on earth would I want to date someone who can’t distinguish between the fact that I have preferences and “forcing her to jump through annoying hoops?”
Men are allowed to have preferences. Women are too. Failure to hide your preferences is not a crime. (Assuming your preferences aren’t illegal)
I won’t date a girl who isn’t comfortable with the idea that I like some things and don’t like other things. Similarly, she wouldn’t want to date me. Being clear about our preferences helps both hypothetical parties.

…the one cited by the author of the book he’s indirectly criticizing…

Sorry, should’ve been more clear: Can you think of one scenario from your real life in which that happened? I just have trouble with the notion that “That phrase is [adjective] in all my sexual fantasies, so that proves that that phrase is [adjective] in real life.”

I see no reason to disbelieve that she felt unsafe when that guy said it…</blockquote.

Not sure I understand. If I feel threatened whenever I read the word "ferret," does that mean you're assaulting me? I think intent matters. Yeah, it's dangerous to believe the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but I do.

Sam January 22, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

Clarisse,

“but I see no reason to disbelieve that she felt unsafe when that guy said it, and it’s really not cool to question that”

True, I don’t like the frame, but I also explicitly said above that my impression of what he said doesn’t really matter – it’s merely my interpretation, ex post, from afar. Intellectual exercise. To quote myself from above (#401) – “I actually think it was intended to be playful. But that doesn’t matter – what matters is that the author apparently still felt intimidated by the guy’s physique – “their sheer size and manipulated my body with their strength.”” At no point have I questioned her assertion that she felt threatened and that her feeling threatened was what caused the reaction.

“But I think the only effective way to actually reduce assaults is for people to worry about assault more. If we see the possible negative effect of not making a move as “missing a chance”, and the possible negative effect of making a move as “assault”, then I think the latter is more important to risk than the former every single time.”

Hmm, but taken literally, this (and I think this is the current standard, at least theoretically) logically means that no one can ever initiate because no one can have positive knowledge of what other people want.

You keep telling me that I’m not exploring the leeway I have in my interactions, and that is likely true, yet I’m worrying precisely about this thing, making mistakes in my assumptions about what is wanted and what not – it’s the same structure for the dominant in the paper about extraordinary lovers you quoted.

Using the assumed leeway would mean increasing the amount of *assumptions* in my interactions – not having positive knowledge the only way to apply the suggested rule implies the impossibilty to ever morally appropriately initiate.

Either you’re violating the rule or the other one is. There’s just no way around this. That’s why I think the contextual variables are so important. But the problem will always be the same, on whichever level – to go further, someone will have to value the loss of opportunity higher than the risk of harm.

And there’s another problem: Is it fair to shift the risk over to her party because I’m afraid to attempt what I think we both would want?

Is “Lesson 10″ really the only we have? Take the risk of hurting someone or risk to never have any interaction at all? Really, we should be able to come up with something better than that. Can’t we?

“He said he’d never date a woman who owned a ferret.”

Wow. That’s a really weird statement without reasonable qualification (like a trauma caused by his first girlfriend’s ferret biting him in the crotch while making out with her…).

“It can an underhanded way of telling someone they should do something, without having to take ownership of your attempt at dominance.”

True, but that’s what culture is general does, no?

“Out of curiosity, is “The 40-Yr-Old Virgin” at all true to life, with the dude conversations?

Well, it’s a comedy… what conversations are you thinking of, I think some were more realistic than others (but I’d have to watch the scenes again to be sure).

Motley,

““Interpreting people’s statements in the most obviously incorrect manner possible.””

I try not to, but in the given context, I think it was well worth pointing out that there are indeed men who do this, and that doing it is not something I consider as reducing my masculinity. The opposite, actually.

Clarisse January 22, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

@Motley: Men are allowed to have preferences. Women are too. Failure to hide your preferences is not a crime.

Whoa, you are interpreting me way aggressively. The “hoops” thing was just an attempt to respond light-heartedly to your “light-hearted critique” :P

I’m confused about where it’s coming from, actually. You seem to be reading me as making claims that I don’t recall making (eg, “Men should be attracted to me,” “Dealbreakers are unacceptable”). You aren’t usually bad about this, so I’m especially puzzled about why it’s happening now. Have I pushed a button or something? Did I say something that seemed particularly aggressive?

Can you think of one scenario from your real life in which that happened?

No, but I’m an upper-middle-class white girl from the suburbs with a big bad lawyer dad who was widely considered unattractive until I made it to college and out of the ugly duckling phase.

I just have trouble with the notion that “That phrase is [adjective] in all my sexual fantasies, so that proves that that phrase is [adjective] in real life.”

Did I say it proved anything? I’m just saying that’s my immediate read on the phrase. Sam’s immediate read on the phrase was playful; mine was very threatening. Doesn’t that seem significant in itself?

If I feel threatened whenever I read the word “ferret,” does that mean you’re assaulting me? I think intent matters.

Sure … but intent only matters so much when you’ve actually hurt or abused someone else. And it’s pretty easy for people to lie to themselves about their intent, especially after the fact.

@Sam — At no point have I questioned her assertion that she felt threatened and that her feeling threatened was what caused the reaction.

OK, fair enough.

Either you’re violating the rule or the other one is. There’s just no way around this.

But there is. Didn’t we already talk about this? The way around it is explicit communication. I mean, I get that most people don’t practice this, and it could be hard to enact, and it’s a little unusual under current social mores. But unusual is a far cry from impossible. You seem like you want to try and have a serious relationship before having sex, and you’ve mentioned that you are pretty good with the ladies — I find it difficult to believe that you’d have a hard time finding women to date who are charmed by your intellect and honesty, and willing to attempt being more open about this kind of talk

True, but that’s what culture is general does, no?

Sure, but I think it’s worth tracking the ways that cultural mores are enforced.

I mean, in case I’m coming across as overly critical of Dealbreaker Boy — I really don’t care that much. It was a little upsetting to have a conversation focused around a dealbreaker list that might as well have my name written at the top, but I’m not traumatized or anything, nor would I ever say that he’s required to be attracted to me. As Thomas Millar would say, some reasons for not being attracted to other people are sad or patriarchal — but the bottom line is that anyone should be able to refuse sex at any time for any reason.

By the way, sorry I’m sucking at email lately, folks. Gmail is just a nightmare.

Motley January 22, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

Have I pushed a button or something?

Not really. Mostly, I was explaining the “reasoning” behind my early-morning babble. Though perhaps it’s because I occasionally do use social contexts to force people into things, and I get irritated when someone applies words like “force” where none is being used. I mean, I appreciate hyperbole as a rhetorical device, and use it myself from time to time, but it needs to be used judiciously (it’s the same thing that annoys me about the phrase “rape culture”)

Though there’s probably some contamination coming from the fact that I’ve more than once heard people who use phrases like “male privilege” get offended when a guy doesn’t hide the fact that he prefers shaved legs to hairy legs on women. Similarly, I’m annoyed when goth-kids object to being judged on how they’re dressed. “How dare you be turned off by my declaration that I don’t give a shit what you think of me,” etc. Lifelong irritant.

On the “You’d like that, wouldn’t you” topic:

I asked because I interpreted that phrase playfully. I’ve used that phrase playfully. It seems that you, based on your imagination, interpreted it one way and I (and presumably Sam) interpreted another way, based on real-life experience. Is it any wonder why I give more credence to one of these interpretations than the other? (see also: “It happens that way in the movies” vs. “But it’s never happened that way in my real life”)

But there is. Didn’t we already talk about this? The way around it is explicit communication…

The problem is that certain groups of people describe initiating communication as assault, in circumstances when the non-initiator isn’t interested. So explicit communication, unfortunately, is off the table (barring mind-reading or the Everyone Carry Signs method)

It was a little upsetting to have a conversation focused around a dealbreaker list that might as well have my name written at the top…

That’s been bothering me. Why’s it upsetting? All I can figure is either a) the deep-down assumption that all men are obligated to be attracted to all women, or b)one of those things I just don’t get.

I suspect it’s B. I really can’t imagine being upset at learning that [person whom I have not tried to attract] is not attracted to people like me. If I show someone something that attracts them, they’re attracted; if not, they won’t be. Learning that what attracts them isn’t the face I’m wearing right now wouldn’t bother me; if I wanted to attract that person, I’d put on a different one. Though admittedly, when I put on my nice-guy face, smile (and remember to work the eyes), people nigh-universally consider me charming, so if I’d tried that and someone still found me unattractive, yeah, I’d find that a bit disconcerting. (Though occasionally people find it repellent/frightening, which indicates that I either forgot to work the eyes or, more rarely, that the person in question has really good instincts.)

Re: Ferrets:
One of my wife’s girlfriends reminds me that Giuliani, when he was mayor of NYC, carried on a zealous crusade to attempt to have ‘em banned from the city (I think I’d heard that before, but had forgotten). So maybe that one’s more widespread than we thought.
Weird. (Though my wife points out that unless you put a lot of work into cleaning up after ‘em, they’ll really stink horribly. And that they’re nocturnally active, so they can make a lot of noise while you’re trying to sleep. Maybe that’s it.)

…but intent only matters so much when you’ve actually hurt or abused someone else.

I don’t agree. Well, sorta. I don’t think abuse can exist without intent. I’d say accidental injuries are accidents, not abuse.
Which is not to say that stated intent matters (as it’s relation to actual intent is highly questionable). But an action’s playfulness or aggression is determined by the intent of the person taking the action, not the emotional response of onlookers, isn’t it? If I stumble in front of an onrushing car, the driver isn’t a murderer, no matter how dead I am. Saying “she felt threatened, therefore he was threatening her” seems the same as “I’m dead, therefore the driver murdered me.” Does not follow. (I may be influenced by the fact that I’m apparently free of our culture’s “in a he-said/she-said situation, she is always correct” bias). Similarly, when you said “I see no reason to disbelieve that she felt threatened…” well, I see no reason to believe it, either. The evidence we have (to wit: nothing) supports one side as readily as the other (to wit: not at all).

And there I’m showing a different bias: if I’m not there (in person, I can usually tell very easily if somebody’s lying) I tend to start from “highly skeptical” as a default position about any claim that supports the point someone is making.

Back on topic: That’s the other part of why I don’t think new, more explicit-communication-centric mores will have the effect that one might hope; honesty is not a common human trait. (I’ve been experimenting with it in this thread; it’s harder than one might think. It’s certainly harder than I thought it would be, though, oddly, it feels a bit – not sure what word – relaxing, maybe?)

Toysoldier January 23, 2010 at 11:42 am #

Clarisse,

I choose to treat others civilly and politely without involving emotions and without dismissing the validity of my concerns with no expectation of the same. If one regards that as rudeness, very well. Most things are shades of gray, however, that does not mean a person’s positions should not be critically analyzed nor a person’s intent acknowledged. If one regards that as an attack, very well. I do not take such things personally, even when that is the intent. It is important when discussing differences to avoid certain tones in order to lessen the chance of a person taking offense. However, in some instances the issue is not the necessarily the tone but the comment itself. Unfortunately, we have a difference of opinion on a variety of issues, and that difference appears to affect how we regard each other’s statements. Perhaps it is best for me to withdraw from the conversation so as to avoid further conflict.

Sam January 23, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

Clarisse,

But there is. Didn’t we already talk about this? The way around it is explicit communication. I mean, I get that most people don’t practice this, and it could be hard to enact, and it’s a little unusual under current social mores. But unusual is a far cry from impossible. You seem like you want to try and have a serious relationship before having sex, and you’ve mentioned that you are pretty good with the ladies — I find it difficult to believe that you’d have a hard time finding women to date who are charmed by your intellect and honesty, and willing to attempt being more open about this kind of talk.

Well, I just consider my experience a particular case in a wider context rather than a singularity. But I know that I am a snowflake, and if you think that the problem is only relevant for me, then it’s probably not an important one socially. But I don’t think so.

Talking about things is always a good way, sometimes posssibly the only way to remove uncertainties about people’s preferences. Yet it doesn’t solve the logical problem, even if asking weren’t – in some circumstances – considered violent in its own right. Motley is right about that. Structurally, asking is also an intrusion – a lower level intrusion, true, but still an a intrusion that may or may not be welcome. If the standard were to never value the option of a conversation higher than the risk of the harm it could cause then no one could ever talk to anyone without violating that rule.

I think Motley is right about the importance of “intent” and “context”. I mean, we’re not talking about legal matters for which these elements are probably crucial when it comes to determining whether or not behaviour was criminal or not, but even on a much lower level, these elements are important, in my opinion: the situational context provides information about the space of reasonable action and reaction, and thus helps to determine whether there was intent to harm, or whether harming was an accident that occurred while the intent was to please (for the lack of a better word).

Of course, we may define that a person’s inabilty to accurately parse contextual variables and give preference to his or her own agenda without giving appropriate weight to the other person’s apparent interest may constitute a case of “intent to harm” – sometimes that probably could include a (moral) obligation to make things verbally explicit (although, sometimes not even that will be sufficient to remove all uncertainty).

Without differentiating for reasonability (within context) and intent and thus allowing for degrees of freedom in initiating every interaction is logically in violation of the principle you formulated.

“Sure, but I think it’s worth tracking the ways that cultural mores are enforced.

Agreed.

I mean, in case I’m coming across as overly critical of Dealbreaker Boy — I really don’t care that much. It was a little upsetting to have a conversation focused around a dealbreaker list that might as well have my name written at the top, but I’m not traumatized or anything, nor would I ever say that he’s required to be attracted to me. As Thomas Millar would say, some reasons for not being attracted to other people are sad or patriarchal — but the bottom line is that anyone should be able to refuse sex at any time for any reason.

True, but rejection sucks. Everytime, even if it is only implicit or potential rejection, and, sometimes, even if it is rejection from people you would reject if you were the one choose. It’s just like that. We learn to live with it, we may even defend other people’s right to reject us for arbitrary reasons, but it will always be upsetting, and it will always suck. And it’s perfectly ok to not feel good about something that sucks and not liking the person rejecting you, in my opinion, even if you would do the same.

Clarisse January 24, 2010 at 7:32 am #

@Motley — Is it any wonder why I give more credence to one of these interpretations than the other? (see also: “It happens that way in the movies” vs. “But it’s never happened that way in my real life”)

No, it’s no wonder, but it starts getting creepy if used to dismiss the specifically attested experience of someone who doesn’t take it that way and who felt threatened by it, like the researcher did. Or like I would.

This part of the conversation started because Sam said:
“from my perspective, [her action] was even disproportionally violent compared to his playful “you would like that, wouldn’t you” (but again, I wasn’t there and I suppose my perception may be biased by my attempt to present a slightly alternative frame, plus I don’t think anyone can ever say something like “you would like that, wouldn’t you” in such a situation and be serious about that)”

Sam was quick to add that he thought what she said was acceptable, etc. And he also noted that he wasn’t there and his perception was biased. But the fact remains that evaluation of whether this kid could possibly be saying it “seriously”, and whether the researcher could “actually” have felt threatened by what he said, is being shaped by whether or not you “give credence” to how it felt for her to hear that.

Do you see what I’m saying?

This is especially upsetting in the context of sexual violence, an area in which victims’ feelings have been frequently discounted or ignored because “it can’t possibly have been that bad”. And where victims have routinely been blamed, judged, and silenced when they tried to defend themselves or merely describe their experience.

I can see why it’s important to be sensitive to the male kid’s experience and how she attacked him back, and to understand the form of violence that she used on him. But … well, maybe I can demonstrate my perspective with a more concrete metaphor. Suppose a woman were physically grabbed in a dark alley, and she panicked, pulled out a knife and stabbed the person who grabbed her. Now suppose she stepped out of the alley and onlookers said, “Oh my God, I can’t believe you stabbed that guy!” and she said, “He grabbed me in a dark alley! I was afraid for my life!” and they said, “Whatever, being grabbed in a dark alley isn’t so bad.” I acknowledge that this is not a perfect metaphor, but I think it gets the point across — do you see what I’m saying?

So, while I think that what Sam said was reasonable, I just wanted to chime in on the researcher’s side, and to point out that it is perfectly possible to see “You’d like that, wouldn’t you” as a really gross, scary, threatening thing to say. That it is not hysterical, or “overfeminist”, to see it that way. I think Sam is making an effort to acknowledge the researcher’s perspective, but that he is still biased by his frame. The same thing happened with the mistletoe example — Sam is bothered by the fact that the mistletoe hat was framed as entitled, as a semi-assault, because he doesn’t experience it that way and he wants to give the hat-wearer benefit of the doubt — but I have experienced the mistletoe hat thing in exactly the way that the post described it; and I didn’t like it, and I’d rather it didn’t happen again.

Here’s the most important thing I will have said for the last many paragraphs:
I’d like to make space to listen to people who are being framed as assaulters, but I refuse to make that space by failing to acknowledge the experience of victims and survivors.

I suspect it’s B. I really can’t imagine being upset at learning that [person whom I have not tried to attract] is not attracted to people like me.

You’re not a woman. Remember how women are constantly subjected to incredibly unrealistic expectations of beauty? Remember how women are constantly told that the Most Important Thing We Can Do is be attractive? You lose a lot less, socially, if you’re not attractive to Random Dude than I do. Because you, as a man, can have qualities that are as important as beauty, if not more so. It’s much harder for me.

One of my wife’s girlfriends reminds me that Giuliani, when he was mayor of NYC, carried on a zealous crusade to attempt to have ‘em banned from the city (I think I’d heard that before, but had forgotten). So maybe that one’s more widespread than we thought. Weird. (Though my wife points out that unless you put a lot of work into cleaning up after ‘em, they’ll really stink horribly. And that they’re nocturnally active, so they can make a lot of noise while you’re trying to sleep. Maybe that’s it.)

I grew up in New York. Giuliani’s an ass. Also, have you ever actually lived with a ferret? They can be descented, and they’re way quieter all the time (including at night) than, say, a dog.

Saying “she felt threatened, therefore he was threatening her” seems the same as “I’m dead, therefore the driver murdered me.”

I see your point, but I feel like we’re drifting away from this case in point. No one has said that the argument is “she felt threatened, therefore he was threatening her”. The only thing I’ve said, for example, is “I totally relate to her experience in seeing that statement as threatening, and it kinda freaks me out that people would dismiss her experience just because they can’t relate to it easily.”

That’s the other part of why I don’t think new, more explicit-communication-centric mores will have the effect that one might hope; honesty is not a common human trait

Such mores would have to be accompanied by encouragement for people to honestly share their sexual experience, rather than covering it up or attempting to modify it because they think that’s what their partner wants. But people don’t lie for no reason. In my experience, people are very likely to be honest about their sexual feelings as long as they’re sure that their partners won’t judge them and might even be interested in sharing those feelings. One thing I emphasized in my sexual communication workshop was that one of the most important things you can do for your sexual partner is reassure them that you are really listening to their needs and you really care about fulfilling them.

@Toysoldier — Perhaps it is best for me to withdraw from the conversation so as to avoid further conflict.

:eyeroll: Fine, if that’s what you want. But if you ever feel like, say, defending your assertion that trans men aren’t actual men (which strikes me as incredibly transphobic and awful), I’ll be here.

@Sam — If the standard were to never value the option of a conversation higher than the risk of the harm it could cause then no one could ever talk to anyone without violating that rule.

Well, okay.

But … where does that leave us? You have successfully taken my argument to a logical extreme in which it is absurd, but can’t you do that with most arguments? What have you proved?

In all the theory I feel like we’ve lost sight of what we would actually, say, try to tell a person asking for advice, or teach our children. Or how sexual interactions might best go.

My point has been I think it would be better if aggressors (and yes, men are often framed as aggressors) would quit being so aggressive, generally speaking; and if there was an emphasis on receivers speaking up more rather than aggressors dominating interactions without talking about them or carefully parsing out desires beforehand. I don’t think you’re contradicting that point.

Clarisse January 24, 2010 at 8:26 am #

EXCITING NEW MASCULINITY CONVERSATION THING! EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION!

In the 10 seconds I managed to check my email today before it went back to being impossible, I heard from the awesome kids at University of Chicago who are having me there as a speaker during a visit in February. I had asked them for guidance on what they wanted me to talk about, and here’s part of their email:

“The group says it is most interested in hearing you talk about ‘masculinity and privilege’. What is masculinity or male advocacy as a movement, and how is it in dialogue with contemporary feminism? Can it be incorporated into feminism, or can the values of the sex-positive feminist community speak to its concerns [that you have highlighted in your blog series]? What does positive, productive talk about masculinity sound like, especially in light of the challenges we’ve faced on campus re: Men in Power? (reference: )”

They also want me to talk generally about sex-positive activism.

SO! I’m going to have two hours, in which I’m thinking I’ll probably only want to talk for like 30 minutes, and do breakout discussions with the rest. I haven’t completely decided how to structure the breakout discussions but I’ll probably form them around excerpts from various “case studies” around the Internet — blog posts, articles, etc. What I want from YOU GUYS is (a) if you’ve got any links lying around that you think would be especially good for sparking this kind of conversation, send em my way (if they came up on this thread already, it would be awesome if you also noted the comment #) and (b) part of my lecturette will be a list of the most striking points that I think came up in this blog series and the reactions to it, so if there are any of those points that you want to highlight, do that!

Please leave it as a comment rather than sending it as an email, unless you want to give me some kind of personal information that I use anonymously while speaking, or something.

Clarisse January 24, 2010 at 8:39 am #

Forgot the reference link:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/015708.html

typhonblue January 24, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

I’d be curious to know their response to a discussion on male vulnerability to women in relation to the stats I’ve been seeing:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

Particularly in context of our traditional notions of male invulnerability and female helplessness. I imagine most men find the idea of being vulnerable to women quite threatening.

machina January 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

I think this is a good overview of the academic study of masculinity and its applications over the past thirty years.

http://history.anu.edu.au/files/documents/Connell&Mess_HegemonicMasc.pdf

typhonblue January 24, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

I think this is a good overview of the academic study of masculinity and its applications over the past thirty years.

The linked paper is quite… dense.

I have a couple questions. What if men don’t really want to dominate women? Hegemonic masculinity assumes they do, but what evidence is there to support that?

I did a little informal survey of one and asked my husband. His response:

“No. I’m not really interested in circling around planet Woman. I mean, they’re an important part of the universe, but hardly the only part.”

I guess he picked up, like me, that saying ‘manhood=dominating women’ is a very woman-centric definition of manhood.

Sam January 25, 2010 at 12:35 am #

Clarisse,

I’d like to make space to listen to people who are being framed as assaulters, but I refuse to make that space by failing to acknowledge the experience of victims and survivors.

I agree 100%. That said, I think the dark alley metaphor doesn’t really cut it. People who are defending themselves certainly shouldn’t be forced to write a dissertation about what would be a proportional way to fend of the threat – but at the same time, if the woman stabbed someone when that person was grabbing something from a bag that, to her, looked like a gun or a knife, that would have been an easily detectable disproportionate response.

That it is not hysterical, or “overfeminist”, to see it that way. I think Sam is making an effort to acknowledge the researcher’s perspective, but that he is still biased by his frame. The same thing happened with the mistletoe example — Sam is bothered by the fact that the mistletoe hat was framed as entitled, as a semi-assault, because he doesn’t experience it that way and he wants to give the hat-wearer benefit of the doubt — but I have experienced the mistletoe hat thing in exactly the way that the post described it; and I didn’t like it, and I’d rather it didn’t happen again.

Well, we’re all biased by our own position and there is no way around this. The researcher, you, me. I’m trying to understand her – and you’re arguing very effectively on her behalf – but that doesn’t necessarily mean I can emotionally understand her point (that’s a bad translation of “verstehen” – see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen). This should be the aim of any ethnography – the projection of one’s own perspective is impossible to avoid, but to the extent that it is possible, it should be done, I think. So, in the mistle tow example quote in Thomas Milar’s quote the author projects her perception of the interaction and then frames it using terms that apply to *her* perception, but not necessarly to that of anyone involved (… “Of course it is unlikely that boys, or girls, would recognize these sorts of daily rituals as sexual harassment; they are more likely seen as normal, if perhaps a bit aggressive, instances of heterosexual flirtation and as part of normal adolescence (N. Stein 2005).)”

As for the mistle tow – I’m not hung up on the example. It’s dual use, of course – one guy will use it as a tool to annoy girls, another one will use it to open wanted conversations. It’s not he mistle tow, it’s what’s done with it.

I was mostly annoyed that the mistle tow example was almost naturally given the frame of semi-assault without even assuming there could be a different story at play.

I don’t necessarily want the hat-wearer guy to get the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know him, maybe he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. But this was but one example of the frame that Thomas Millar’s essay about the book and rape culture was written in – and as I said above, it may not even be a fair description of the entire book. But based on the quotes – which may be misleading – I thought there was a clear bias to see initiation as violent and some kind of “proto-rape”.

Again, maybe the author does reflect on the problem of how to initiate in a way she’d deem appropriate, but from the quotes I’d say it doesn’t seem like that was an important angle of her research. I may, of course, be wrong – and I’d like to be wrong about this.

And with the mistle tow experience and this quote from you above in mind -

Such mores would have to be accompanied by encouragement for people to honestly share their sexual experience, rather than covering it up or attempting to modify it because they think that’s what their partner wants.

I’d like to tell you about this older post by Hugo Schwyzer (who writes from a sometimes hard to understand perspective of radical feminism, evangelism, and a certain social liberalism)

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2006/06/its_election_da.html

Well, okay.

But … where does that leave us? You have successfully taken my argument to a logical extreme in which it is absurd, but can’t you do that with most arguments? What have you proved?

It’s not an extreme. It one very common interaction that would be impossible using the “one-way” standard you described. And that leaves us with a reality in which that rule is ONE case of whatever – balancing – general rule for interactions there are. In practice, the “golden rule”, in theory, it’s probably Kant’s categorical imperative (first formulation: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”). Sure, it’s a construed assumption, but that’s true for EVERY assumption about other people, since we are all closed systems. There are certainly situations in which your standard applies and, hence, should/could be willed a universal law (by every rational agent) for those situations. But not in other situations.

In all the theory I feel like we’ve lost sight of what we would actually, say, try to tell a person asking for advice, or teach our children. Or how sexual interactions might best go.

See, I feel the same way. But you’re proposing a ‘general’ rule (which, I think, has been the basic feminist assumption for decades) and I’m telling you that the claim that *this* rule should be the standard is problematic and has – for me, but not only for me – caused considerable damage.

My point has been I think it would be better if aggressors (and yes, men are often framed as aggressors) would quit being so aggressive, generally speaking; and if there was an emphasis on receivers speaking up more rather than aggressors dominating interactions without talking about them or carefully parsing out desires beforehand. I don’t think you’re contradicting that point.

No, I would very much welcome such a development. But at the same time, I would like a recognition that iniation doesn’t equal aggression, and that situations can arise in which something that is not aggression can accidentally cause harm. Accidents can not, even given best intentions, be ruled out.

I’m quoting again from the alternet article I already linked to above about what I think should be part of the balancing approach: A discoursive distinction between wanted initiation and unwanted aggression, a distinction between accidents and assaults.

“Wolf famously wrote in her book Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How It Will Change the 21st Century that she finds shelter and solace in the male body, and that “there is an elaborate vocabulary in which to describe sexual harm done by men, but almost no vocabulary in which a woman can celebrate sex with men.”

I hope there will be a podcast of your lecture in Chicago. Would be very interesting to listen to.

Will think about more links / a summary of my main points tomorrow – but the Foster-Wallace piece is certainly key (#70).

Sam January 25, 2010 at 9:31 am #

Clarisse,

any chance my last comment got stuck in the moderation queue…

starts with a quote by you and my agreeing 100% :)

Clarisse January 25, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

Sorry, looks like a couple comments got stuck in moderation briefly. I’m not sure why that’s happening — y’all should all be able to post without moderation according to my settings … I’ll check on them again … sometime.

Thanks everyone for the feedback — will start combing material soon ….

@Sam — but at the same time, if the woman stabbed someone when that person was grabbing something from a bag that, to her, looked like a gun or a knife, that would have been an easily detectable disproportionate response.

Yeah … so now this is reminding me of those incidents where cops shoot people, usually Black people, who are doing nothing more than (for example) pulling a wallet out of a pocket — but the hyped-up cop thinks there’s a gun being retrieved, or whatever. Based on bad stereotypes. And then an innocent is dead, and the cop is sometimes crucified, sometimes let off, often both.

Point being, I guess I better cede that at you’re right: at some point we do have to examine our defensive assumptions.

But you’re proposing a ‘general’ rule (which, I think, has been the basic feminist assumption for decades) and I’m telling you that the claim that *this* rule should be the standard is problematic and has – for me, but not only for me – caused considerable damage.

Aha, okay. Maybe this is the source of the disagreement. I wouldn’t really call what I’m proposing a rule. It’s more that I’d like to see culture shift in that direction. I don’t like rules (my sex+ motto is “there is no ‘should’”).

What kind of shifts should I make in my writing to make it clear that I see this as a trend suggestion, rather than an, I don’t know, binding demand?

P.S. I doubt a podcast will be possible (though I’ll ask), and part of the lecture will be slides anyway, but I’ll try to remember to write something up. But I will be speaking on Kink On Tap while I’m home, too, so you can listen to me to your heart’s content :P

P.P.S. Is “mistle tow” a German variant spelling?

machina January 25, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

typhonblue,

Yeah it’s pretty dense.

I’ll try to answer your questions about it, although I have no gender studies background myself and so I might get things wrong.

What if men don’t really want to dominate women? Hegemonic masculinity assumes they do, but what evidence is there to support that?

Some men clearly do want to dominate women, for example those who think men have a divine right to lead family or church. Part of the theory is that only a minority of men perform hegemonic masculinity, so it doesn’t require most men to want to dominate women. However most men are considered to be perform a complicit masculinity, which one that doesn’t call into question the validity of the hegemonic masculinity.

I did a little informal survey of one and asked my husband. His response:

“No. I’m not really interested in circling around planet Woman. I mean, they’re an important part of the universe, but hardly the only part.”

I guess he picked up, like me, that saying ‘manhood=dominating women’ is a very woman-centric definition of manhood.

I don’t think manhood is defined by simply dominating women in that paper. For one thing, hegemonic masculinity is one minority type that serves the purpose of maintaining gender hierarchies. The authors of the paper argue that there are two kinds of hegemonic masculinity, one that maintains the male dominance over women, but also one that maintains a hierarchy of masculinities. Often these two are linked, but the authors argue this isn’t necessarily the case, and that it’s entirely possible to have a dominant form of masculinity that is egalitarian.

typhonblue January 25, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

Some men clearly do want to dominate women, for example those who think men have a divine right to lead family or church.

Yeah, that. I figured it would come up.

I think that ‘hegemonic masculinity’ really assumes the worse on the part of men who believe this.

It also omits the second part of the whole ‘man is head of woman’ which is ‘and sacrifices for her as Christ sacrificed for the church.’

I’ve read a bit about biblical manhood and womanhood. The advice given by a fundamentalist minister to one couple comes to mind here.

The woman in the couple wanted her husband to lead her in prayer whenever he came home from work; he, on the other hand, wanted to decompress and watch TV without responsibilities.

The minister weighed in on the side of the wife, saying he was shirking his manly duties. I’ve seen the same advice given over and over again by fundamentalist ministers.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that starts me thinking. Do these fundamentalists really see ‘dominance’ in the same way theorists on hegemonic masculinity do?

Because it sounds like this ‘head of the household’ doesn’t even have the right to determine what he does with his own time. Further, he doesn’t even have the right to his own needs; he’s expected to revolve his entire existence around the needs of his wife. (Sacrifice for your wife as yadda yadda.)

This Christian notion of male dominance is less ‘WOMAN, make me a sandwitch’ and more ‘MAN, lead me where I want to go.’

I’ll be the first to admit that Fundamentalist Christian Gender Relations seem to cater more to a the kind of un self-aware female submissive who gets a thrill out of believing that God commanded her to live out her kink 24/7 then more independent women(such as myself) but I don’t see it catering particularly well to men either.

Which explains why a lot of men look at Christian Fundamentalism and go ‘DO NOT WANT.’

Despite it’s emphasis on male dominance.

However most men are considered to be perform a complicit masculinity, which one that doesn’t call into question the validity of the hegemonic masculinity.

And how is this ‘complicit’ masculinity responsible for maintaining hegemonic masculinity?

Often these two are linked, but the authors argue this isn’t necessarily the case, and that it’s entirely possible to have a dominant form of masculinity that is egalitarian.

So how do we determine if we have a hegemonic masculinity that is woman-centric and based on dominating females vs. a masculinity that isn’t?

Has anyone asked men ‘do you want to dominate women’?* Perhaps if we did and analyzed the rational of men who say ‘no’ we might figure out a way of deconstructing ‘hegemonic masculinity’.

*I think there have been a few surveys that have found the vast majority of men are egalitarian in outlook. Which jives with my experience in which the vast majority of men I’ve met believe that women should have equal rights.

Sam January 26, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

Clarisse,

“Aha, okay. Maybe this is the source of the disagreement. I wouldn’t really call what I’m proposing a rule. It’s more that I’d like to see culture shift in that direction. I don’t like rules (my sex+ motto is “there is no ’should’”).”

Yeah, I’m occasionally wondering if that may be one of the fundamental misunderstandings about feminist positions in general – they are abstract in formulation but are only useful in specific circumstances (that are, alas, not specified as limiting conditions for the rule).

So people who are taking what is proposed at face value are bound run into – at least – cognitive trouble when they’re trying to match prescribed behaviour with actual behavioural requirements in situations that have not been implicit in the formulation – which may also lead to a backlash when the cognitive dissonance cannot be bridged behaviourally, as, say, possibly, in the case of nice guys(tm) that we discussed above. And then possibly leading to an all out rejection of rules that were simply proposed in the wrong way/without the appropriate qualifiers?

I mean you said in #417 – “If we see the possible negative effect of not making a move as “missing a chance”, and the possible negative effect of making a move as “assault”, then I think the latter is more important to risk than the former every single time.” -

and this *is* a *general* behavioral rule. It’s not saying “don’t try to kiss a girl if you think she would not like it” – it’s saying – “don’t kiss a girl who’s forming a kiss mouth in front of you because there is a non-zero-probability that she may still consider your kissing her as harmful/assault despite everything indicating otherwise (while, of course, she was already infringing the rule by forming the kiss mouth).

Every interaction, every escalation would be nothing but a series of infringements of that rule.

That’s why I said – in #287, and to which you agreed with “yay!” in #288 – that a “yes-means-yes” approach is great for the trend discussion but not appropriate for individual encounters, for which a “no-means-no” approach is the only logically possible standard.

So, having assumed your agreement there I was a bit puzzled by your stating something like the opposite with the rule you presented in #417.

“What kind of shifts should I make in my writing to make it clear that I see this as a trend suggestion, rather than an, I don’t know, binding demand?”

Well, for one, I’d avoid formulations like “every single time” when you don’t think it’s a generally applicable concept and instead use examples of where it would be useful from your point of view to apply the rule.

I think you’re absolutely right about the fact that there is occasionally too much emphasis on theory as opposed to breaking down interactions for those who want to learn appropriate behaviour in flirting/mating/sex.

But I would like to point out – and I think our misunderstanding about this question is a case in point – that this problem is to a non-trivial degree a consequence of the way feminism is approaching sex, and particularly heterosexuality and male sexuality. But I’m not gonna quote Naomi Wolf again…

P.P.S. Is “mistle tow” a German variant spelling?

Sorry, not really – it’s just me commenting too tired and seeing “toe” and thinking… “doesn’t look right to me”… But you could make it a South African variant. ;)

Sam January 26, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

Clarisse,

just came across an old quote by Bertrand Russell that fits quite well… even literally ;)

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

machina January 27, 2010 at 5:50 am #

typhonblue,

Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying about the restrictive nature of the dominant male role, I wrote this is reply to Clarisse’s masculinity series:

Another way to look at it [privilege] is that traditional masculinity and feminity limit men’s and women’s choices, however the options that men are limited to are more powerful. That’s how male supremacy replicates itself. Plenty of men are frustrated by their restricted choices. Also, I think a problem of feminism that focuses on empowering women as a class is that it falls into the same trap as masculinity in limiting ‘feminist’ choices to those that are powerful. So the frustrations stay-at-home mothers or female sexual submissives have with feminism are much the same as a lot of men have with masculinity.

I don’t think complicit masculinity is responsible for maintaining hegemonic masculinity, it simply doesn’t oppose it. As long as other masculinities do little to oppose hegemonic masculinity it will maintain male dominance. Complicit masculinities are “complicit” in the sense that the men who perform them receive the benefits of being men, since they don’t oppose hegemonic masculinity.

To use the jargon, hegemonic masculinities that maintain male dominance are “external”, while hegemonic masculinities that maintain hierarchies within men are “internal”. It’s a recent distinction though and I’m not sure whether there’s agreement on what constitutes what.

Toysoldier January 27, 2010 at 10:28 am #

Clarisse, I was emailed about your comment, otherwise I would not have read it. Comments of such nature are not particularly effective when one refuses to defend one’s own assertions. Regarding a person’s sex as being tied to their biology is hardly awful or bigoted. However, given one’s views regarding male victimization and victim-blaming against males it appears that among other things we also differ on what counts as awful and bigoted.

Perhaps I may attend the lecture, if only to watch what occurs.

typhonblue January 27, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

Another way to look at it [privilege] is that traditional masculinity and feminity limit men’s and women’s choices, however the options that men are limited to are more powerful.

I don’t know if I’d say that men’s role is more powerful. If their role is to sacrifice for the benefit of their wife, how is that really about power as such?

Clarisse January 27, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

@Toysoldier — Really? Still? I’m the one who’s failing by not defending my assertions? Really? Wow. We are just at an impasse, aren’t we? I have been trying to work with you for like 300 comments and you are still:
a) making snide comments implying that this conversation isn’t worth your time,
b) sticking your nose in the air about my efforts, and
c) telling me that I’m the one who’s not trying to communicate.

Also, your snippy little “Perhaps I may attend the lecture” assumes that you’re invited. Are you at the University of Chicago?

@Sam — Decent post by Schwyzer, but I’m not sure why you recommended it? What about it speaks to you beyond what we’ve covered so far? I don’t see how it goes beyond anything we’ve already said or, for that matter, how it goes beyond anything I said in my original post. I will say that although I grasp the kid’s complaints and I appreciate the way Hugo dealt with the situation, the kid Hugo’s talking about sounds like a jerk, albeit a mainstream/normal jerk. And my favorite comment was this one, from Keri:
“Companionship may be a basic human need, but is companionship gained through retooling one’s values and personality toward the lowest common denominator really worth having? If Pete honestly believes in the basic premises of feminism, I don’t see why he would even want relationships with women who don’t see themselves as or wish to be treated as equals. Again, I have very little sympathy for people who are so terrified of the idea that (gasp!) they might not be desirable to every woman/man in the world if they show any hint of individualism, and (shock!) they might even have to spend some time single before they find a compatible partner, that they sacrifice values and beliefs that ought to be important to them. Pursuing the natural human need for companionship is one thing; putting such a high priority on obtaining companionship from anyone at any cost that one abandons the right thing to do in favor of the attractive/popular thing to do is something else entirely, and IMO it smacks of highly unattractive desperation.”

Well, for one, I’d avoid formulations like “every single time” when you don’t think it’s a generally applicable concept and instead use examples of where it would be useful from your point of view to apply the rule.

Yeah, you’re right. My fault. I even tell other people not to do this, but I’m guilty this time. It’s hard to get away from rhetoric that feels so powerful, isn’t it? It’s really hard to state things in rational, low-key ways. And I think maybe part of the problem is that people tend to listen less when things are stated in rational, low-key ways …. I really appreciate how carefully you look at all this, by the way. You construct your arguments very charitably but simultaneously with a lot of strength.

@machina — As long as other masculinities do little to oppose hegemonic masculinity it will maintain male dominance.

Hey, I don’t recall seeing you comment on the question of what guys are “supposed” to do in re, for example, calling out other guys on misogyny/oppressive behavior/etc. What are your thoughts on that one?

Toysoldier January 27, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

Clarisse, I do not doubt that you wish to have a discussion about masculinity and feminism. However, given of some your remarks, I do not think you wish to have that discussion with non-feminists. Those who question feminist views are not attacking you or belittling your efforts by questioning those views. I think having a more charitable view of non-feminists may help facilitate your discussions.

Sam January 28, 2010 at 1:24 am #

Clarisse,

“@Sam — Decent post by Schwyzer, but I’m not sure why you recommended it? What about it speaks to you beyond what we’ve covered so far?”

Well, I think it was mainly that it fits in so nicely with the theme of specific vs. general applicability of particular standards – in this case male application of assumed general feminist standards in situations where they are not actually appropriate -

“In the early stages of embracing pro-feminism, too many young men (including my younger self) tend to walk on eggshells around women. These young men are idealistic, and intensely eager to reject traditional male privilege and modes of behavior. But the end result, all too often, is a most unattractive kind of indecisiveness! I went through a period in my own life where I figured my job as a pro-feminist was to always, always, always, ask a woman what she wanted. “Where do you want to go to dinner?” “Are you feeling okay?” “Is there anything I can do for you?” “Would you like to talk about it?” While showing concern for another person’s feelings is appropriate, it’s all too easy for insecure “newbie” pro-feminist men to drive women stark raving bonkers by, as cousin Dinah said, constantly trying to take a woman’s emotional temperature. Constant, anxious solicitousness is not, um, sexy.

You’re right that it doesn’t go a lot further than your original question – but at the same time I think that it’s a good example of the different possibilities of perception when it comes to the perception of feminism.

And with this, I quote a feminist called Kiki, who once wrote in a wonderful and thoughtful post (saucebox.almeidaisgod.com/?p=85) about male sexuality that

It is my belief there is a bit of a disconnect going on here, a bit of a misinterpretation on the part of some men about precisely what feminism is objecting to and what its goals are with regard to male sexuality. Feminism has no objection to the existence of male sexual desire. Feminism does not wish to make men asexual. Feminism does not assert that men cannot respect women or treat them as equals unless they abandon their sexual desire. Feminism does not wish to make men ashamed of their natural and healthy sexual desire for the female body. Feminism does not wish to squelch your lust. Feminism does not think you are a bad person if you find yourself wanting to fuck a woman. Feminism does not condemn you for having a sexual appetite.

As per Keri’s quote -

“… If Pete honestly believes in the basic premises of feminism, I don’t see why he would even want relationships with women who don’t see themselves as or wish to be treated as equals. …

I don’t think that’s that was what he was worried about. He was worried about having to comply with what he thought feminism means being “socio-sexually submissive” and defer to women as opposed to treating them as equals.

Again, a lot of this has, in my opinion to do with the fact that most boys/men will have internalized a perception of their own sexuality as “taking” and not “giving”. Take this internalisation and feminist discourse – not even militants or radicals, just the mainstream, and it’s not too hard to see why there seems to be such a disconnect.

Again, I have very little sympathy for people who are so terrified of the idea that (gasp!) they might not be desirable to every woman/man in the world if they show any hint of individualism, and (shock!) they might even have to spend some time single before they find a compatible partner, that they sacrifice values and beliefs that ought to be important to them. Pursuing the natural human need for companionship is one thing; putting such a high priority on obtaining companionship from anyone at any cost that one abandons the right thing to do in favor of the attractive/popular thing to do is something else entirely, and IMO it smacks of highly unattractive desperation.”

To be honest, I find that comment unfair, because I don’t think that’s what the guy was asking about. He was asking why women (in HIS understanding) seem to say one thing (we want nice guys – which he is interpreting to mean socio-sexually submissive) and opt for the others (jerks – which he defines as “non-submissive”). We have established that his categories are messed up, but that’s still what I think his question was about. In general, though, I think that the desire for companionship can be a very important motivating factor in people’s lives – and it can even help people change. Keri frames this as only negative, when it can also be a very positive force – there’s a young man who thinks gender equality is a good thing, making him pro-feminist in his mind. But at the same time, what he hears from feminism is confusing for him because he takes it to mean that being sexually interested, and possibly confident, means oppressing and objectifying women – and requiring socio-sexual submissiveness. And at the same time, he sees that women in general are more attracted to confident, not socio-sexually submissive men. And that is a serious puzzle for not just a few men. I think all this can be reconciled, even in terms of popular discourse, but it’s not easy, as we’re experiencing here.

Yeah, you’re right. My fault. I even tell other people not to do this, but I’m guilty this time. It’s hard to get away from rhetoric that feels so powerful, isn’t it? It’s really hard to state things in rational, low-key ways. And I think maybe part of the problem is that people tend to listen less when things are stated in rational, low-key ways …. I really appreciate how carefully you look at all this, by the way. You construct your arguments very charitably but simultaneously with a lot of strength.

Thanks. Well, yes, it’s very hard, and I’m sure I do it more often than I would like to. I think we’re both doing ok here.

desipis January 28, 2010 at 7:45 am #

Clarisse:

…so if there are any of those points that you want to highlight…

I think the feminist knee-jerk reaction to the group Men In Power illustrates why many men are hostile to the idea of discussion about masculinity framed by feminism. See – http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/5/23/article-slanted-against-men-in-power

Given you only quoted part of the email in that comment, it’s a bit hard to understand the context; however, I find the way masculinity and privilege are conflated as well as the way the Men in Power group is referred to as a “challenge” to indicate a bit of negative bias towards masculinity from the author(s). It seems to me that feminists (in general) see “positive masculinity” as something that’s positive for women, or positive for feminism; whereas men (in general) see it as something that’s positive for men while avoiding being negative for women (or society in general).

desipis January 28, 2010 at 8:10 am #

Are you seriously asserting that trans men aren’t “actually” men?

There are certain definitions of “men” that don’t include trans men. Exactly how relevant those definitions are to the meaning of “masculinity” would depend on which particular masculinity culture you’re talking about. Given the significance many men will place on the experience of growing up as a male, particularly adolescence and ‘rights of passage’ on their masculine identity, experiences that will likely be significantly different to experiences of trans men, I can understand how many would define masculinity in a way that would exclude trans men. As much as its wrong to discriminate against transsexuals for no reason, I think its wrong to expect people to ignore the practical differences that do exists and how they can culturally significant.

Clarisse January 28, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

Some friends of my recently discussed female-on-male domestic violence on an email list I’m on (I just wish I could have participated more effectively!). It came up because one person sent out a study that found “Over the last twenty-five years, leading sociologists have repeat-
edly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.
The 1977 assertion that “the phenomenon of husband battering”6 is
as prevalent as wife abuse is confirmed by nationally representative
studies, such as the Family Violence Surveys, as well as by numerous
other sources.” Here are some good quotations from other people who were discussing it (all of them, incidentally, men):

As my wife Laura pointed out, there’s a big flaw in the analysis: measures of self-defense are tallied as “women battering men.” (see page 18 of the PDF). Given the substantial physical advantage the average man has over the average woman, often a pre-emptive attack (sorry for the Cheney-esque language) is the best defense against something that could be much more damaging and awful, like sexual assault. In response to this sort of argument, the author claims that those apologizing for women fighting back suggest that “female violence can be legitimately ignored because male violence causes greater injury,” which is quite unfair and polarizing. Surely there are women who do beat up men, but building this strawman of all-encompassing female violence is a dangerous simplification that could harm an already vulnerable class.

… Remember the Rihanna/Chris Brown case? Judging through Twitter searches at the time (which I take as a reasonable proxy for public sentiment among fairly wide swaths of the population), it was shocking how many people tried to blame Rihanna for the situation, or even saying things like, “Rihanna’s music sucks, she deserved it.” Imagine what people would have said if she struck back.

Also:

Some questions:

What is at stake? How could changing our understanding of domestic
violence harm an already vulnerable class?

Does political or financial support for maintaining and expanding the
current domestic violence infrastructure, such as women’s shelters,
depend on a certain understanding of domestic violence?

Would changing our understanding of domestic violence cause us to be
less supportive of specific women, or make specific women less likely
to seek help?

And:

I think the supposed rarity of female-on-male domestic violence is
exactly what this is what this article is trying to dispel (though I did not
read the whole thing), and I think that can be acknowledged without
marginalizing the equally real, and possibly more prevalent, problems of
male-on-female domestic violence.

See, for instance, this Tribune article, wherein even facilitators at programs
intended to help batterers stop being batterers aren’t sympathetic to the idea
that men can be victims:

“A 25-year-old Schaumburg man, who asked that his name be withheld, later
bluntly admitted he doesn’t listen to the facilitators because they dismiss his
complaints that his estranged wife also was abusive.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-abusers-02-jan02,0,764739,full.story

I don’t see how attitudes like that help either men or women.

The Trib article goes on to discuss the less-gender-specific ways to battle
domestic violence, like substance abuse counseling and mental health treatment
that are tailored to the perpetrator’s circumstances.

And:

Another way to think about this point: consider the subtle but powerful difference between the statements “Women aren’t the only victims of domestic abuse” and “Women are equally liable to be domestic abusers.” One contemplates a common front against a terrible scourge, the other just points fingers.

And lastly:

One thing that bothers me about the domestic abuse therapy scene is
the idea of battered _women’s_ shelters. While there are obvious
physical and behavioral differences between men and women that make
this a natural concept, I don’t see why there can’t just be support
groups for battered _people_. If 90% of the participants end up being
female, then fine, but the imposed segregation seems problematic, as
does the presumed desire of female victims to avoid men. … Even if temporary segregation is what female victims want, it’s not
clear society should indulge it. I’m guessing that whites who have
been recently mugged by blacks might feel acutely threatened by them,
and I can imagine someone arguing that such whites need a “white
space” to heal and recover.

Clarisse January 28, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

@Toysoldier — I think having a more charitable view of non-feminists may help facilitate your discussions.

A more charitable view of non-feminists? Or just you?

I have actually received email off-thread calling you a “troll” and complimenting me for my patience in dealing with you. Do you understand how offensively many of your comments come off? Do you understand that your tone often does not feel like you’re simply questioning my assumptions, but more like a personal judgment? My tone “became increasingly hostile” simply because you routinely patronized me, etc. Take this comment as an example: “Most likely my responses irritate you because of their bluntness, coldness and the constant questioning of ideas.”

Saying that one of the reasons I’m irritated by your responses is because you’re questioning my ideas implies, among other things, that you think I’m not honest in my intent to be open-minded. Do you see why that would make me angry?

@Sam — Keri frames this as only negative, when it can also be a very positive force

That’s a good point.

I guess I auto-react along the same lines she does because I have had to put so much effort into establishing my own identity, my right and ability to express that identity, outside the norm … I guess that leads me to see people who aren’t willing to so as weak, or uncommitted, or something. But it’s not really fair for me to judge that way.

And my entire original series of posts was about trying to understand and be charitable towards this kid’s mindset. So, I’ll keep trying. I think on a personal level, though, I’ll probably always just plain be more impressed with men who are willing to stand up and be feminist, reject the mainstream, etc. But that’s how it goes, right? We all tend to like people who are like us.

@desipis — It seems to me that feminists (in general) see “positive masculinity” as something that’s positive for women, or positive for feminism; whereas men (in general) see it as something that’s positive for men while avoiding being negative for women (or society in general).

Very well said; thanks.

As much as its wrong to discriminate against transsexuals for no reason, I think its wrong to expect people to ignore the practical differences that do exists and how they can culturally significant.

Okay. That’s fair. I guess I strongly react against this due to some really nasty history with “women’s spaces” disallowing trans people (and BDSM, as it happens) (as I noted at the beginning of the above post). So the question becomes: How do we take those differences in experience into account, while still creating a welcoming space for trans people?

FYI, the phrase is “rites of passage” (sorry, I’m a grammar nerd).

Clarisse January 28, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

Check out this recent link from CN:
http://carnalnation.com/content/46250/898/teen-boys-lie-about-sex-dont-use-condoms

machina January 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

typhonblue: I don’t know if I’d say that men’s role is more powerful. If their role is to sacrifice for the benefit of their wife, how is that really about power as such?

I don’t think it is individually. The idea is that the expectation that men will lead in some parts of life, and conforming to that, leads to the expectation they will lead in others where it is more obviously disempowering for women. The notion of hegemonic masculinity is that it maintains male domination conceptually, not that men who perform it are necessarily all that powerful themselves.

Clarisse: Hey, I don’t recall seeing you comment on the question of what guys are “supposed” to do in re, for example, calling out other guys on misogyny/oppressive behavior/etc. What are your thoughts on that one?

I don’t agree with the hegemonic masculinity model in that it is necessary for men to oppose it for there to be change. I think there’s been a lot of improvement for women over the last century without a lot of “calling out”.

I’m more individualistic and think people should be able to to figure out good relations with others for themselves largely. Of course some men might come to the conclusion women want them to dominate them, then again some women do, and maybe they should get together and live happily ever after.

Toysoldier January 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

As much as its wrong to discriminate against transsexuals for no reason, I think its wrong to expect people to ignore the practical differences that do exists and how they can culturally significant.

I do not think it is discrimination against trans people if a person does not agree those individuals are now part of the opposite sex. As it relates to masculinity, I think the issue goes back to how a person defines masculinity and who gets to define it. It is worth having that discussion in a broad sense in order to understand certain cultural shifts. However, I am not sure that discussion could occur without first addressing the notion that being male is just a social construct and is not related to biology. That may go way beyond a discussion of masculinity, though. The most practical solution is to acknowledge the cultural norms while acknowledging certain groups different opinions. In practice, I think the race discussion is the best model because it allows a particular group to define their identity, but it also allows those who are not part of that group to also join in the discussion (in theory, at least).

Motley January 28, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

@Clarisse (with due apologies for the long scroll-up this is going to necessitate)

I suspect it’s B.

(Quoting myself)
…and now I’m sure it’s B. (meaning “Something I just won’t get.”) If it’s something I can’t understand as not-a-woman, (to say nothing of “as me”) then yeah. I don’t understand.

I’d like to make space to listen to people who are being framed as assaulters, but I refuse to make that space by failing to acknowledge the experience of victims and survivors.

To play the devil’s advocate for a moment (my natural role, usually), I’ll rephrase that:

“I’d like to make space to listen to victims and survivors, but I refuse to make that space by failing to acknowledge the experience of people who are being framed as assaulters.”

See all that’s wrong with that? I’m not sure why either group should be more or less deserving of the benefit of the doubt.
Claiming victimhood isn’t inherently more credible than claiming innocence of assault. I understand that an awareness of victim’s-rights movements might make one a little touchy about that, but the point stands, I think.

More to the point, acknowledging one side’s experience doesn’t mean ignoring the other. Trying to force it into an evil-abuser/innocent-victim framework never seems to produce anything useful. (Even when I’d say that an event does fit that framework, it’s usually not productive to think of it in those terms).

On to something that interested me a lot:

Maybe this is the source of the disagreement. I wouldn’t really call what I’m proposing a rule. It’s more that I’d like to see culture shift in that direction. I don’t like rules (my sex+ motto is “there is no ’should’”).

I’ll hazard a guess: That’s exactly the source of the disagreement. I’m a rules-guy. When someone says “how should this be?” I invariably take that to mean “what rules should apply;” “how can this be improved” becomes “what changes should be made to the rules” when I hear it.

Assuming Sam’s a fellow Kantian (from the reference), I’m guessing Sam’s likely the same way, in that respect. (Sam: confirm/deny/clarify?) Though presumably for very different reasons.

@Machina –

I don’t think complicit masculinity is responsible for maintaining hegemonic masculinity, it simply doesn’t oppose it. As long as other masculinities do little to oppose hegemonic masculinity it will maintain male dominance. Complicit masculinities are “complicit” in the sense that the men who perform them receive the benefits of being men, since they don’t oppose hegemonic masculinity.

1. Ever noticed the public response when someone voices the tenets of “hegemonic masculinity” in a public forum? Widespread (and, in my not-too-humble opinion, well-deserved) mockery. If that’s what “complicit” looks like, then I have no idea what “oppose” looks like, barring genocidal violence.

2. This idea that there are all sorts of spectacular benefits from oppressing women needs to go away. There are not. (Yes, men are socialized not to talk about – or notice – the costs of being a man, just as women aren’t socialized to notice the benefits of being a woman. Proves nothing).
Are you really trying to tell me that my life would improve a lot if I started oppressing women more? If there’s a benefit for me in there, I do not see it. (Hint: The reason that I am not currently expending effort towards oppressing women is that I see no benefit in doing so. Quite the opposite.)

The notion of hegemonic masculinity is that it maintains male domination conceptually, not that men who perform it are necessarily all that powerful themselves.

To borrow a term used above: Bollocks. If it does not empower any actual men then it does not maintain male domination.* There is no “male” apart from men. When I read stuff like this, I always get the urge to respond with a little corrective violence and point out that men are actually people. Shocking, isn’t it? Men are not actually avatars of some monolithic Maleness. If you can’t point to a single actual man who benefits from an Act of Oppression (TM), you do not get to claim that it benefits Maleness.

(*pundits and talk-radio freaks do not count)

@Clarisse/Toysoldier:

I have actually received email off-thread calling you a “troll” and complimenting me for my patience in dealing with you…

I’ll just chime in to point out that TS is not a troll. Many of his contributions have been very worthwhile (at least to me). Particularly #77 and 386, above.

So the question becomes: How do we take those differences in experience into account, while still creating a welcoming space for trans people?

Hmm. Why is that a priority? Unless I’m misinterpreting “welcoming space,” which is quite possible. (To be fair, I suspect this would make more sense to me if I could actually say for certain whether or not I believe trans-men “count” as men. I’m not sure.)

desipis January 28, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

Clarisse:

[Quote from an email] Remember the Rihanna/Chris Brown case? Judging through Twitter searches at the time (which I take as a reasonable proxy for public sentiment among fairly wide swaths of the population), it was shocking how many people tried to blame Rihanna for the situation, or even saying things like, “Rihanna’s music sucks, she deserved it.” Imagine what people would have said if she struck back.

I think the Tiger Woods case is a great example of what happens when the shoe is on the other foot: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/02/female-columnist-applauds-domestic-violence-in-tiger-woods-incident/

I guess I strongly react against this due to some really nasty history with “women’s spaces” disallowing trans people

I understand where you were coming from. What you’ve said reminds me of the ideological gymnastics I’ve seen in attempts to justify the inclusion of trans women, while excluding men, particularly in the context of things such as domestic violence or sexual victimisation.

So the question becomes: How do we take those differences in experience into account, while still creating a welcoming space for trans people?

I think it’s important for everyone to acknowledge the similarities and differences between trans and cis people, determine the important drivers behind any situation that discriminates based on sex and realise that transsexuals may or may not fall into the group that they (or others) are comfortable with. In certain cases, such as reproduction, they may fall outside ‘both’ groups (along with other infertile people).

Applying this to masculinity, I think it’d be possible to find masculinity based groups that would include trans men. In such cases there may be cause to fight against bigoted attempts to change the group’s basis to excluded trans men. However I don’t think that trans men have a right to access all masculinity based groups as the basis for these groups could excluded trans men due to practical differences.

FYI, the phrase is “rites of passage” (sorry, I’m a grammar nerd).

Being an engineer who only got a C in high school English, my grammar is a work in progress. ;)

desipis January 28, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

TS:

I do not think it is discrimination against trans people if a person does not agree those individuals are now part of the opposite sex.

That was my broader point, that any time its justifiable to discriminate based on sex, the relevant definition of sex (subjective or otherwise) can project that justification onto the discrimination based on being trans or cis.

typhonblue January 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

Motley:

2. This idea that there are all sorts of spectacular benefits from oppressing women needs to go away. There are not.

What *are* the benefits to oppressing women? I assume greater access to family and intimacy.

In our society men have to earn money to have access to family and intimacy; I suppose a common feminist assumption is that they exclude women from the workforce in order to be able to trade financial resources for access to family and intimacy.

But shouldn’t dominating women preclude actually having to offer them something in exchange for family and intimacy?

Machina:

The notion of hegemonic masculinity is that it maintains male domination conceptually, not that men who perform it are necessarily all that powerful themselves.

Considering that they’re embracing a masculinity in which they (ideally) should never have needs, I would say this concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is a really a very creative form of slavery.

desipis January 28, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

Boris:

I wonder if this “incapacitation” has something to do with internalizing a certain kind of feminism before adolescence.

I’m not so sure its feminism per se, rather misandry (which would include certain brands of feminism). I grew up with explicit teachings that boys were dirty and dangerous and that male sexuality was bad (including being threatened with castration). However these teachings came from a conservative (Catholic) ideology, not a feminist one.

Sam January 28, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

Clarisse,

“I guess I auto-react along the same lines she does because I have had to put so much effort into establishing my own identity, my right and ability to express that identity, outside the norm … I guess that leads me to see people who aren’t willing to so as weak, or uncommitted, or something. But it’s not really fair for me to judge that way.

Hmm, most people are weak in that respect. But I’m really wondering if that was actually the case here – I mean, if this had actually been a case of “duty”, mighty and sublime word (more Kant ;)), then yes – but wasn’t the problem about perceived rather than actual behavioural demands? Would it have been stronger if he had drawn the wrong conclusions and acted according to them rather than asking when their inherent contradictions became apparent to him?

“I think on a personal level, though, I’ll probably always just plain be more impressed with men who are willing to stand up and be feminist, reject the mainstream, etc. But that’s how it goes, right? We all tend to like people who are like us.

Some say opposites attract ;). But seriously, he wasn’t rejecting feminism – he was rejecting what he perceived as contradictoray behavioral demands that – even according to his mentor – aren’t actual demands even though they often seem to be because of the way these things are communicated.

Motley,

Assuming Sam’s a fellow Kantian (from the reference), I’m guessing Sam’s likely the same way, in that respect. (Sam: confirm/deny/clarify?) Though presumably for very different reasons.

I think that would depend on what exactly you mean by ‘Kantian’, but I think the answer for all practical purposes would be ‘yes’.

desipis January 28, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

Me:

It seems to me that feminists (in general) see “positive masculinity” as something that’s positive for women, or positive for feminism; whereas men (in general) see it as something that’s positive for men while avoiding being negative for women (or society in general).

To expand on my point a little bit, I think one of the key points of contention will come from feminism that focuses on class based analysis. Social changes or structures that benefit men in areas they are perceived as already being dominate (politically, socially, sexually, economically, etc) will be seen in a negative light even where they don’t directly affect women as they will be seen as further exacerbating the inequality. I think most men would have a lot of trouble accepting such views as anything other than veiled misandry.

desipis January 28, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

Obviously “Social changes or structures” can include discussions about, organisations focused on, and definitions of, masculinity.

typhonblue January 29, 2010 at 12:10 am #

Commenting on what Desipis stated…

Would feminists have a problem with a definition of manhood that had nothing to do with physical, emotional, financial or social dominance of women?

desipis January 29, 2010 at 12:32 am #

typhonblue,

That’s a bit of a loaded question.

I’d answer no given than I don’t see feminists as generally being about dominance. The rad fems out there that are focused on dominance probably aren’t concerned how masculinity is defined since they’ve already concluded they hate it.

machina January 29, 2010 at 2:50 am #

Motley:

First I should make clear that I’ve been responding to questions about the concept of hegemonic masculinity given in the paper I linked to, but that doesn’t mean I think it is a particularly accurate model of society. I thought it’d be a interesting to look at how the relationship between masculinity and feminism have been dealt with by academia given that’s what these posts have been about and also that Clarisse is going to be giving a talk in an academic setting soon.

1. Ever noticed the public response when someone voices the tenets of “hegemonic masculinity” in a public forum? Widespread (and, in my not-too-humble opinion, well-deserved) mockery. If that’s what “complicit” looks like, then I have no idea what “oppose” looks like, barring genocidal violence.

I think you might be mistaking what is meant by the term. It has been used in a variety of contexts from areas where it is fairly negative (crime, for example) to areas where it is an ideal (Soviet era working class men, for example) and ones in between. Some of these roles don’t even serve to place men higher than women, they rank men themselves by how they relate to these ideals. Others do though, by reinforcing the idea that men are superior in some ways to women, and that in these ways they are better suited to powerful positions in society. The mockery of traditional male dominance also exists in ways that reinforce the role at times. The paper cites the example of British Muslim men who see their dominance of women as part of identity that sets them apart from other men in the face of general discrimination.

2. This idea that there are all sorts of spectacular benefits from oppressing women needs to go away. There are not. (Yes, men are socialized not to talk about – or notice – the costs of being a man, just as women aren’t socialized to notice the benefits of being a woman. Proves nothing).

The concept is meant to explain male dominance in society, so if you don’t think men have greater power then it has no value.

Are you really trying to tell me that my life would improve a lot if I started oppressing women more? If there’s a benefit for me in there, I do not see it. (Hint: The reason that I am not currently expending effort towards oppressing women is that I see no benefit in doing so. Quite the opposite.)

No. I’m saying that suppose you live in a society that views men as better suited to powerful roles, then you will benefit from that if you are seeking out powerful roles in society. The hegemonic masculinity concept is, partly, a model for how that perception is maintained.

typhonblue: Considering that they’re embracing a masculinity in which they (ideally) should never have needs, I would say this concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is a really a very creative form of slavery.

For me one of the better part of the concept is that it shows how some men benefit at the expense of other men. While I have problems with it in some areas, I often think that male dominance often arises from competition among men. The British Muslim men example above is how this works.

desipis: To expand on my point a little bit, I think one of the key points of contention will come from feminism that focuses on class based analysis. Social changes or structures that benefit men in areas they are perceived as already being dominate (politically, socially, sexually, economically, etc) will be seen in a negative light even where they don’t directly affect women as they will be seen as further exacerbating the inequality. I think most men would have a lot of trouble accepting such views as anything other than veiled misandry.

Yeah I agree, in my reply to Clarisse’s series I said: Another problem feminism has is that a lot of its theoretical terminology comes from Marxism but its real world application is in liberalism and egalitarianism. Throwing around Marxist terms like class, entitlement and priviledge doesn’t help when you are talking to an egalitarian, regardless of gender. So I think erasing Marxist terminology is a good start, and focusing on equality and freedom of choice.

…

That being said, I think if people are going to understand feminism, they’ll eventually have to understand it has various theoretical strands that are often bound together into a given feminists ideology.

desipis January 29, 2010 at 3:49 am #

So I think erasing Marxist terminology is a good start,

I think erasing it would be a bit much. I find it useful for gaining perspective or understanding of certain social structures within society, even though most classes it is applied to are structurally different to the original socio-economic classes. However, I generally view it as fatally flawed when used as a mechanism for ethical judgement.

Clarisse January 29, 2010 at 7:51 am #

@machina — I think there’s been a lot of improvement for women over the last century without a lot of “calling out”.

How do you know there hasn’t been a lot of calling out? I’m honestly curious — “calling out” strikes me as something that generally happens on an interpersonal level and is hard to track.

@Toysoldier — I do not think it is discrimination against trans people if a person does not agree those individuals are now part of the opposite sex.

Why not? A lot of trans people do. Being misgendered, having others refuse to acknowledge your chosen gender, is cited by a lot of trans people as one of the most traumatic recurring experiences they have.

And why don’t you think they are part of their chosen gender, by the way?

@Motley — That’s exactly the source of the disagreement. I’m a rules-guy. When someone says “how should this be?” I invariably take that to mean “what rules should apply;”

Why? Why is it useful to set hard rules about these things when we acknowledge that everything is contextual?

I’ll just chime in to point out that TS is not a troll.

I don’t think he is either, but it pisses me off that he seems to see himself as some paragon of rationality, and that he is continuously representing my irritating as failure to be rational or question my ideas when in fact it derives from his tone.

@desipis — However I don’t think that trans men have a right to access all masculinity based groups as the basis for these groups could excluded trans men due to practical differences.

Practical differences like what?

Oops, gotta run, but I’ll come back to this later.

Motley January 29, 2010 at 9:41 am #

@Sam -

I think that would depend on what exactly you mean by ‘Kantian’, but I think the answer for all practical purposes would be ‘yes’.

A true Kantian would answer that in no other way, of course ;) (well, barring “in German,” but as my German is too limited to read Kant in the original, it’s for the best)

@Typhonblue -

Considering that they’re embracing a masculinity in which they (ideally) should never have needs, I would say this concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is a really a very creative form of slavery.

That’s probably the best formulation I’ve yet seen for summing up my disagreement with the basis for feminist theory.

What *are* the benefits to oppressing women? I assume greater access to family and intimacy.

You’re married, right? Try oppressing your spouse some. See if your access to intimacy and family improves. ;)
Then try oppressing some random strangers of the opposite sex. Access to intimacy and family improve?
…I thought not.
(Note: I do not recommend actually conducting the experiment. It’s probably better to just take my (implied) word for it)

The claim that keeping women from being able to earn money benefits men by forcing women to provide them with family is unsound. It makes the family poorer, forcing the man to spend more time earning money… which keeps him away from home, thus reducing his access to intimacy and family. Not seeing a lot of benefit, there.

@Machina -

The concept is meant to explain male dominance in society, so if you don’t think men have greater power then it has no value.

Fair. I don’t, so it doesn’t.

@Clarisse -

Why? Why is it useful to set hard rules about these things when we acknowledge that everything is contextual?

Rules are how I operate. Anything anyone says, I interpret in terms of rules. No, more than that — I interpret only because of that set of rules that we call “language.” Anything that can’t be interpreted in terms of a rule is meaningless to me.
I don’t know if that’s just me or not. I do not think it is.
Anyway, back on point: Context is its own set of rules, isn’t it? Can we define contexts with rules?

Why not? A lot of trans people do. Being misgendered, having others refuse to acknowledge your chosen gender, is cited by a lot of trans people as one of the most traumatic recurring experiences they have.

I’ll play with this one for a moment.
Put simply: So…?
If you claim a certain identity, your reaction to my perception does not affect whether or not I find your claim plausible. If a man who is four feet tall is offended at being thought short, this does not make him tall. Nor does it obligate me to pretend that he is not four feet tall.

If I define myself as Space God Xenu… I’m still not Space God Xenu. Even if I’m horribly offended at your disbelief – how dare you question my Space Godness! – you’re still entitled to disbelieve. You can choose to believe, as a courtesy, but reason does not require it. And, if you choose not to go along with the notion of my space-divinity, you’re not discriminating against me. (Committing space-heresy, perhaps; discrimination, no)

(Incidentally, can you tell I’m out of my mind on a bunch of cold-medicine right now?)

machina January 29, 2010 at 9:48 am #

desipis: I think erasing it would be a bit much. I find it useful for gaining perspective or understanding of certain social structures within society, even though most classes it is applied to are structurally different to the original socio-economic classes. However, I generally view it as fatally flawed when used as a mechanism for ethical judgement.

Ok, I’ll point out here I was responding to a question asking how to better reach normative men.

Clarisse: How do you know there hasn’t been a lot of calling out? I’m honestly curious — “calling out” strikes me as something that generally happens on an interpersonal level and is hard to track.

To be honest I’m just extrapolating from personal experience, although I don’t think there’s been a substantial movement for men to be actively feminist outside of fairly limited circumstances.

makomk January 29, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

Oh dear. I was curious just how trans-exclusionary any movement to reconsider masculinity would be. Looks like about what I expected – the same views are still alive and well in feminism now, after all. The arguments are even exactly the same.

Of course, it’s worth making a firm distinction between trans men and women who make masculinity part of their identity but still identify as women. Clarisse, you seem to be pushing for the latter to be included, which is odd. Would you call for men who are feminine to be given an important role in defining the feminist movement? Somehow I think not (and you certainly wouldn’t get much support).

After all, the entire point of this is to deal with masculinity as it affects men. Women who adopt bits of masculinity get to pick and choose which bits – men don’t. (Where “men” is defined to mean everyone who identifies as male.) Even if masculinity is part of their identity and not something they choose as such, they still benefit from being able to accept only the parts that fit.

Motley January 29, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

I’ll bite.

Oh dear. I was curious just how trans-exclusionary any movement to reconsider masculinity would be. Looks like about what I expected – the same views are still alive and well in feminism now, after all.

Incidentally, I hope you’re not taking statements made by me* to be representative of Feminism Hivemind. For the obvious reason that there’s no hive-mind of feminism, and for the (slightly) less obvious reason that I am not a feminist (excluding definitions of feminism so broad as to be meaningless).

The arguments are even exactly the same.

Is that intended to be a statement as to the validity of said arguments?

Would you call for men who are feminine to be given an important role in defining the feminist movement? Somehow I think not (and you certainly wouldn’t get much support).

Excellent point. I think Toysoldier said something similar upthread.

Even if masculinity is part of their identity and not something they choose as such, they still benefit from being able to accept only the parts that fit.

Also an excellent point, I think–certainly not something I’d considered. Masculinity might be a “package deal” (pun perhaps intended, I’m not sure) for men in a way that femininity isn’t for women.

desipis January 29, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

Practical differences like what?

Well I’ve mentioned a few in previous comments already, but I think a common theme would be tied into the concept discussed in this thread about how masculinity is something that is earned, not granted at birth (and hence not automatically granted upon transitioning). Other possibilities could include the emphasis of masculine sexuality, particularly the aspect of (biologically) fathering children, or particular physical traits. I think it’s important to note that many of these practical differences would mean that some trans men may be considered masculine in a particular context, while other trans men may not. Of course in certain contexts some cis men many not be considered masculine.

I think the push by feminists for an inclusive masculinity stands in contrast to one of the common themes in masculinity; masculinity is at its core a selective, conditional system. Being masculine is (often considered) something to aspire to become, something that requires adhering to a set of behaviours or having certain capabilities; to force people to consider it something anyone can freely claim would take away a fundamental aspect of what people see as masculinity.

I do think it’s possible to have an inclusive discussion on masculinity without requiring people to accept an inclusive definition of masculinity. I also think its possible for different understandings of masculinity to exist simultaneously in society in the same way different religions coexist.

desipis January 29, 2010 at 7:40 pm #

Motely,

Also an excellent point, I think–certainly not something I’d considered. Masculinity might be a “package deal” (pun perhaps intended, I’m not sure) for men in a way that femininity isn’t for women.

I think it’d also be interesting to consider how much males are forced into the particular brand of masculinity they grew up with (i.e. the views of their father, peers, etc) when compared to the potential freedom trans men, or butch women have to adopt a masculinity that suits them.

typhonblue January 29, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

Commenting on Desipis’ post…

What are the things that men have to do in the west to earn their manhood?

makomk January 30, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

@Motley:

Incidentally, I hope you’re not taking statements made by me* to be representative of Feminism Hivemind. For the obvious reason that there’s no hive-mind of feminism, and for the (slightly) less obvious reason that I am not a feminist (excluding definitions of feminism so broad as to be meaningless).

Nope, you’re quite hard to mistake for a feminist. While there may be no hive mind of feminism, there are still certain patterns that repeat again and again – and both the exclusion of trans women and the reasoning behind it is one of them. The same arguments are being used here to call for the exclusion of trans men.

(Also, arguably feminism’s past treatment of trans women is an exception to the “no hive mind” statement. There seems to have been quite a bit of coercion used against feminists who didn’t reject trans women – most famously against Olivia Records for employing Sandy Stone. That’s way off-topic, though.)

Also an excellent point, I think–certainly not something I’d considered. Masculinity might be a “package deal” (pun perhaps intended, I’m not sure) for men in a way that femininity isn’t for women.

That’s not quite the point I was making, but nonetheless it’s probably true these days. Was it always the case, though?

@desipis:

I think the push by feminists for an inclusive masculinity stands in contrast to one of the common themes in masculinity; masculinity is at its core a selective, conditional system. Being masculine is (often considered) something to aspire to become, something that requires adhering to a set of behaviours or having certain capabilities; to force people to consider it something anyone can freely claim would take away a fundamental aspect of what people see as masculinity.

At least from my perspective, that’s part of the problem. This type of conditional masculinity is effectively a form of coercion against men. Maybe once it’s no longer required by society it’ll make sense to talk about reclaiming and decontaminating traditional masculinity, but until then…

typhonblue January 30, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

makomk:

This type of conditional masculinity is effectively a form of coercion against men. Maybe once it’s no longer required by society it’ll make sense to talk about reclaiming and decontaminating traditional masculinity, but until then…

Well… if it’s a form of coercion then how do we neutralize the coercive forces? What are they?

desipis January 30, 2010 at 9:34 pm #

Makomk,

I agree that the way males are forced into masculinity is a problem. I disagree that this problem demands a change to masculinity, particularly a change that would completely redefine it. One of the nuances that I find gets missed in the whole ‘patriarchy’ thing is that it wasn’t simply “male > female” but rather “masculine male > feminine female > other”. Feminism has progressed females on this scale, and the gay rights movement has done something similar for the homosexual men that fall into the “other”. However, I there are still people in that other category, such as non-masculine heterosexual men, who currently have no progressively accepted advocation.

Continuing my line of thought from the bit you quoted, I’ve been considering the ideals that form the basis progressive politics along with the ideals present in various forms of masculinity. I’m not sure I can see much overlap. Put simply: progressivism is about possibilities of an ideal world centred on acceptance and equality; masculinity is about surviving and succeeding in the hostile and competitive world that is. Taken to the extreme, there is no need for (or value in) such masculinity in an ideally progressive world; however I think that as long as humans remain the imperfect beings we are, the ideals of masculinity I’ve identified above will continue to hold value.

That’s not to say masculinity and progressivism are incompatible; indeed one can use progressive values to survive and succeed. Rather I see them as orthogonal, which means that while you can have a progressive masculinity, attempting to have a discussion on masculinity from with a progressive framework will inevitably exclude much of what it means to be masculine.

Motley February 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

@Typhonblue -

Well… if it’s a form of coercion then how do we neutralize the coercive forces? What are they?

This might be tangential, but: Coercion=bad? That seems to be an underlying assumption everyone’s using. Is it? (meaning, a) is it actually something everyone’s assuming, and b) is coercion actually innately negative?)

I ask because you seem to jump from “X is coercion” to “therefore, how do we neutralize X” without passing through “Should we attempt to neutralize X.” Am I missing something here?

@Desipis -

I think it’d also be interesting to consider how much males are forced into the particular brand of masculinity they grew up with…

I’d say that women can pick and choose not just how much masculinity they’re going to use, but what kinds, as well.

For men, I’m not so sure – if you move somewhere where cultural norms are different, is your internalized masculinity going to be your norm, or will you adapt to your new environment?

@makomk -

Was it always the case, though?

I’ll hazard a guess to “Absolutely not.” I get the impression that a woman adopting masculine traits was frowned upon, until the last several decades. So no. (Unless you’re talking about something else).

Clarisse February 1, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

Oh man, we are closing in on 500 comments.

@typhonblue — In our society men have to earn money to have access to family and intimacy; I suppose a common feminist assumption is that they exclude women from the workforce in order to be able to trade financial resources for access to family and intimacy.

I think some feminists would also argue that many men feel threatened by the idea of women out-competing them.

@Sam — Would it have been stronger if he had drawn the wrong conclusions and acted according to them rather than asking when their inherent contradictions became apparent to him?

I’m a little confused by what exactly you’re saying here — rephrase maybe?

@Motley — Anyway, back on point: Context is its own set of rules, isn’t it? Can we define contexts with rules?

I’m not sure. I mean, I agree that some very broad rules are important (e.g. “Consent is key”), but I don’t know if there can be rules for behavior that govern those (e.g. “Here are the 10 acceptable ways to gain consent:” … makes no sense). Put another way, I think there can be rules about intent, but maybe not so much about acts.

I think this is one thing that routinely gets to me about sex/gender discussions. It’s really creepy to read people who bitch because they think that working hard to gain consent makes it harder for them to get laid. I mean, if consent were actually a priority for them, they would be glad to be challenged on their ideas about how to gain it — or at the very least, they would argue that they are already getting consent (via a standardized social framework) and that’s what’s important. But no, too often the arguments around consent and sexual assault are framed as “But if I spend so much time trying to get my partner’s consent, I’ll never have sex!” And that is just immensely fucked up.

Put simply: So…? If you claim a certain identity, your reaction to my perception does not affect whether or not I find your claim plausible.

The argument isn’t about plausibility, so much as respect and not hurting other people. I don’t give a damn if you honestly have difficulty visually perceiving a trans man friend as a man, but I will think you’re an asshole if you refuse to acknowledge my friend as a man.

The Space God Xenu thing is a ridiculously overwrought example that just highlights how insane it is that we can’t acknowledge trans identities. Do you really consider it analogous for a person to say “I identify as space god Xenu” vs. to say “I identify as the sex I was not born with”? Why is this so hard to accept and respect?

@makomk — Clarisse, you seem to be pushing for the latter to be included, which is odd. Would you call for men who are feminine to be given an important role in defining the feminist movement?

What I don’t understand is this whole “important role” thing. Where are the roles that we are fighting over? People are acting as though there is some panel, somewhere, that is going to Settle This Argument, and we have to decide Who Gets To Apply To Be On The Panel. But there isn’t, and we aren’t. So why is it useful to exclude anyone from the discussion? What privileges are being gained by those who are “given an important role”? What are the “important roles”? I mean, look how interesting this discussion has been, and as near as I can tell we’ve had two cis girls contributing heavily the whole time — and it was a cis girl (me) who started it in the first place. What would you accomplish if you told me that I don’t get to define the discussion?

… I like typhonblue’s attempts to concretize the masculinity earning/coercion thing with questions.

… As a side note: I love love loved machina’s comment on the original masculinity series (I think it’s on part 1). Now that he’s participating more over here, might be worth checking out to get his perspective.

Motley February 1, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

500, here we come.

I think some feminists would also argue that many men feel threatened by the idea of women out-competing them.

Heh. Plenty of men would argue: You’re allowed to compete with us in our arena, we’re not allowed to compete with you in yours. You’ve already out-competed us! Of course we’re threatened!

It’s really creepy to read people who bitch because they think that working hard to gain consent makes it harder for them to get laid.

I think you’re completely misreading the objection. (You’re conflating “consent” and, to indulge in hyperbole, “signed in triplicate, notarized consent”) If you were reading it correctly, then all those people would have to be serial rapists. As I’m sure you’re aware, they aren’t. (I’m assuming you’re not one of those “all hetero-sex is rape” people. I’m pretty confident in this assumption.)

Nobody’s objecting to getting consent. What they’re objecting to, I think, is “raising the bar on explicit consent.” In what way does one expect that people will respond positively to being told that there is an ever-increasing list of hoops they have to jump through to avoid being called an assaulter? After a certain point, it simply devalues the terms involved.

…but I don’t know if there can be rules for behavior that govern those (e.g. “Here are the 10 acceptable ways to gain consent:”

…Why not? Rather than having both parties attempting to decode idiosyncratic ambiguous signals, it seems like having universal…
Never mind. Honesty/self-discipline problems. Right. (The whole problem with the “Yes means yes” model,” in short. Right?)

Anyway, failing that, what I think would be useful is a decoder manual. “Here are ten clues to look for that indicate consent, here are ten clues to look for that indicate lack of consent…” The oddly-named “seduction community” seems to be the closest thing there is to that (though I admittedly am only going on second-hand hearsay in this regard)

The argument isn’t about plausibility, so much as respect and not hurting other people.

Does not follow. Say you claim to be a man. Or a ferret. Or Space God Xenu. (We have Dayquil to thank for that one) Your identity does not change based on how much it’d hurt you for me not to believe you.

Or do you honestly believe that, if I identified as Julius Caesar, and was offended and hurt by feeling disbelieved, that this would make me Julius Caesar? Seriously?

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend I don’t accept that a trans person is their preferred gender (in my actual personal opinion regarding “is a trans-man a man or a woman” the jury’s still out. Bear with me a bit, as this isn’t a question I’ve really considered before).

Options:

A) If I define gender as something you’re born with, then no, it can’t be changed. You were born with one, that’s the one you’ve got. We’re not obligated to identify you as anything different.

B) If I define gender as how you identify yourself, then yes, it can be changed. Pick whichever one you want, and we’re all obligated to identify you as that one.

Now: Is there a case for one definition over the other?

(One must note that “I am offended at you disagreeing with me” is not a valid supporting argument, as it shows that you have a belief, not why you have a belief. Neither is “I think you’re an asshole if you don’t agree with me.” Let’s try to stick to cases that don’t work for people who identify as ferrets or Space God Xenu. Unless someone making a case for B is willing to grant that I’m Space God Xenu)

Sam February 1, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

Clarisse,

what I tried to say was that I don’t think it would have made sense to cnosider the guy’s behaviour as “stronger” if it had been “principled” for the wrong reasons.

I’m not sure. I mean, I agree that some very broad rules are important (e.g. “Consent is key”), but I don’t know if there can be rules for behavior that govern those (e.g. “Here are the 10 acceptable ways to gain consent:” … makes no sense). Put another way, I think there can be rules about intent, but maybe not so much about acts.

I don’t know. I think there are rules. The basic assumption is always absence of consent. Context is necessary for evaluating intent, and obviously, context can modify the base assumption of no-context. What I mean – it’s generally not considered ok to gently slap a girl’s butt when she walks by – it would be inappropriate, to say the least. Different story when she’s alreay in bed with a guy – in that case his gently slapping her would likely be playful experimenting within an appropriate space of assumed experimentation zone even if she then decides she doesn’t like it. Two completely different scenarios, set apart by context and context allowing to approximate intent.

I think this is one thing that routinely gets to me about sex/gender discussions. It’s really creepy to read people who bitch because they think that working hard to gain consent makes it harder for them to get laid. I mean, if consent were actually a priority for them, they would be glad to be challenged on their ideas about how to gain it — or at the very least, they would argue that they are already getting consent (via a standardized social framework) and that’s what’s important. But no, too often the arguments around consent and sexual assault are framed as “But if I spend so much time trying to get my partner’s consent, I’ll never have sex!” And that is just immensely fucked up.

I don’t know, I think these discussions are usually a consequence of guys assuming a priori they’re being put on the spot (usually not a completely wrong assumption – just look at the latest blog post) and getting defensive without really listening to the problem at hand. I mean, we’ve been doing this for two months now and we still had a misunderstanding about something both of us had believed we solved 200 comments ago. And there’s, of course, the general framework in which such discussions usually happen (“rape culture”), which, in many ways, is another way of making (usually) guys feel put on the spot as at least implicitly sexually violent. Just take the yes-means-yes site’s dynamic – it’s supposedly about female sexual power but apart from a couple of posts about sex worker rights it seems like the most important thing is talking about men being either inappropriately casual about consent or downright rape.

So, yeah, I think there is a fundamental problem in these discussions – they’re usually not picking the guys up where they are, they’re usually presenting a female perspective wihtout even attempting so much as listening to the guys own perspective – remember the mistle toe? Didn’t you say somewhere upthread that you believe it’s true that feminists are so busy pointing out male flaws that they forget to remember female ones? I think such discussions are a classic example of this case.

I think if there were a serious and honest acknowledgement of the male perspective, if men actually, at some point in such discussions felt safe enough to actually let go of their defences, if they didn’t have to fear that their being “weak” would reflect badly on them or reduce their perceived masculinity, then you would get much better answers than that.

But to get there, I think more people would have to do what you’ve attempted with this series – actually listening to guys’ perspectives without constantly trying to put them into a theoretical framework.

Sam February 1, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

Motley,

“Anyway, failing that, what I think would be useful is a decoder manual.”

Well – it’s not like there’s any shortage of books on female body language… here’s one that even has pictures, and it’s less than 10 Dollars, written by a female self-help coach called Leil Lowndes.

http://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Sex-Signals-Pickup-Guide/dp/0806527935/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265066140&sr=8-1

And, to preempt the “not all people are alike” argument: Of course not all people are alike – but gaining a better understanding of body language in general will also increase people’s awareness when it comes to exceptions from assumed rules.

Motley February 1, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

Ah, good example of what I was talking about. Tips on understanding your partner (or prospective partner)=useful. That’s probably a better way of trying to advance the… system? than attempting to get men to demand more explicit consent. For one thing, it’s not counter-productive to the effort (understanding women’s signals will get guys laid more, rather than less); for another, it doesn’t have the overtone of attempting to criminalize male sexual expression.

And, for what it’s worth, I wasn’t about to make the “not all people are alike” argument. Because I’ll give you the credit for being a competent human being, and already knowing that ;)
(Also because I’m not quite the believer in unique-snowflake-ness that others might be)

Clarisse February 2, 2010 at 6:06 am #

@Motley — Or do you honestly believe that, if I identified as Julius Caesar, and was offended and hurt by feeling disbelieved, that this would make me Julius Caesar? Seriously?

You’re avoiding my question about why you think it’s analogous for someone to believe they’re Julius Caesar vs. someone believing they can transition to a different gender. Why is that analogous? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a person is a different gender from your initial impression? Suppose I met you in a bar and I said, “I work in an advertising office,” and you reared back and shouted, “Good heavens! You are lying to me! There is no way you work in an advertising office!” then wouldn’t that be crazy and rude and weird? So why are you comparing believing a person about their gender to believing a person who thinks they’re Julius Caesar, rather than believing a person who is putting forth a totally reasonable assertion about their life such as “I work in an advertising office”?

One must note that “I am offended at you disagreeing with me” is not a valid supporting argument, as it shows that you have a belief, not why you have a belief. Neither is “I think you’re an asshole if you don’t agree with me.”

What exactly is the civil rights movement? Isn’t it entirely based on the idea that we should respect other peoples’ experiences, be kind to them, and give them space to live their lives despite the ways their identities fail to be “optimal” for our social environment?

I don’t think you’re committing a crime if you disregard a trans person’s gender. I think you are stifling their identity and hurting them for no good reason if you do so. Sorry if that argument doesn’t sway you, but there isn’t a “better” one (I am willing to make more strongly-worded arguments around more basic civil rights issues such as employment, but not around basic speech). I do wonder, however, why it is so important to you that you be allowed to stifle other peoples’ identities and hurt them for no good reason.

Gotta go, be back later.

Motley February 2, 2010 at 7:21 am #

Your question presupposes that the identity is different from what it appears to be. That’s what I was asking.

When did you stop beating your wife? If you answer “I don’t have a wife, and I wouldn’t beat her even if I did,” should I accuse you of avoiding the question?

Additionally: Working in an advertising office isn’t an identity.* I’m asking why you think that identities are a matter of preference. (Ask a gay man how he feels when politicians tell him his identity is a choice; then attempt to extrapolate from that how men feel when economically-privileged white women tell us that our identity is a choice, and that they can have it if they want)

*If you claim to work in an advertising office, and I know where you actually work, and it isn’t an advertising office, and I ask you why you’re claiming to work in an advertising office, rearing back and shouting “You’re stifling my identity” is unlikely to make me think you’ve got a good reason for making the claim.

I understand you’re a person with strong feelings. That’s not what I’m asking about, though. You claim that if I don’t grant my identity to a woman who wants it that I’m “stifling her identity” in a way that you’re not if you deny that I’m Space God Xenu.

You’re still taking as given that a trans person’s preferred gender IS their gender.
Why? (Not how much do you believe this: Why do you believe this? That’s been my question from the start. I’m not denying a trans person’s identity; I’m asking what that person’s identity IS and why you think so. Can you understand the distinction?)

…Though I confess my first impulse was to ask “Why should we all care about your feelings, white girl?”
I include it as it makes a point that should be made: You seem to think we live in a world where everyone’s obligated not to hurt people’s feelings — and to ignore facts that people would prefer we ignore. We don’t. Nobody owes you a life free of hurt feelings. Nobody’s obligation to your feelings is greater than their right to make their own decisions.
I would’ve thought that all went without saying.

(Dear rich white women: Notice how my feelings don’t matter to you? Your feelings don’t matter to me any more than that. Nor should they.)

But anyway, you’re question as to why is it analogous: A person claims an identity that they do not seem to have. What obligates me to credit their word above my own senses? A woman claims to be a man. A guy who doesn’t look much like Julius Caesar claims to be him. Why should one of these get the benefit of the doubt and not the other?

Tangent: Incidentally, I don’t know that you’re rich, white, and female. But, in my experience, this idea that “the world must adjust itself so as not to hurt my feelings or contradict the identity I claim or limit my self-expression” is something pretty much unique to that hyper-privileged class. The rest of us seem to’ve learned that self-expression is a luxury, not a right.

I do wonder, however, why it is so important to you that you be allowed to stifle other peoples’ identities and hurt them for no good reason.

You take it as a given that gender is a choice and not a condition of birth. WHY?
(Not a rhetorical question. You seem to have decided that you count a transperson as their preferred rather than original gender. The question I’ve been asking from the beginning of this tangent: what were your reasons for doing so?)

Yes, I know you’re very upset by me asking you “On what do you base this conclusion?” Your answer seems to be “You’re a horrible person for not coming to that conclusion.” How is that explaining the basis for your conclusion? Can you not see this? Seriously?

Clarisse February 2, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

@Sam/Motley — Re: decoding signals and providing concrete advice on that, well, yes. This is another angle on what I’ve been trying to do with efforts like my film series, or a better example would be my sexual communication workshop, which I mentioned a while back.

But, as Sam said ….
I don’t know. I think there are rules. The basic assumption is always absence of consent. Context is necessary for evaluating intent, and obviously, context can modify the base assumption of no-context. What I mean – it’s generally not considered ok to gently slap a girl’s butt when she walks by – it would be inappropriate, to say the least. Different story when she’s alreay in bed with a guy – in that case his gently slapping her would likely be playful experimenting within an appropriate space of assumed experimentation zone even if she then decides she doesn’t like it. Two completely different scenarios, set apart by context and context allowing to approximate intent.

The thing is that I’m not seeing rules there. How would we break that down into rules? What would the if-thens be? I don’t think it’s correct to say “On the street, slapping someone’s butt is always inappropriate; in bed, slapping someone’s butt is always appropriate”. I think it’s correct to say, “On the street, slapping someone’s butt is less likely to be appropriate than it would be in bed, but every situation is different.”

I agree that offering advice on how to communicate and how to read signals is a great start, but I simply don’t see a way to break that down into exact rules per se … just tactics.

@Motley — We’re at another point where I feel like you’re getting emotional and ignoring significant portions of what I’m saying. Again, I suspect that this is probably partly my own fault since I also feel strongly about the subject and am doubtless telegraphing those strong feelings. So, I apologize for that. But regardless of my own fault in speaking strongly, I still don’t get the feeling that you’re carefully reading me.

Nobody owes you a life free of hurt feelings. Nobody’s obligation to your feelings is greater than their right to make their own decisions.

Remember the part where I said “I don’t think you’re committing a crime if you disregard a trans person’s gender”? And “I think you are stifling their identity and hurting them for no good reason if you do so. Sorry if that argument doesn’t sway you, but there isn’t a ‘better’ one”? I thought that part implied that I understand that nobody owes me a life free of hurt feelings, but since apparently I have to spell that out, here you go: I understand that nobody owes me a life free of hurt feelings.

You’re still taking as given that a trans person’s preferred gender IS their gender. Why? (Not how much do you believe this: Why do you believe this? That’s been my question from the start.

Because I have direct and personal experience with a non-normative sexuality that is innate and not chosen and, simultaneously, I’ve read and researched trans identities a pretty fair amount, and I have discussed the experience of trans people both with a number of trans people and with a number of professional sexuality and/or gender researchers. I find their testimonials to be quite compelling with striking similarities to my own experience. I guess my mistake was that I thought the answer to this question was so obvious it didn’t have to be spelled out. I also thought you had probably actually read or researched, you know, anything at all by trans people about how they understand their own gender identity, before deciding that you know their identity better than they do. A good place to start might be the book She’s Not There.

Furthermore, I don’t have a problem ceding someone’s identity to that person. You’re apparently getting quite irritated that I’ve missed your “question from the start”, but you’re still not answering the question of why it’s so important to you to ignore what someone else claims as their own identity. What on earth difference does it make to you, if a trans person wants to be addressed in their chosen gender? Why is this such a problem? Why is it so difficult that you compare accepting a person as a different gender, to accepting that person as a dead famous dictator?

Yes, I know you’re very upset by me asking you “On what do you base this conclusion?”

I was not upset by the question “On what do you base this conclusion?” I honestly didn’t get that you were asking that question because, again, given my background as someone who identifies with an unusual sexual group, who runs in a lot of alternative sexuality subcultures / reads about gender and sex all the time / talks to a lot of people with unusual gender identities, I thought that the answer was obvious.

You are going through some strange twists that I don’t understand around choice and identity in re: homosexuality vs. trans identity. You seem to assert that homosexuality is not a choice. But I can’t figure out what you think about trans identity. You claim that I “take it as a given that gender is a choice and not a condition of birth”, but I never said that. I take it as a given that most, if not all, trans people consider their chosen gender to be a condition of birth, whether or not their outer body “fits” their preferred (note: I said preferred, not chosen) gender.

Also, just FYI: I am the kind of person who walks away from her life in America and moves to Africa to work on HIV. Please do not “pull the privilege card” on me. It is not relevant and it really, really, really makes me absolutely fucking furious. Really. Really. Really. Like, a LOT. This is not the first time you have thrown the word “privilege” at me, even after telling me that it sucks to have, say, the phrase “male privilege” thrown at, say, men. I’m nearly at the point of requesting that we close this tangent and move on to something else, because I’m so angry that you insisted on bringing that in, and if we’re at the point of throwing low blows like that then I want us to calm down and talk about something else.

mstrnatural February 2, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

Posting from a recent lurker:
A friend introduced me to Clarisse’s original blog entry last fall [Questions I Want To Ask Entitled Cis Het Men, Part 1:] – because my friend presumed that I fit the category and had been thinking about/wrestling with these issues all of my life.] I didn’t jump right in with my responses at that time – and when I considered returning in December I now was looking at Parts 2 & 3 as well – plus quite a few comments. I felt that it would be bad form to barge in without being respectful of the extensive discussions that had already transpired – so that delayed my reply again for another month. Now – after digesting Part 4 and reading through all [currently 463!] the subsequent comments – I feel like I can offer my suggestions with at least my own sense of respectfulness having been satisfied regarding honoring the thinking of this online community that Clarisse has galvanized with her initial questions and diligent follow through.

Brief bio. I certainly have seen myself as an Entitled Cis Het Man – and one who grew up as at least a (pro) feminist: i.e. the product of an emotionally confident and dominant mother and a devoted non-aggressive/non-violent (tho not especially introverted or ‘retiring’) father. [A setting naturally devoted to living out a partnership of peers - but not at all into any ideological analysis of feminism - which I only discovered later in college and in my social change work.] For most of my adult life I have continued to choose to live and work in egalitarian social and activist settings – and thus have been able to see myself at least one step removed from some of the most egregious pressures to conform either to rigid male stereotypes or equally restrictive hard-line feminist assumptions – tho never free from having to engage in lots of discussions, debates, and self-examinations as part of my commitment to real equality (as I understand it) and to my own (emotional/spiritual) growth as a human being and a man.

This includes embracing and then ultimately “outgrowing” some of the most militant feminist views of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism – largely because it allowed no room for meaningful dialog that framed sex as a positive activity or any way for a[n entitled cis-het] male to open up any conversations on the subject without automatically being guilty of boundary violations. [Sam - I appreciate your persistence in maintaining a positive attitude in the face of such negative energy: The old joke still epitomizes your/our dilemma quite well: "If a man says something in the forest - and no woman is there to hear him - is he still wrong?!"]

I have first and second hand stories of positive, pro-feminist men having to endure some personal “inquisitions” in order to maintain their social status in certain communities – because the default attitude was that “if she felt uncomfortable” (even after the fact) then “it was abuse” (on his part). I some instances the judgement was so final that no discussion of the circumstances was even considered (or even whether there was really an “incident” at all.

I have learned to negotiate “mine-fields” without blaming anybody – and come to expect that in a polarized culture no matter how gingerly a man may walk – he will occasionally still step on a trip-wire and he’d best be fully ready to do a lot of deep listening and not flinch when the blast goes off!(And I’ve learned that that skill of deep listening works in other emotionally charged settings as well – political, social, familial, racial – as well as around gender issues. I’ve learned that I didn’t have anything to do with packing the explosives or setting the fuse – but because I happened to be the one to trip the wire – I need to take responsibility for being the ‘first responder’ – which, as typhonblue has pointed out requires me to not internalize guilt (etc.) for their pain “to simply allow people to have their opinions, observations, arguments without taking it personally, sort of let them flow over me without sticking”. (Which is not, at first, easy to do – while also remaining completely sincere in one’s concern – and offering genuine apologies for being so clumsy – as to brush against their almost invisible hair trigger.)

But the reaction to “angry feminists” (a stereotype) is not to flip to the other side and become an angry Men’s Rights Activist – who (because of the head start they got growing up as boys in a male-privileging culture) already have one leg longer than the other and thus are quite capable of viewing the mountainside they are standing high on the side of as “a level playing field”!

So where do we go for better models of positive (non-oppressive) “masculine” traits and behaviors? Here I agree with others in the discussion that we have to step away from women’s oppression as the measure of masculinity – because it’s in many ways a trap and a distraction.

@typhonblue — Maybe the best way to deal with this situation is to remove some of the pressure from men by having a manhood that doesn’t revolve around being sexual with women.

If one is being masculine (or feminine) in a truly healthy manner then one should be attempting to avoid being oppressive of any group. The best way to do that is to start examining how we experienced loss of power growing up – something that every human being has experience! But key is approaching this as a process of personal healing and growth – and not as any sort of “gripe session” or “pity party” where people gather to compare wounds and bond around common experiences of having been hurt in similar ways.

[Alas that process is all too common - indeed many (perhaps even "most"?) of identity politics revolves directly or indirectly around the emotional bonds formed around a common "victim" experience - and the safety that one perceives with others who "know" the depth of your suffering and would therefore "never" think of "betraying" you.

And that bond is powerful - but precisely because it is about "protecting wounds" from further pain - and ultimately that urge to protect is exactly what keeps those wounds from healing - which requires that they be opened and cleaned out (a process that is anything but 'comfortable' and may, in fact feel quite threatening. (Imagine a mom or dad having to tell their kid "I know it hurts, just hold still while I wash it and put some alcohol on it and get a bandage" and all the time the kid is screaming and thrashing and crying "No! No! No!") If our goal really is an egalitarian society than some forms of tough loving is needed - hopefully administered by people who have gone through the healing process themselves and thus can both appreciate the genuineness of the cries that plead "Do I have to?!!" and be genuinely compassionate - but who also know that the end result of function less fearfully and more empowered is attainable and desirable. ("Now just hush yourself for 2 minutes while I help you get this cleaned up. I promise it will all feel better when we're done - I promise!")

So identity groups which consciously or otherwise end up fostering bonds around common experiences of victim hood (and alas they abound all across the gender identity spectrum) will always be crippled by the fears of breaking these common bonds - and thus trapped in a perennial cycle where those who are ready to let go of their identity as "wounded" must abandon the fellowship to pursue their healing. I think this is the essence of the trap that Clarisse rightly feels as the limitations of the "no-means-no" approach to gender binary issues - and why a "yes-means-yes" approach is essential to healing and growth.]

OK – a few concrete examples:

1) The oldest “Men’s Movement” groups to focus on the positive and who do not identify as victims (or the co-dependent protectors of victims – a similarly disempowering way to identify oneself – the ball and chain is simply a little longer!) is probably the ManKind Project (or the “New Warrior Movement”) http://mankindproject.org, which focuses on men celebrating all of the qualities that are stereotyped and called out by our society as being distinctly male (and often labeled by the hard-line feminist analysis as the “oppressive” side of men): their strength, their appeal to linear thinking, their desire to protect and defend, their defense of freedom, their willingness to compete, their ability to marshal and channel their anger for productive goals, etc.

Men come together – often in more primitive outdoor settings – and share energy in various ritualized ways of interacting that put all of these in a positive light. At the same time these men are also getting to tell their stories about their experiences with hurt and oppression – and there is no restriction on physical comforting or taking the time to release emotional energy in a rich variety of ways than the limited grunts and high-fives (or shows of aggressive anger) that the oppressive social restrictions of our Western society permit them/us. [And of course key to this latter process of confronting old hurts and releasing the emotional energy encapsulating them - is that men are relying on other men for the comfort and attention that makes it happen. Sometimes for those men who happen to be in some sort of stable heterosexual relationship - the women they come home to even feel a great burden lifted (but also a sense of jealousy) because the men have had such a powerful, positive connection - and it wasn't with them!]

As part of the ritual process there are periodic rites of passage that emphasize moving into or into different stages of manhood. And – unlink a job promotion at work – the “elevation” of one’s status in the group is not necessarily linked to greater privileges within the group – but rather into greater responsibility for the social welfare of the group and greater attention to and mentoring of newer members.

2) Another group which also emphasizes the positive (and also uses experiences in the out of doors as part of that) is Boys to Men http://www.boystomen.org. Here the initiation and mentoring processes take center stage as more experienced males take on the process of mentoring and guiding younger adolescents into solid, self-actualizing personal paths and identities – and helping them move through a challenging and dangerous time in their lives. Often youth come from tough social settings where joblessness and the pull of drugs and gang violence are endemic. This is like a Big-Brother program – but with a strong “boot camp”/ Outward Bound feel to it – and carried out as much or more in a group setting as one-on-one. Here again, men are called on to pair their macho/strong/assertive sides with their thoughtful/compassionate/attentive sides. Awareness of the oppressive nature of our society and how it affects and wounds all of us is a basic prerequisite for any man choosing to step forward and take on such a mentoring role – but it’s focus is neither on the wounds of the “victims” or on the sociopathic flaws of any set or perpetrators – but on how we gain strength to heal our selves and act powerfully in the face of oppression!

[One of the things that disappears from this approach is the concept of "male privilege" Male power exists of course - and in these two examples it is constantly being accessed and reinforced for it's ability to do good and to serve. And it serves to highlight a deeper structural problem: so long as one continue to accept conventional "zero-sum game" analyses of social power dynamics - then one can never get to a true egalitarian solution. "Male privilege" is a zero-sum notion: "if he has it she can't have it" Male power on the other hand can be used as a tool for the liberation and empowerment of others as well - and the spill-over to other areas of oppression of men discovering their abilities as healers and "liberators" is obvious - but only if one is fearlessly ready to embrace power as part of a "positive-sum-game" where anybody's win increases everybody's power.]

C.T.: What are steps we can take as individuals to combat negative stereotypes? To encourage an enthusiastic consent, clear communication, “yes means yes” model of sexuality?

I want to share two more examples of [positive sum game] communities where participation is open to the entire gender spectrum – where Clarisse’s “yes-means-yes” model has a chance to flourish as acceptable within the frames provided.

3) Non-violent Communication (or Compassionate Communication) http://www.cnvc.org. This is a network of trainers and practitioners of a way of communicating that seeks to build affirming and fulfilling relationships – essentially all of our relationships (work, family, school, friendships, neighbors, etc.) – by changing attitudes and changing the words, phrases and sentence structures of our personal language to emphasize direct observations, acknowledgement of feelings, awareness of and articulation of needs (such as love, support, protection, autonomy, affirmation, etc.) and the ability to make clear negotiable requests to have those met in relationship. The discipline (and it does take a great deal of practice to begin to master the simple but counter-conventional techniques that allow it to happen) – and the underlying assumptions (again counter-conventional) really do undercut most of the traps that lead to the kind of “lose-lose” impasses that you all have been articulating so well. [Impasses with regard to men attempting to define their masculinity in the face of social theories that suggest that all men are automatically beneficiaries of and thus colluding in abusive systems (i.e. "the patriarchy" they don't necessarily understand or endorse) - and that individuals attempting to employ our natural connection to our own sexuality to better understand their relationship to domination and submission find themselves likewise suspect and marginalized.

One great strength of NVC is the way it challenges us to purge our language of judgements (which, so long as we continue to embrace them and defend them - keep us from being able to understand or articulate our real deeper needs.) Over and over we discover that what we loudly declare to be non-negotiable necessities - turn out actually to be strategies that we adopted long ago to control, or manipulate, or withdraw, etc., when our most important needs weren't being met. The phrase "the strategy is not the need" cuts across huge swaths of conventional wisdom and reveals a path to a much clearer understanding of what we all really need and how to actually get those needs acknowledged and met.

[For our purposes NVC stands as a potential "identity" community that 1) is not at all based on any notions of victimhood or any special entitlement to reparations or any other special treatment and 2) it is gender identity neutral - a nice place for people negotiating the gender binary to meet in neutral territory in an extremely 'safe' space in which to take emotional risks.]

4) One more example of a reasonably level playing field is the area of activity loosely gathered together under the heading of “social dancing” While that seems a somewhat amorphous term, it represents something very real: a myriad of overlapping networks of people drawn together to move in similarly structured (or free-form, which is also a structure) ways to different styles/ traditions of music. Whether Salsa, Reggae, Hip-Hop, Funk, Swing, Disco, International Folk, Ballroom, Two-Step, Polka, Waltz, Cajun, Blues, etc. etc. these musical forms have in common that they bring people together on a dance floor or street or village square to respond to musical forms in interactive physical ways. Lots of give and take occurs, lots of touching and often very close bodily contact in involved – and depending on the style of music involved and the cultures represented – there are elaborate, mostly informal, structures and “rules of engagement” that have evolved that moderate and facilitate ways of moving and touching.

In particular a large number of cultures around the world have forms of couple dancing in which one partner has (at least temporarily) a dominant role and another a submissive role. [And not unlike the BDSM world - they have a greater or lesser correlation with "traditionally" assigned gender binary roles - depending on the degree of creativity and mutuality that individuals and sub-cultures claim for themselves.] While it’s true that there will be occasional conflicts around “boundary issues” and some dancer more likely to push the envelope while other dancers may be especially conservative and hence resistant to any original variations – nevertheless these conflicts are minor and usually resolved by the individuals involved or mediated informally by other members of the community acting as mentors or “informants” about some of the more subtle conventions accepted by various local communities.

Social dancing does seem to me to be a very nice analog/model for many of the more intensely debated gender binary struggles that folks have been addressing on this blog – and one that has insights to offer – as well as providing a totally independent setting in which many of the intimacy and touching needs cam be met in ways that rarely trigger intense boundary disputes (and even fewer lawsuits or accusations of abuse!) The emphasis is on enjoyment and for most people it is very much a win-win interaction – a “yes-means-yes” encounter.

-mstrnatural

Motley February 2, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

The thing is that I’m not seeing rules there.

Hmm. I am. (I think we’re just having a “definitions” issue) How ’bout: “Slapping someone’s butt is a sexual act, and is only ‘safe’ with people who’ve already begun sexual conduct with you”? At least, that’s how I’m reading it.

I think it’s correct to say, “On the street, slapping someone’s butt is less likely to be appropriate than it would be in bed, but every situation is different.”

See, I’d call that a rule, too. That’s pretty much what I mean by “rules,” at least. I’m assuming Sam meant the same, but I don’t actually know.

Re: decoding signals and providing concrete advice on that, well, yes.

I’ve been thinking about that a bit, and what you said earlier about guys using the “That won’t help me get laid” by way of dismissal. Remember what you said about anti-oppression not marketing itself? I think there’s excellent “anti-oppression marketing” to be found there.

We’re at another point where I feel like you’re getting emotional and ignoring significant portions of what I’m saying. Again, I suspect that this is probably partly my own fault since I also feel strongly about the subject and am doubtless telegraphing those strong feelings. So, I apologize for that. But regardless of my own fault in speaking strongly, I still don’t get the feeling that you’re carefully reading me.

…yeah, I was just about to write that paragraph.

Anyway, one more try:

Furthermore, I don’t have a problem ceding someone’s identity to that person. You’re apparently getting quite irritated that I’ve missed your “question from the start”, but you’re still not answering the question of why it’s so important to you to ignore what someone else claims as their own identity. What on earth difference does it make to you, if a trans person wants to be addressed in their chosen gender? Why is this such a problem? Why is it so difficult that you compare accepting a person as a different gender, to accepting that person as a dead famous dictator?

Well, okay: Because I do not see the difference. All those times I claimed not to see the difference, I wasn’t lying. If I’m obligated to address people according to their preferences, then that obligation applies equally to Caesar-guy. If I’m not, then not.

But I can’t figure out what you think about trans identity.

Yeah, pretty much same here. What do I think about trans identity: I haven’t. I kept trying to make that clear. All of the reasoning behind the idea that a claim of a non-innate gender identity being more valid than a claim of an anachronistic historical identity? Foreign to me.

Anyway, setting all that aside for the moment.

Because I have direct and personal experience with a non-normative sexuality that is innate and not chosen…

Coming from direct and personal experience with a non-normative sexuality that is innate and not chosen, and that is stifled/suppressed by law and custom, and for excellent reasons, I suspect we’re coming from wildly different perspectives because of that last part. Do you see why I might not think that someone’s perception of their identity should have any bearing on the behavior of other people?

I’m nearly at the point of requesting that we close this tangent and move on to something else…

Fair.

desipis February 2, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

Clarisse:

I think you are stifling their identity and hurting them for no good reason if you do so.

I disagree. Many cis men have a strong part of their gender identity tied to their definition of what it means to be a man. To force others to accept trans men as men would stifle the identity of many cis men who’s identity is tied to a definition of man that doesn’t include trans men.

I think the way some religions interact might provide a model here. For example there are many different branches of Christianity which all have a different understanding of what it means to be “Christian”. They (generally) respect the rights of the other branches to call themselves “Christian” but their own definition may not actually include all the other branches.

Sam February 2, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

Clarisse, Motley,

See, I’d call that a rule, too. That’s pretty much what I mean by “rules,” at least. I’m assuming Sam meant the same, but I don’t actually know.

Yes and no – it’s more of a guideline than a rule – a rule of thumb, if you will. I think that’s what we talked about above with respect to yes-means-yes and no-means-no (cf #284,#288) – a better general discourse (yes-means-yes) about such issues will lead to an improved situational understanding (context/intent – in the worst case – assault vs. accident) for everyone (no-means-no).

I’ve been thinking about that a bit, and what you said earlier about guys using the “That won’t help me get laid” by way of dismissal. Remember what you said about anti-oppression not marketing itself? I think there’s excellent “anti-oppression marketing” to be found there.

Well Motley, you know, Kant and duty and that stuff ;) But apart from that, yeah, I think – going back to the part where we agreed that “the old script” is gone – it is important to give guys the ability to function under any proposed “new” script – and while their fear that they may not be able to is – I think – probably largely a product of the same interpretation of general vs. specific rules/statements that we discussed above, I do think that feminism/feminists could/should do a way better job getting across what they actually mean. Alas, most such attempts to reach across the aisle seem to be greeted with the fear of giving up valuable positions in the battle of the sexes… I’m glad this hasn’t happened here, so far. This thread is by far the most helpful and – hopefully – productive conversation about these matters I’ve come across.

Motley February 3, 2010 at 9:17 am #

Always comes back to Kant, doesn’t it? :)

Anyway, I think a lot of the attempts to reach across the isle run into bad-faith problems on both sides – either the person making the “attempt” is just trying to score points, or the people on the other side are doing the same. I suspect the aforementioned “The loudest and most obnoxious member of a group gets all the attention” phenomenon might be largely to blame. Consider the opinions the Feminism Hivemind* seems to hold about pickup artists… and why. I mean, every group has its Mary Dalys and its Rush Limbaughs. Anyway, yeah. We have our misunderstandings and our blowups (hell, I wrote a much much longer post for my last one, before replacing it all with the line “setting all that aside”) but I think everyone’s acting in good faith–which is why I stopped by and joined in.

(*Yeah, I know there isn’t actually a Feminism Hivemind. “Feminist Consensus” would be more accurate, but less funny. Though it might be that not everyone finds the phrase “____ Hivemind” as inherently funny as I do)

Anyway:

…it’s more of a guideline than a rule…

(Side-note: As I’m in the immediately-post-caffeine phase of the day, I read that in a pirate voice. Yarrrr.)

Call it a rule, call it a guideline–not any significant difference from my perspective. Did anyone else read that “Schrodinger’s Rapist” article a while back? From briefly skimming the comments, I got the impression that everyone else – both the people who liked it and the people who hated it – took it as some kind of man-hating rant. I took it as an instruction manual: “If you’re trying to pick up a girl on the subway, here’s how to tell when you’ve got a shot and when you don’t, and why that is.” (And an explanation on why, when you don’t have a shot, pressing your case won’t actually increase your chances). I think it was a failure on the author’s part that nobody else seemed to be reading it that way (unless the author did intend it as a man-hating rant, but I really didn’t see it that way).

But see, that kind of feminist culture-pressure actually will get guys laid more if they follow it. And that’s excellent marketing. The old script is gone – but writing a newer, less-oppressive script is totally possible; and making it a more effective one will make it catch on.

Sam February 3, 2010 at 10:10 am #

Motley,

you know what? I actually thought about that essay when I wrote my reply. I really liked what the author wrote – particularly that she acknowledged that opportunities can be more important than risks, but that not being aware of the way others perceive risk will likely kill the opportunity.

“Consider the opinions the Feminism Hivemind* seems to hold about pickup artists… and why.”

Well, I think – to the extent that the seduction community is actually about analysing and teaching appropriate social behaviour wiht the aim of making men and women more socially adept and able to get a partner, it is actually very feminist as an approach. But that’s really the meta level – if you read most pickup companites websites it’s more about “how to get you laid fast, often, with any girl you choose”. And take the lingo – “target”, “obstacle”, etc

I mean, I can see why approaching meeting people/women in that kind of structured approach appeals to many guys, but I can also see why their kind of talk would make it hard to see beyond the language speak for many women who are used to considering women as a “sex class”. But, of course, there’s also a certain tendency in the feminist community to write off men’s complaints as baseless or “what about ze menz”.

Did you read the (feminist) thesis about the “seduction community” I linked to above? I think Elana Clift does a fair job, with a fair angle – “For my brother, who taught me how to tie my shoes, read, drive a car, and so much more.”

webspace.utexas.edu/ejc329/ElanaCliftThesis.pdf

machina February 3, 2010 at 10:37 am #

Trans people don’t make much sense if you consider gender to be discrete, but issues such as trans and intersex call into question the assumption of discrete genders based on either physical or psychological identity. If you can’t definitively categorise people into gender on either innate physical or psychological traits then I think it is reasonable to conclude that gender is non-discrete.

Clarisse February 3, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

@mstrnatural — Comment now visible; sorry that took a while. Wow, I really want to thank you for being so careful about reading all the comments and approaching the group so respectfully when you posted your response. That’s awesome.

Yours is obviously a very dense comment, and with all the links I’m not sure whether I’ve got any opinions yet, but I just wanted to give you some positive feedback right away because not only were you awesomely careful in your approach, but also it looks like you’ve given a lot of very concrete ideas.

Side note: I hooked up with a dominant once who did a lot of swing dancing. He laughed when he told me that “swing dancing is basically socialized D/s [Dominance/submission]“.

@Motley — Coming from direct and personal experience with a non-normative sexuality that is innate and not chosen, and that is stifled/suppressed by law and custom, and for excellent reasons, I suspect we’re coming from wildly different perspectives because of that last part.

Wow. I hadn’t thought of it that way. That’s interesting.

I spend a lot of time reassuring people that BDSMers are not actually interested in non-consensual encounters (even those of us with rape fantasies), but I forget sometimes that there must exist people whose sexuality is in fact oriented towards truly non-consensual encounters. There’s this old feminist trope that “rape is all about power and not at all about sex”, but I don’t really buy that. (It occurs to me as I write this that that idea — “about power and not about sex” — was probably originally intended to stigmatize rape while taking sexuality out of the picture. Which means that part of what it’s ended up doing is stigmatizing power rather than sexuality. And I am obviously biased but I’m not sure that’s a good thing. I’ve written before, and I’ll write again, about my difficulties coming into my own very power-based sexuality in a context where overt power exchange is highly stigmatized ….)

All those times I claimed not to see the difference, I wasn’t lying. If I’m obligated to address people according to their preferences, then that obligation applies equally to Caesar-guy. If I’m not, then not.

I guess … what is confusing me here is that you seem pretty capable of interacting on a human level with us, notwithstanding your occasional jokes about that. During your everyday life you must fairly routinely address people the way they prefer to be addressed — I mean, for example, have you ever had a boss you really disliked that you had to address in a polite way? Is it just that it’s easier for you to see a benefit for yourself in addressing a disliked boss politely, than it is to see a benefit for yourself in addressing a trans person by their preferred gender?

All of the reasoning behind the idea that a claim of a non-innate gender identity being more valid than a claim of an anachronistic historical identity? Foreign to me.

Not trying to be snide, genuinely curious: Why is it easy for you to accept homosexuality as innate and non-chosen, but not easy to accept trans identity as innate and non-chosen?

As machina points out, there’s a pretty fair amount of evidence that gender isn’t discrete — that it’s on a slider rather than a binary, for instance, or that it’s simply not remotely attached to what we traditionally consider our physical sex. For my part, I have trouble understanding why this would be a problem for anyone, but then I am (for example) female, and (for example) there isn’t such a large number of conditions that auto-threaten my gender identity as there is for most men.

@desipis — Many cis men have a strong part of their gender identity tied to their definition of what it means to be a man. To force others to accept trans men as men would stifle the identity of many cis men who’s identity is tied to a definition of man that doesn’t include trans men.

Yeah … I guess when I think about it I’m familiar with this phenomenon. It can get pretty awful … just look at the depressingly high percentage of trans women who are murdered by cis men who have affairs with them, or whatever, and then find out that their lovers were born male and violently flip out. Normally, of course, when I hear this kind of story, the storyteller focuses on how appalling it is that trans women are dying, rather than how appalling it must be for a man socialized into a restrictive definition of masculinity to slam headfirst into its walls without warning like that.

A lot of feminist thought has gone into justifying “feminist safe spaces” that are non-inclusive, and (as I noted in the post above) I certainly get why safe spaces are important, but I really don’t like it when those “safe spaces” are used to marginalize trans identity (or BDSM). On the other hand, why do I think I have the right to prevent radical feminists from entering my dungeon, and yet get twitchy when they want to exclude trans people?

I mean, segregation has been pretty much determined to not be the answer with Blacks vs. Whites, right?

A sociologist friend once passed on a study that found more diverse neighborhoods to be less well-integrated, have lower rates of volunteerism and community service, and have more anxious members. I would say that in my considerable experience with housing co-ops, it is true that more diverse co-ops became less easy environments to live in.

I guess I don’t have anything concrete to say here, just that I still feel really uncomfortable with the idea that men ought to be allowed to exclude and marginalize trans men in order to feel okay with their own masculinity … but I am starting to calm down and back away from my knee-jerk “I hate this” reaction.

@Sam — Alas, most such attempts to reach across the aisle seem to be greeted with the fear of giving up valuable positions in the battle of the sexes… I’m glad this hasn’t happened here, so far.

I’ve been wondering why it hasn’t been happening, actually. I mean, we’ve had a few pretty inflexible people drop by and be annoying, but they tend to run off swiftly. For me I think it’s partly that I’m politically minded when it comes to feminism, but I don’t want to feel intellectually lazy in the service of feminism …. I want my feminism but I want it to be smart and all-encompassing too.

@Motley/Sam — That Schrodinger’s Rapist post was one of the ones that I’ve emailed to a smart but fairly typical cis male engineer very close friend of mine. As I expected, it just pissed him off, and I felt disappointed but wasn’t sure why …. I think you have now described why I was hoping he’d get something positive out of it.

I am always wanting to research more about the seduction community. I’ve gotten over the knee-jerk feminist being-appalled reaction, and now I just want to learn about it all the time. It is like the most pruriently fascinating thing ever for me, after sex work. I have like 5 posts in my head to write about it. (This probably partly has to do with my weird fascination with heteronormative cis male spaces, including seduction community forums and smoking lounges and SomethingAwful.com.)

To everyone: I am going off the grid tomorrow because I will be commencing my 30-hour trip TO VACATION IN AMERICA!! (I’m really excited.) Catch you on the flip side!

typhonblue February 3, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

@mstrnatural:

I’m going to pull out just one part of your comment.

because of the head start they got growing up as boys in a male-privileging culture

I agree with this statement to a degree. And I think, despite your care not to, that you are part of the problem that perpetuates it.

Men are taught to take responsibility for women, constantly. To take responsibility not just for women’s physical well-being but also their emotional well-being.

This dynamic has the effect of disabling women’s own agency; thus rendering women incapable of taking advantage of any opportunities given to them.

It’s as if men have opened the road at the same time as breaking women’s knees.

IMHO, a man who truly respects women and understands the process of creating internal strength would not deny them the opportunity to be emotionally strong _for him_.

The impression I get from your comment, is that you’ve hidden yourself away by being conciliatory towards women and by embracing a philosophy in which men don’t suffer. At least not at the hands of women or anti-male sentiment, thus not in a way that women could be made responsible for, thus not in a way women can learn about their own strength and the appropriate use thereof from.

To me, you are more oppressive then the angry MRAs you decry.

At least they allow me my strength and my human right to learn from my mistakes.

Sam February 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

Clarisse,

have a safe trip!

“and (for example) there isn’t such a large number of conditions that auto-threaten my gender identity as there is for most men.”

True. I think it is important to have conceptual clarity in a discussion like this, and yet it is particularly difficult, because, in the case of trans people – to the extent I am aware – it’s not merely a matter of a cultural and biological identiy (gender and sex) but of a body/brain incongruency. So, disregarding the cultural identity for the moment, the question becomes what biologically defines “male” in atypical circumstances. I mean, after all, a slider-identity doesn’t seem to be what trans people want (to the extent that I am aware), they want body/brain congruency.

I think that brain-identity is more important than body-identity – and that means having to trust the person’s perception in that respect. I don’t mind enlarging the “man”-tent: there are different kinds of becoming a man just as there are different kind of being a man. Prefixes for differntiation (although, to be honest, I would – outside of a specific discussion about transsexuality – find it strange to have to denote innate body/brain-congruency with “cis”). And, to be honest, I think that any masculinity discussion would benefit quite a bit from the perspective of trans-men, as they have seen the ingredients of their identity separately, and, usually needed to put them together on their own.

I think you have now described why I was hoping he’d get something positive out of it.

Well, I think it’s primarily because you *are* reaching across the aisle and so was the author of the essay. But most people just saw what they wanted to see: Either a feminist bashing men (most men), or a feminist preaching about “rape culture” (most feminists).

“I have like 5 posts in my head to write about it.

Looking forward to reading them.

mstrnatural February 3, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

@typhonblue

I’m a little surprised and puzzled as to how you got to such sweeping conclusions about my “being part of the problem that perpetuates it” when I have not really shared that much about myself or my background. Tho clearly you are very passionate about the empowerment of women and give evidence of having experienced or witnessed lots of disempowering behavior towards women. I’d like to hear more examples from your experience, so as to better figure out what about my story makes you come to that conclusion.

But for now (while I await your story), I’ll add a little bit more of mine for background:

You state:
“Men are taught to take responsibility for women, constantly. To take responsibility not just for women’s physical well-being but also their emotional well-being.”

Yes, I agree with you there. In my own case the primary dominant teacher for me was my mother: as a first born male I became her de facto “counselor” when my dad was not around during the day. She was a full time housewife for a number of years – and so I was her primary companion for much of the day – and as a bright, reasonably agreeable and helpful kid – I became her confident and sounding board for her daily struggles with her life. (I don’t think I’m alone in this – lots of first born males have shared similar stories. I have even heard of extreme examples of this being labeled by the psychological community as “emotional incest” – tho in hindsight I don’t think the situation with my mother ever reached that level of boundary violations). My point is: If men have learned to be caretakers – to the point of behaving in ways that establish a pattern of “taking over” for women friends, acquaintances or co-workers in their present adult lives – then just how do we assign “responsibility” for that behavior? [We are usually resistant to abandoning values and behavior that we were taught were appropriate by our parents - and men who learned certain skills and expectations from their mothers are more likely to feel that these actions are appropriate with other women - at least until circumstances suggest otherwise.]

But [without addressing the question of whether - as an adult cis-het-privileged male - I actually fall into the trap of unawarely disempowering my women acquaintances - which I tend to think is not the case] – IF I were consistently acting in such a manner – would that be my problem as a man – or “our” problem as observers of a mother-to-son pattern of acculturation that women (mothers) have been perpetuating – probably for generations? [Here I'm raising a hypothetical and not engaging in "finger pointing" - but it does get to a contradiction that feminist males confront all the time - getting accusations aimed at them for behaviors that they learned from women - women with whom they felt they were being highly respectful at the time.]

You go on: “This dynamic has the effect of disabling women’s own agency; thus rendering women incapable of taking advantage of any opportunities given to them.”

I would like to suggest that a) I don’t think (as I have mentioned before) that you have enough information yet about me – given that I have posted only once so far – to be drawing such conclusions about me as a particular male and b) that the dynamic of ‘disabling women’s own agency’ can – for example – apply just as readily to other women who (in classical old-line feminist thinking) are quick to offer “support” – but at the price of the women being supported having to see herself as a perennial “victim” of a universal system of sexism. [Thus - as I describe in my post - meaning she has to chose between her "support" community (her "Sisters") or her personal healing and empowerment.]

You add: “It’s as if men have opened the road at the same time as breaking women’s knees.”

– OK it’s a nice “hard-hitting” bit of ironic imagery – but it’s way over the top as far as addressing me personally. I have to believe that I’m being asked to be a stand in for some other ghost (real or hypothetical) – since you don’t begin to have a grasp of my personal story based on one blog entry.

You go on: “IMHO, a man who truly respects women and understands the process of creating internal strength would not deny them the opportunity to be emotionally strong _for him_.”

- Positively stated – and I totally agree. Indeed one of the qualities that I’ve always sought in my relationships with women, is somebody with whom I could be co-equally strong – and thus co-equally vulnerable. Indeed one of the pithy statements that I advocate all the time – but especially with regard to what it means to me to be a man is the phrase: “Vulnerability is Strength”. The best experiences I’ve had with women as partners have been those where there is a balanced give and take – with reasonably frequent opportunities for each partner in turn to be at one time strong and supportive and at another vulnerable and willing (and skilled at) reaching out for help.

Then you add this: “The impression I get from your comment, is that you’ve hidden yourself away by being conciliatory towards women and by embracing a philosophy in which men don’t suffer. At least not at the hands of women or anti-male sentiment, thus not in a way that women could be made responsible for, thus not in a way women can learn about their own strength and the appropriate use thereof from.
To me, you are more oppressive then the angry MRAs you decry.”

Again this final conclusion is kind of “off the wall” given my story and the egalitarian communities that I have chosen to live in and build. I’m not at all covert or overly conciliatory towards women (or men) and, at least one of the stories I alluded to in my earlier posting was directly about very specific incidents concerning the way that “no-means-no” feminist ideologies have hurt me and other men I know. (But/and, ironically it was not the women who (might) have been involved – so much as the “feminist” men who took it upon themselves, in a knee jerk fashion to “defend” other women – without any attempt on their part to look at the facts of the case.) Again I would remind you of the quote I chose to share earlier: [" If a man says something in the forest - and no woman is there to hear him - is he still wrong?!!"] That’s provokes laughter precisely because it represents such sweeping stereotyping – which is invariably hurtful. At the same time it is true – that I don’t find the process of carrying around old hurts as ongoing resentments does anybody good – but especially not myself.

As for your final point – being allowed to build strength by learning from one’s mistakes – there again we are in complete agreement. As a kid (partly, no doubt, in response to my mother’s sometimes getting too close with her emotional needs) I had a strong independent streak – and would make exactly those points to my parents – “let me fall on my own face, occasionally, and have to deal with a bloody nose, even! I need to be able to learn from making my own mistakes!” (I could be quite adamant on that point. And also the point about people wanting to tell me the answer to a puzzle before I’d had been given enough time to figure it our on my own. That need for autonomy is a natural impulse – and I wanted it honored with me as a kid and I damned well know how to honor that same impulse in others – men and women – as an adult.)

typhonblue February 3, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

mstrnatural,

What do you mean when you say ‘male privileging’?

I think the term itself is ‘male privilege’; namely the privilege of taking responsibility from women for their role in shaping society and their responsibility to address the harms society has done men.

I wonder if men are terrified that, should women take responsibility for themselves, men might cease to exist!

Motley February 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

Clarisse -

Have a good trip. I hope all goes well.

I forget sometimes that there must exist people whose sexuality is in fact oriented towards truly non-consensual encounters.

In case you care: Yes, they exist. I don’t happen to be one, strictly speaking, (but that’s splitting hairs), but I have known a few.

Is it just that it’s easier for you to see a benefit for yourself in addressing a disliked boss politely, than it is to see a benefit for yourself in addressing a trans person by their preferred gender?

No. I’m not talking about benefit, but about obligation (“Duty” in the Kantian sense, again…)

Why is it easy for you to accept homosexuality as innate and non-chosen, but not easy to accept trans identity as innate and non-chosen?

Reason 1. If I woke up tomorrow and wanted to have sex with men, I suspect I’d still be me. If I woke up tomorrow and thought I was a woman, I’m much less certain of that.

Reason 2. Technically, both are equally easy. It’s also equally easy to accept that Caesar-dude’s self-identification as Julius Caesar is innate and non-chosen.

I imagine the fact that I have friends who are gay is a factor, too.

Anyway, none of those things are what I was talking about.

For my part, I have trouble understanding why this would be a problem for anyone, but then I am (for example) female, and (for example) there isn’t such a large number of conditions that auto-threaten my gender identity as there is for most men.

Yeah, isn’t that awesome? The fact that this constant, oppressive force will, due to your gender, never be applied to you?

…now that is a lot of what I was talking about. If you’re trying to understand where I’m coming from, that – and Desipis’ comment – (with particular attention to the use of the word “force”) is probably the place to start. If you’re interested, that is – I don’t intend on continuing on this tangent unless you explicitly say so (I wrote an explanation at length, but then dropped it, as I figure it’s not anything you want to hear).

Barring that, tangent: Dropped.

Anyway.

I don’t want to feel intellectually lazy in the service of feminism …. I want my feminism but I want it to be smart and all-encompassing too.

A thought occurs to me; you all probably already know by this point, but I’ll say it anyway, just in case: That’s going to hurt. A lot. I think there’s really a reason that people indulge in intellectual laziness; if you’re not thinking about what other people say, they’re not going to hit any nerves. Which is why, I imagine, that most of these types of conversations consist of: 1, Hurl talking points, 2, Get offended at the other side’s talking points, 3, Rant, 4, Walk away pissed but self-satisfied. And 5, wait for the next “talk.” Everyone’s “happy,” nobody gets hurt.

Anyway, on an unrelated note:

There’s this old feminist trope that “rape is all about power and not at all about sex”, but I don’t really buy that. (It occurs to me as I write this that that idea — “about power and not about sex” — was probably originally intended to stigmatize rape while taking sexuality out of the picture.

While I also disagree with the idea (I’m pretty sure that if rape wasn’t about sex, it’d never happen) I’ve got a different theory as to the motives (mostly as part of an ongoing campaign to spread the erroneous notion that a man’s sex drive isn’t any different from a woman’s). Though yours makes sense as well. At the moment, I suspect it’s a combination of all of the above.

mstrnatural -
Hi, thanks for reading this all (I appreciate when people read a conversation before chipping in… makes life so much easier).
My reaction to your first post was a lot like typhonblue’s, though perhaps less harsh (which is hilarious, when you consider the differences between her and me).

I’ll attempt to explain without being overly silly. As I’ll no doubt fail, please try not to take this personally. Let’s start with this:

I have learned to negotiate “mine-fields” without blaming anybody – and come to expect that in a polarized culture no matter how gingerly a man may walk – he will occasionally still step on a trip-wire and he’d best be fully ready to do a lot of deep listening and not flinch when the blast goes off!(And I’ve learned that that skill of deep listening works in other emotionally charged settings as well – political, social, familial, racial – as well as around gender issues. I’ve learned that I didn’t have anything to do with packing the explosives or setting the fuse – but because I happened to be the one to trip the wire – I need to take responsibility for being the ‘first responder’ – which, as typhonblue has pointed out requires me to not internalize guilt (etc.) for their pain “to simply allow people to have their opinions, observations, arguments without taking it personally, sort of let them flow over me without sticking”. (Which is not, at first, easy to do – while also remaining completely sincere in one’s concern – and offering genuine apologies for being so clumsy – as to brush against their almost invisible hair trigger.)

So… I’m here assuming you’ve heard the phrase “victim-blaming” before, and are aware of the connotations it usually carries.

Now, let’s look at the minefield analogy. Guy steps on invisible landmine in an invisible minefield, and he has to be “ready to do a lot of deep listening and not flinch when the blast goes off?”

So, to continue the analogy: When someone steps on an invisible landmine, the victim who stepped on the landmine is the one at fault, not the psychopath who mined the neighborhood?
…Fascinating.
Or is that only the case if the psychopath in question happens to be female, and the victim male? Darn.
In which case – women aren’t at all responsible for controlling their own emotions? If a woman flips her lid, the nearest man needs to take responsibility?
Interesting idea of “equality,” that is. You’re obligated to apologize for having brushed her invisible trigger, but she’s not in any way obligated to not have an invisible trigger? Am I allowed to have an invisible trigger? Are you?
(Personally, I’d love to be allowed to have an invisible trigger that made me completely non-responsible-for-my-own-actions when tripped. If having a vagina’s a requirement, that’d be totally worth getting a sex-change operation.)

Kidding aside: If you’re cutting women more slack than you’d cut another guy, that’s not treating them as equals. What you’ve described doesn’t sound like equal treatment. I’m under the impression that it’s as important to avoid treating women better than men as it is to avoid treating ‘em worse.

typhonblue February 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

Personally, I’d love to be allowed to have an invisible trigger that made me completely non-responsible-for-my-own-actions when tripped. If having a vagina’s a requirement, that’d be totally worth getting a sex-change operation.

I think this illustrates the difference between us perfectly Motley. *grins*

I want to get rid of my vagina-granted right to have ‘invisible triggers’ and ‘land mines’ and you are fascinated by having such power over others.

Personally I think the trade-off is too steep, meself. You absent yourself from learning self-control and how to take responsibility for your own negative emotions. (Of course the trade-offs are probably different for sociopaths.)

You know, the kind of mad skillz that allow a person to push an amazing idea in the face of incredible opposition or walk into a room full of people booing and hissing and tell them all a truth they need to hear?

The kind of mad skillz men apparently don’t want women to ever possess. *wink*

Sam February 3, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

Motley,

“Kidding aside: If you’re cutting women more slack than you’d cut another guy, that’s not treating them as equals. What you’ve described doesn’t sound like equal treatment. I’m under the impression that it’s as important to avoid treating women better than men as it is to avoid treating ‘em worse.”

That’s what’s so ingenious about feminist standpoint epistemology, isn’t it? The only way to have your cake (demand differential treatment), and eat it, too (calling it demanding equality) is the creation of an outside structure that requires differential treatment *in order* for equality to happen. Enter: privilege/oppression/patriarchy.

The ideal type (post-patriarchy) equality is always implied as a level playing field utopia, while in this world, attempting/creating equality is requiring differential treatment – “Lose your privilege, dude” ;).

The biggest problem with this is, of course, the epistemic privilege (hierarchy of perspectives) claimed on behalf of women in this respect, which largely means that not seeing “it” is an essential issue – as in “not being able to understand” due to a different perspective.

typhonblue February 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

The only way to have your cake (demand differential treatment), and eat it, too (calling it demanding equality) is the creation of an outside structure that requires differential treatment *in order* for equality to happen. Enter: privilege/oppression/patriarchy.

I see a problem.

If what’s actually oppressing women is their learned helplessness, this dynamic only feeds into it.

It becomes the perfect oppressive cycle, championed by the very people who are oppressed by it.

If feminists want to see the source of patriarchy, why women are failing to achieve, then this is it. Teaching women to blame men and hand over their responsibility. Excuse-making, responsibility depriving, damsel-in-distressing.

Feminists are welcome to it; I prefer liberation, thanks.

desipis February 3, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

Motley (the blockquotes were broken, but I think this came from you):

If I woke up tomorrow and wanted to have sex with men, I suspect I’d still be me. If I woke up tomorrow and thought I was a woman, I’m much less certain of that.

I think you’re understating the position transsexual people are in. Imagine if you work up tomorrow and your body was that of a woman but who you think you are hadn’t changed. Would you be happy with people treating you differently? Would you stop considering yourself a man?

desipis February 3, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

Clarisse:

Good luck for the trip :)

I mean, segregation has been pretty much determined to not be the answer with Blacks vs. Whites, right?

I don’t really see my position as analogous to segregation. Should “blacks” have a right to have a cultural gathering that excludes “whites”, even “whites” that grew up in or otherwise chose to identify with “black” culture? (Quotes used as any social/cultural groups could really be substituted in here).

mstrnatural February 4, 2010 at 12:19 am #

@typhonblue

You asked: “What do you mean when you say ‘male privileging’?

Í believe my full sentence was: “(because of the head start they got growing up as boys in a male-privileging culture)”

Meaning that it is the culture that bestows the privilege on boys – hence “male-privileging culture”. It should be noted that the boys themselves don’t go about asking for the privileges, like some kid in a candy store – they are just handed out. It’s only much later as the boys get older and more observant that they begin to see (or not) that they got something special that others may not have received.

So “male privilege” is essentially not having to live with a long check-list of the sort that Phaedra Starling describes in her blog entry, ‘Schrödinger’s Rapist’. When I enter a public space I don’t feel the need to be afraid of other men or women – that’s how I’m privileged. Just as being a white person means I have the privilege of not worrying that a cop will pull me over on the freeway for “driving while black” (i.e. racial profiling). Just like my “Anglo privilege” means that the authority figures in my world (doctors, lawyers, police, judges, teachers) and I will be speaking the same first language – and I don’t have to think about whether my accent will make me a second class citizen. [And none of those qualities would be considered a privilege if I were standing on a street corner in Nairobi, Kenya waiting for a matatu (jitney bus) - I would then be the "unprivileged" person in that scenario.]

@Motley

You state:
“Now, let’s look at the minefield analogy. Guy steps on invisible landmine in an invisible minefield, and he has to be “ready to do a lot of deep listening and not flinch when the blast goes off?
“So, to continue the analogy: When someone steps on an invisible landmine, the victim who stepped on the landmine is the one at fault, not the psychopath who mined the neighborhood?
…Fascinating.”

My problem with that is I don’t choose to consider myself a “victim” in this scenario, or to assign ‘fault’. To do so automatically puts me in a one-down position – and to some degree more powerless. I don’t choose to take that on. Secondly, if I choose to see myself as “victim” then somebody has to be a corresponding “perpetrator” which demeans them as well. So two people are disempowered – thanks no! That creates an automatic “lose-lose” scenario.

You state further: “Or is that only the case if the psychopath in question happens to be female, and the victim male? Darn.”

In my experience it is not the person who explodes who “mined the neighborhood” – it is someone or some situation in his or her past that is the source of all that pent-up energy. If I react with my own old shit, nothing gets resolved and more pain and frustration and resentment is likely to get piled on for both of us. But if, instead, I simply respond with respectful listening – and perhaps an apology for triggering something – then her/his story has a much better chance of coming out – and both of us can eventually acknowledge that “it wasn’t really me after all”.

You also add: “In which case – women aren’t at all responsible for controlling their own emotions? If a woman flips her lid, the nearest man needs to take responsibility?”

Again, I’m not taking responsibility for her/his emotions – I’m taking responsibility for my reactions to her/his outburst – but not letting it trigger any of my own old unfinished agendas, etc. I assume that she/he is responsible for her/his own actions. My job is simply to be there and be respectful. I don’t have to give advice or criticism or get angry back or condescending – I just have to be there and listen. And this is true no matter who it is – woman or man – when I trip an emotional trigger wire – the best thing I can do is invite clarification, without, in any way, being defensive or aggressive – and then listen respectfully. That’s mostly what people need to sort out whatever it is that is confusing or frustrating them – respectful listening. [And, I might add, that's what I would want and expect if the shoe were on the other foot and somebody had just done something that triggered a big emotional outburst from me - just respectful listening!]

Your next to last sentence: “Kidding aside: If you’re cutting women more slack than you’d cut another guy, that’s not treating them as equals. What you’ve described doesn’t sound like equal treatment.” First off – the tone of your response does not feel like you were ‘kidding’ – on the contrary you felt seriously invested in your judgments related to the mine-field scenario and a strong sense of urgency to make your point. And I believe you will have noticed that I don’t treat men and women differently in this regard: I’m an equal opportunity listener.

Sam February 4, 2010 at 1:41 am #

Mstrnatural,

So “male privilege” is essentially not having to live with a long check-list of the sort that Phaedra Starling describes in her blog entry, ‘Schrödinger’s Rapist’. When I enter a public space I don’t feel the need to be afraid of other men or women – that’s how I’m privileged.

[And none of those qualities would be considered a privilege if I were standing on a street corner in Nairobi, Kenya waiting for a matatu (jitney bus) - I would then be the "unprivileged" person in that scenario.]

So, putting those two parts together, doesn’t that tell you something about the conditional applicability of the first statement?

Didn’t we (in this thread) already talk about how there’s a different checklist for different people? How it’s difficult if not impossible to actually compare suffering in a meaningful way?

*Privilege* implies a higher degree of something compared to a reference point on cardinal scale.

It’s great to try to be aware of things you take for granted when interacting with people who cannot take these things for granted. But – as you say in your second sentence – the assigned privilege is mostly a matter of perspective.

Remember the example Clarisse mentioned above?

This makes me think of an anecdote that I think came from YMY (might have come from elsewhere, though) about a tall Black trans man who told one of his trans friends that he felt gaining male privilege to be almost completely disappeared/overruled by the cultural stereotype of large Black men as particularly masculinely threatening. In other words, he acknowledged that he gained useful male privilege by transitioning, but he felt like he lost a lot of control over his space and the way he was perceived just because he was seen as so much scarier.

See, I don’t like the term privilege – it assumes stuff about me. But you’ve read the thread – didn’t you get the impression that the assumed privilege of not having to be afraid of others means having to deal with the non-privilege of having to deal with the assumed fear of others?

How do you balance one thing with the other? What’s worse? Being afraid of being touched? Or being afraid to touch? Why does there have to be a hierarchy? Why can’t we just accept that each and everyone of us is not living independent of how the social reality reacts to him and her, and try to make it easier on each other?

Motley February 4, 2010 at 9:59 am #

typhoneblue -

Personally I think the trade-off is too steep, meself

Oh no no, there isn’t actually that tradeoff – as not everyone actually thinks the way mstrnatural describes. If everyone did, then there’d actually be that tradeoff. (And I’d have already gotten myself a sex-change, and, with the license granted by my new vagina, would be leaving a trail of ever-more-creatively dismembered bodies everywhere I went)

I think this illustrates the difference between us perfectly Motley. *grins*

In a word: Absolutely. :)

If feminists want to see the source of patriarchy, why women are failing to achieve, then this is it. Teaching women to blame men and hand over their responsibility. Excuse-making, responsibility depriving, damsel-in-distressing.

And Sam’s:

That’s what’s so ingenious about feminist standpoint epistemology, isn’t it? The only way to have your cake (demand differential treatment), and eat it, too (calling it demanding equality) is the creation of an outside structure that requires differential treatment *in order* for equality to happen. Enter: privilege/oppression/patriarchy.

Both quoted for truth. Equality also means losing one’s own privileges (which nobody ever seems to want to do). (Anyone who doesn’t think there’s such a thing as “female privilege” needs to think harder) The Oppression Olympics/males-have-privileges-and-females-do-not idea is a “grass is greener on the other side of the fence” argument. The idea that gender-oppression is something men do to women, and that men are solely responsible for stopping, is a chicken-and-egg argument.

desipis -

Motley (the blockquotes were broken, but I think this came from you):

…yeah. Apologies for the fail. The brains, they do not always work so good.

I think you’re understating the position transsexual people are in. Imagine if you work up tomorrow and your body was that of a woman but who you think you are hadn’t changed. Would you be happy with people treating you differently? Would you stop considering yourself a man?

This has been half of the point I’ve been trying to explain since the beginning. But I’ll try again:

I think of myself as a man. I think this because I was born with testicles.

If I woke up in a different body, thinking I was the same person, my idea of who I am would be demonstrably incorrect. Similarly, if I woke up thinking I was Julius Caesar, that would also be incorrect. Similarly, if I woke up in 88 BC, in Julius Caesar’s body, thinking I was Motley, that would also be demonstrably incorrect. So, in answer to your question, YES. I have a rule about believing things that are demonstrably incorrect. It’s what I use to resolve conflicts between belief and evidence. It’s a very simple rule. Can you guess what it is?

Everything you and Clarisse have said about this tangent (that I thought we were supposed to be dropping) is based on the presupposition that gender is more than the set of plumbing you’re born with. You can make that assumption, that’s fine. But if you’re demanding that I do the same, I would have to know the reasoning in support of accepting this premise.

mstrnatural -

My problem with that is I don’t choose to consider myself a “victim” in this scenario, or to assign ‘fault’. To do so automatically puts me in a one-down position – and to some degree more powerless. I don’t choose to take that on. Secondly, if I choose to see myself as “victim” then somebody has to be a corresponding “perpetrator” which demeans them as well. So two people are disempowered – thanks no! That creates an automatic “lose-lose” scenario.

…so remind me, next time a woman gets raped, to tell her that she’s just “choosing to see herself as ‘victim’” and that she’s “creating an automatic ‘lose-lose’ scenario…” What’s that you say? That’d be wildly inappropriate? Yes. Yes it would. Injustices actually happen. When they do, there’s usually a victim and a perpetrator, in the immediate sense; the victim is the victim because they are not because they choose to be. If you hit my invisible-hair-trigger, and I dump my lifetime’s worth of shit on you, then I have done something wrong. If I’m trying to coexist with humanity, then I have a responsibility to not have invisible hair triggers, just as I have a responsibility to refrain from littering my neighborhood with landmines. Your responsibility to avoid stepping on landmines does not exceed my responsibility to refrain from setting up minefields.

…on the contrary you felt seriously invested in your judgments related to the mine-field scenario and a strong sense of urgency to make your point.

LOL. Well, I guess one of us will have to take the other’s word for what’s going on in his own head. More seriously: No, “invested” is not what I am. What I’m doing is making fun of you a bit.

Sam -

How do you balance one thing with the other? What’s worse?

Oh, it’s easy. The grass is greener on the other side of the fence, of course! (Unless you’ve been indoctrinated by the people over there, in which case you believe that your own grass is greener)
(Incidentally, and ridiculously, my neighbor and I were just joking about this a few months ago: if you walk into the other guy’s yard, and look over the fence, your own grass actually does look greener. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised, but it still seems funny.)

mstrnatural February 4, 2010 at 10:19 am #

@Sam

You write: “Didn’t we (in this thread) already talk about how there’s a different checklist for different people? How it’s difficult if not impossible to actually compare suffering in a meaningful way?

*Privilege* implies a higher degree of something compared to a reference point on cardinal scale.”

Yes, indeed that’s what privilege means – but it is highly relative. Part of what was good about Phaedra Starling’s post was just how personal she made it. This makes it accessible. Ironically, the very personal nature of her writing allowed many other women to identify with it and want to send it on to friends. “Personal” means that it strikes a chord in us and allows us to empathize with her feelings – to try them on ourselves and imagine what it might feel like to be in her shoes.

By contrast (also ironically) classic feminist “epistemology” takes what is personal and emotionally accessible in an empathetic way – and objectifies it into a “one size fits all” principle about ‘sexism’ or ‘male privilege’. [And the cruel irony is that in so doing that classic epistemology strips a very personally moving story of all it's emotional vulnerability - it's now a universal precept to be debated and implemented - in ways that end up looking/sounding/feeling like something right out of a classical oppressive "patriarchal" system (to use the terminology of that epistemology)!

Which is one of the major strategic flaws of that old-style form of feminist ideology: it's acceptance of the idea that "you have to fight fire with fire" - meaning angry language and militant actions. [But the harsh similarities to the emotional energy of rape or the overseer's whip or the SS officer's sharp pointed boots - are obvious. It's every bit as oxymoronic as, say, the notion of 'killing for Peace"]

Strategically old-line feminism got pulled into that old notion that “the end justifies the means”. But the wisdom that becomes so obvious looking (at least) at the history of the last century is that you simply cannot pursue a good end by bad means – you cannot “scare” people into being unafraid of each other. The reality – a summation of the successes of various non-violent struggles for social change – is that the means and the end have to be totally consistent: the means is simply the end in process. Or “begin as you intend to proceed”.

You then comment:”See, I don’t like the term privilege – it assumes stuff about me.”

I don’t like the term ‘privilege’ either – especially once it has been depersonalized and stripped of the specifics that come to life in ‘Schroedinger’s Cat’. Once it is turned from a tool for stirring empathy (as Phaedra Starling does) to a club to threaten those who don’t ‘get it’ – then it is truly counter productive.

I don’t like it – but imperfect as it is, it’s out there and (as the numerous affirming comments to the Schroedinger piece clearly show) it has a potency that can’t be dismissed. So like it or not – I can’t just ignore it or make it go away. But I still have the choice to use it in ways that reframe it and pull it out of the realm of being a blunt instrument to beat up on the unenlightened (including lots of men) and more (as in Starling’s case) as a scalpel that might actually help some people to peel off their calluses from their feelings and establish some empathy.

And you add: “But you’ve read the thread – didn’t you get the impression that the assumed privilege of not having to be afraid of others means having to deal with the non-privilege of having to deal with the assumed fear of others?”

All accurate and true – except for one absolutely key point: the point about whether “having to deal with the assumed fear of others” is some kind of “non-privilege”.
In reality I can adopt any attitude about that task/challenge/calling that I choose. And for me I choose to take on – as part of my commitment to equality and social change – dealing with that fear of/in others. I can choose to see myself as privileged to take on that role.

And again I will emphasize this (and here I may end up sounding repetitive on this one): the act of just stopping in the midst of what could be a futile anger exchange or pissing match about who is or is not entitled to what – and simply encouraging the other person to continue telling their story – is truly revolutionary! In the process we suddenly find we are no longer spinning our wheels and together we start getting traction toward the goal of mutual respect and understanding.

And if the fact that my background allowed me to be less fearful in certain settings than one of my women friends (or gay, or African American, or immigrant, or working class, or etc. etc.) – then I will choose to use that privilege to open up a few doors to allow those friends to tell me more about their particular story. It’s still the simplest and most direct way of empowering others – and only asks of me that I listen with respect.

Motley February 4, 2010 at 10:48 am #

Note: I’m still kidding, here. I’m adding this line after writing the rest, so’s not to cause confusion.

All accurate and true – except for one absolutely key point: the point about whether “having to deal with the assumed fear of others” is some kind of “non-privilege”.

First: Ask a large black guy if having everyone be afraid of him just for his race and gender is a “non-privilege.” (I have a friend who’s a large black guy, and it’s almost comical how much more people are afraid of him than of me – even though I’m noticeably taller and a lot stronger, to say nothing of our personalities)

Seriously: A bad thing that happens to you purely because of your gender is not what we usually think of as a “privilege.” Is it a “privilege” that women sometimes don’t get taken seriously in meetings? (Yes, I’m poking fun at you for what seems to be the assumption that “privilege” is a thing that only men have, and that there’re no drawbacks to being a man)

In reality I can adopt any attitude about that task/challenge/calling that I choose. And for me I choose to take on – as part of my commitment to equality and social change – dealing with that fear of/in others. I can choose to see myself as privileged to take on that role.

Women who are afraid of men can adopt any attitude about that task/challenge/calling they want, too. Is that a privilege? Or are only men capable of choosing whether people’s preconceptions of them are a plus or a minus?
(That’s a weird superpower there, that my penis is apparently granting me. I think I’ll trade it for the whole “not responsible for own behavior” thing, though. Typhonblue, wanna trade? :)

typhonblue February 4, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

First off, thanks to Sam and Motley for embracing a philosophy that sees me as a reasonably sturdy human being and not a useless princess who can’t be trusted to even deal with her own emotional baggage. And thus simply _can’t_ be allowed to become a warrior in control of her own life.

(Although I still wouldn’t want to meet you in a dark alley, Motley. :P)

That’s a weird superpower there, that my penis is apparently granting me. I think I’ll trade it for the whole “not responsible for own behavior” thing, though. Typhonblue, wanna trade?

I know we disagree on the relative importance of being able to judge how others view you as a positive or negative* vs. not being responsible for your own behavior. But, truthfully, I would prefer your male privilege to my female privilege here.

And I’m really glad you’re respecting me enough to give me the option. Unlike some men.

mstrnatural:

And if the fact that my background allowed me to be less fearful in certain settings than one of my women friends (or gay, or African American, or immigrant, or working class, or etc. etc.) – then I will choose to use that privilege to open up a few doors to allow those friends to tell me more about their particular story.

Your background allowed you the option to care less about your own safety but I can assure you as a man that you are not more safe then me as a woman.

I’m now convinced based on the evidence I’ve gathered that the ‘fragile widdle bitty princwess’ myth that locks women into a state of fear and paralysis–thus providing a man a sense of purpose as her savior(I see what you did there, mstrnatural)–is a complete fabrication.

I know this is going to be terrifying and revolting for the average guy to read but I don’t think women are more vulnerable then men. I don’t think they’re more vulnerable to crime(in fact less), murder(in fact less) and I’m starting to believe they’re not more vulnerable to sexual assault(quite possibly less).

So how are you going to save me, mstrnatural? If it is actually _you_ who needs saving?**

*In this case I think I’ll just judge it a ‘I don’t give a shit.’
**Motley is exempt because he’s so scary. :P

Motley February 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

Hey look, I’m not actually scary in person (in that I work really hard at not seeming scary, and I’ve gotten quite good at it). And seriously, you’d be quite safe with me in a dark alley (barring serious physical aggression on your part, which I might – but probably still wouldn’t – take as a license).

…Though I admit you’re probably happier not knowing why I don’t indulge in random-alley-violence-against-women. :)

But this, this, is hilarious. I seriously choked on my drink when I read it.

First off, thanks to Sam and Motley for embracing a philosophy that sees me as a reasonably sturdy human being and not a useless princess who can’t be trusted to even deal with her own emotional baggage. And thus simply _can’t_ be allowed to become a warrior in control of her own life.

Sadly, I have to reluctantly decline the thanks. To clarify: I don’t actually embrace such a philosophy. I don’t actually think that women (as a category) are reasonably sturdy human beings who can be trusted to deal with their own emotional baggage. (For what it’s worth, I don’t think men are, either. My opinion of the general maturity level of the human race is not stellar.)

I was just attempting to (humorously) point out that it’s inconsistent to think that men are and that women aren’t while claiming to be pro-equality.

Similarly, I’d have to disagree on:

I know this is going to be terrifying and revolting for the average guy to read but I don’t think women are more vulnerable then men. I don’t think they’re more vulnerable to crime(in fact less), murder(in fact less) and I’m starting to believe they’re not more vulnerable to sexual assault(quite possibly less).

I mean, I’d say women are a lot more vulnerable to crime and violence, but, statistically speaking, less likely to encounter it. (Unless that’s what you meant by “vulnerable,” in which case, yeah.) In the same way that I’d say that I’m a lot more vulnerable to gunfire right now than my friend in Afghanistan right now, as I’m not wearing a helmet or body armor, and he presumably is. Even though he’s much more likely to actually pick up a bullet wound than I am.

And for what it’s worth, mstrnatural, I do kinda feel like we’re being a little unfair to you, largely because (for my part) I’ve been feeling playful lately and am thus pickin’ on you a bit. And because I disagree, fairly strongly, with what seems to be your conception of privilege.

mstrnatural February 4, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

@Motley

You write:”…so remind me, next time a woman gets raped, to tell her that she’s just “choosing to see herself as ‘victim’” and that she’s “creating an automatic ‘lose-lose’ scenario…”

I observed that it was my choice I was making, not to enter into identification with any “victim-perpetrator” view of the world [even though I fully accept Phaedra Starling's assertion that my apparent masculine appearance and demeanor would trigger some degree of "risk factor alert" for her should I get on to an otherwise un-occupied train car with her.] The power comes because I choose not to adopt an attitude of disempowerment. What and how a person responds who has just experienced a traumatic experience is their process.

Surviving traumatic experiences like rape, or bombings, or hurricanes, or earthquakes, or automobile accidents leave their wounds – and I believe it is entirely appropriate to figure out how those of us who have not been so wounded can offer appropriate support and care. But there are a wide range of reactions individuals can have to one of the above traumas. Some people go into shock and denial, others into prolonged rage and resentment, others just go numb and shut down. [Not surprisingly, which path people take - and how long they linger on that path, depends a lot on just how much outside support the recipients of such traumatic events receive, how quickly that support is present, and how well suited it is to actually ascertaining and meeting the real needs of the person who has been traumatized.]

But ultimately there is a surprisingly large percentage of the people who may initially follow one or all of the above paths – but who end up coming out the other side with an attitude of acceptance, adaptation, and a new sense of focus/mission in life because of it. And in that process they routinely report that they had to give up their feeling of having been a “victim” in order to find their new place of empowerment.

You go on: “What’s that you say? That’d be wildly inappropriate? Yes. Yes it would. Injustices actually happen. When they do, there’s usually a victim and a perpetrator, in the immediate sense; the victim is the victim because they are not because they choose to be.”

Of course things happen to us and others that are unfortunate and which come about not as a result of our choice(s). And here our language begins to get muddied – precisely the process that allow us to make some linguistic mis-steps in this realm of confusion. A number of the examples I listed illustrate this: we use the word “victim” to mean the person who experiences the unfortunate consequences of some traumatic event. But in most of the scenario’s above while there may be “victim’s” there are no perpetrators! [vis. earthquakes, hurricanes, or most auto accidents.]

Now someone who is hurt or experienced a great loss due to trauma may need to lash out at somebody or something as part of the natural process of grief and loss – but ultimately one cannot stay emotionally stuck in that place. We all have a need to move on and heal ourselves and make the most of our lives from that point forward. And that moment in our lives when we choose to do that becomes the point of transformation: at that point we may still passively accept the label of earthquake victim, or skiing accident victim, or rape victim – but internally we have made a transition and moved on. We no longer look at ourselves from that “victim” framework – and especially – we no longer seek to punish or blame or stigmatize or label anybody or anything else as the “perpetrator” or the cause.

You add: “If you hit my invisible-hair-trigger, and I dump my lifetime’s worth of shit on you, then I have done something wrong. If I’m trying to coexist with humanity, then I have a responsibility to not have invisible hair triggers, just as I have a responsibility to refrain from littering my neighborhood with landmines. Your responsibility to avoid stepping on landmines does not exceed my responsibility to refrain from setting up minefields.”

The glaring problem with this is that we do not set up our own mine fields. Mostly we are blind to them. They are usually the product of one or many frustrating or painful experiences from our past or family or origin or our struggles to survive and grow into our humanity and adulthood. They are stories we’ve never been able to tell to anyone (or felt free enough or safe enough to) and so they remain all wound up inside us like twisted rubber bands – or like landmines. Part of why they are so “explosive” is precisely because we had no control at the time of their installation nor during their subsequent repeated reinforcement.

All of us have our hair-triggers and “chips on our shoulders” which are just waiting for somebody to brush off so we can deck them. I don’t go about intentionally trying to set off anybody’s mine-field, but if, in the course of normal interactions I happen to do so – then I’ve learned that the most caring thing I can do is [typhonblue's words again:] “to simply allow people to have their opinions, observations, arguments without taking it personally, sort of let them flow over me without sticking”. That how I wish people to honor me – and that’s how I choose to honor others in their process.

mstrnatural February 4, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

@ typhonblue:

You say: Your background allowed you the option to care less about your own safety but I can assure you as a man that you are not more safe then me as a woman.

I’m now convinced based on the evidence I’ve gathered that the ‘fragile widdle bitty princwess’ myth that locks women into a state of fear and paralysis–thus providing a man a sense of purpose as her savior(I see what you did there, mstrnatural)–is a complete fabrication.

I know this is going to be terrifying and revolting for the average guy to read but I don’t think women are more vulnerable then men. I don’t think they’re more vulnerable to crime(in fact less), murder(in fact less) and I’m starting to believe they’re not more vulnerable to sexual assault(quite possibly less).

So how are you going to save me, mstrnatural? If it is actually _you_ who needs saving?**

To which I respond:

You go girl – you’re on a roll ! ;-)

[But you still don't really know any of my strengths or my vulnerabilities. But I wouldn't mind having somebody with your spirit as my ally if I ever find myself having to negotiate a dark alley!]

typhonblue February 4, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

Mstrnatural:

But you still don’t really know any of my strengths or my vulnerabilities.

And you don’t know any of mine.

Yet you assume I have more of one and less of another then you. Likely because you embrace a philosophy that I’m somehow more vulnerable then you by virtue of my gender.

Without even knowing a thing about me(aside from my gender), you’ve already decided that you’re less vulnerable then me.

I think that’s you exercising your male privilege over me.

A bit more on Motley’s land-mine analogy. Why is it that women can’t be careful of men’s vulnerabilities? Why is it that men are always the ones taking responsibility for women’s vulnerabilities?

Particularly when this process ‘taking responsibility’ is the process by which we learn to become masters(mistresses) of our own fate and not rely on others to do for us.

Sort of suspicious that just when women were about to experience true independence, men come snatch it back in an even more subtle way.

But I wouldn’t mind having somebody with your spirit as my ally if I ever find myself having to negotiate a dark alley!

I meant metaphorically, not literally.

I know there are some situations in which I am, due to my gender, the proverbial 800lb gorilla and some where men are.

For example, if I start crying it doesn’t matter how badly damaged and vulnerable any man in my immediate vicinity is, I will become priority one to most people nearby.

As for the ‘dark alley’ situation. Um… In general my suggestion would be to go around.

motley:

I mean, I’d say women are a lot more vulnerable to crime and violence, but, statistically speaking, less likely to encounter it.

The sister of my father’s Mexican wife was robbed by thieves who attempted to steal a necklace with a medal her father had won on it. She ran after them to try to retrieve the medal. Her husband ran after her.

Even though she was the aggressor in the situation, they beat up him and left her alone.

Murders, male and female, preferentially target men. Apparently so do other criminals. Quite likely rapists as well–at least rapists who only target men manage to victimize far, far more men then rapists who only target women. Do you know why? Because even though men are physically less vulnerable, they are far more socially vulnerable.

Attack a woman and her screams are a lot more likely to bring retribution down on your head. Attack a man and if he even thinks to scream(which he probably won’t) most people will justify their non-involvement by some variation of ‘eh, he can take care of himself’ with the added caveat, ‘and he if he can’t he’s not worth helping anyway.’

Incidentally, if physical strength was the dominant force in human society we’d all be ruled by bears.

BTW, I’m going to give you a decoder ring to understand some of what I’m up to. Like you, motley, I often have a decided love of fucking with people. I justify it with a song and dance about the ‘greater good.’

Sam February 4, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

Over at feministing.com, Courtney highlights a dailyshow segment that, inadvertendly, demonstrates what the problem is: Show weakness or care about these issues and you’re going to get ridiculed for it. I don’t really care about what the men in the segment actually say, the subtext is clear: men, suck up what bothers you, and don’t show weakness or you’re “vagina-man (who, very likely, won’t see any real v.).”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-3-2010/male-inequality

Btw, I do think that the meta-message (as opposed to the actual marketing) of the seduction community is about addressing exactly that last problem: understanding *performative* nature of parts of maskulinity and (generally) desired sexual assertiveness while being aware of the social context of it all (I’m pretty sure Judith Butler would be joyous about the constant distinction between “naturals” and “non-naturals” (emulated) behaviour).

Zoe Brain February 5, 2010 at 10:02 am #

I think of myself as a man. I think this because I was born with testicles.

Really? Is that the only reason? Was that a conscious decision on your part?

Does that mean that only people born with testes – I assume 2 – can ever be men?

Do you consider all people born without testes to be women, or is there another option?

For example – see this CNN story:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/

Those men were not born with testes – not detectable ones anyway. They’ll need an operation to externalise them into their newly formed scrotal sacs.

Or have a look at this article -
http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html

Sometimes no such operation is needed.

makomk February 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

Clarisse: the reason why it might be a good idea for any discussions of masculinity to be male-only is because otherwise there’s a risk it’d become about what the women present think mens’ experiences are.

There’s this odd idea within wider society that women have a better idea of how men really think, what they experience, and what they need than men. (For example, that’s probably why the Daily Show segment Sam mentioned is hosted by Samantha Bee.) This is especially true within feminism, where the women involved are used to being in this position of power.

Have you seen the complaints when a poster on somewhere like Feministing fails in understanding male culture, says something obviously flawed, and this is pointed out by the male regulars? Lots of accusations of WATMing and derailing, even though the discussion was about men in the first place. (I think the last couple of examples I saw revolved around failing to grasp the culture of male-on-male violence.)

Then there’s the nasty male expectation of self-sacrifice. No prizes for guessing where this fits into our “patriarchal” culture, which is why it has to go. Unfortunately, an awful lot of common feminist handling of masculinity and men actively exploits this rather than fixing it. (I suspect this is also a big reason why MRAs and father’s rights groups are ineffective, possibly even more important than their misogyny. They look like weak-willed whingers, not strong self-sacrificers.)

typhonblue February 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

So only men get to self-sacrifice?

Where does that leave women who’d like to do some self-sacrifice? ;)

Motley February 5, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

@typhonblue -

So only men get to self-sacrifice?

I didn’t get the impression that women are forbidden from being self-sacrificing – just that men are pretty much forced to be.

I’d say women still get credit for being self-sacrificing, but that they don’t lose credit if they’re not; men lose a lot of social cred if they fail to seem properly self-sacrificing, but don’t necessarily get rewarded for being so. Which side’s actually coming out ahead in the Oppression Olympics, there, I’d call a toss-up.

Incidentally, if physical strength was the dominant force in human society we’d all be ruled by bears.

Hey, bears are awesome. I’m for it. Though also because I’d much prefer to have my rank determined by my physical strength than by whatever else (this would be the case for most of my family, I’d imagine).

Murders, male and female, preferentially target men.

So you’re including probability as a factor in vulnerability, right? (i.e., a soldier in a warzone is more vulnerable to bullets than an unarmored civilian in a safe neighborhood). I usually don’t factor in probability, hence the confusion.

As for the ‘dark alley’ situation. Um… In general my suggestion would be to go around.

…I think I’ve lost the thread of what the “dark alley” situation was about (or that I never got what we were talking about – I was taking it literally). What was the metaphor?

Without even knowing a thing about me(aside from my gender), you’ve already decided that you’re less vulnerable then me.
I think that’s you exercising your male privilege over me.

Well, just knowing your gender, I can surmise that you’re more physically vulnerable than me… is that exercising a privilege? (I would’ve described it as exercising a knowledge of statistics, but that presupposes a certain definition of “vulnerable” which I suspect isn’t the one you’re using)

@mstrnatural -

The glaring problem with this is that we do not set up our own mine fields.

True, but as far as I can tell, we do lovingly* tend them, deliberately* pretend not to know about ‘em, willfully* fail to warn others about ‘em, and then gleefully blame other people when they step on a mine. I think everyone has a certain obligation to deal with their own shit. If your emotional space is a minefield, if you’ve got invisible hair-triggers, then you’ve failed in that obligation.

They are usually the product of one or many frustrating or painful experiences from our past or family or origin or our struggles to survive and grow into our humanity and adulthood.

Yeah. You don’t get to pick what happens to you, but you do get to pick how you react. If you choose to react by having an emotional minefield in your head, and to stumble blindly along through life, eagerly* waiting for an excuse – ahem, trigger – to dump your shit on some innocent bystander, then that’s the choice you made. And it’s an unethical choice.

*People who aren’t eager to dump their shit on innocent bystanders do not have invisible hair-triggers.

The people who can’t be bothered to keep from dumping their mental shit on your psyche? They’re not different from the people who can’t be bothered to keep from dumping their literal shit in your living room.
Screw those people. They’re not worth the time it would take to fix ‘em.
You’re not obligated to let people try to shit on your carpet, and you’re not obligated to let people try to shit on your brain (I mean, you can if you want to, but don’t expect me to).
(Hmm. Today is apparently Foulmouthed Friday. Again.)

typhonblue February 5, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

I’d say women still get credit for being self-sacrificing, but that they don’t lose credit if they’re not; men lose a lot of social cred if they fail to seem properly self-sacrificing, but don’t necessarily get rewarded for being so.

Not being held up to any standard doesn’t allow much personal growth. Of course if someone can hack setting their own standards then I suppose it allows for even more growth.

I’ve noticed the average human being doesn’t necessarily work that way–setting their own standards. However I also think a lot of women hunger for some standard of behavior they can feel proud of attaining, they’re just lost in a morass of people(men) constantly depriving them of the consequences of their actions.

So you’re including probability as a factor in vulnerability, right? (i.e., a soldier in a warzone is more vulnerable to bullets than an unarmored civilian in a safe neighborhood). I usually don’t factor in probability, hence the confusion.

I’m using victim-selection as a factor in vulnerability. Criminals preferentially select male victims because male victims are socially vulnerable; people don’t care as much about them thus, in the long run, criminals can maximize their criminality by targeting them.

…I think I’ve lost the thread of what the “dark alley” situation was about (or that I never got what we were talking about – I was taking it literally). What was the metaphor?

Um… I don’t know anymore.

Well, just knowing your gender, I can surmise that you’re more physically vulnerable than me… is that exercising a privilege? (I would’ve described it as exercising a knowledge of statistics, but that presupposes a certain definition of “vulnerable” which I suspect isn’t the one you’re using)

More physically vulnerable does not mean more vulnerable overall. Which is what I’m trying to get at.

For example, if I laid out a minefield of invisible triggers and then blew up at you in a public place when you tripped one, I think I’d be more able to get away with it(even if it involved physical violence on my part), then if you did.

In the first situation people might even be cheering my abusive behavior on. Whereas in the reverse situation we’d have people jumping in to ‘protect’ me from you.

Motley February 5, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

Not being held up to any standard doesn’t allow much personal growth.

Yep; that’s why I’d describe that situation as “negative social dynamic” than as “men being oppressed.”

However I also think a lot of women hunger for some standard of behavior they can feel proud of attaining, they’re just lost in a morass of people(men) constantly depriving them of the consequences of their actions.

Something that occurred to me a day or two ago (by “occurred” I may mean “read somewhere and then forgot about;” I don’t know) is the idea that:
Non-accomplished women are valued by society solely for their female-ness;
An accomplished* man is valued by society solely for his accomplishments (We’ll call this “treated like an actual human being”)
An accomplished woman is valued partly according to her femaleness, and partly according to her accomplishments (even powerful women get sexist mistreatment)
Non-accomplished men are not valued.

*I’m here defining “wealthy” as being synonymous with “accomplished,” as society often conflates the two.

This is my pet theory for the day regarding feminism/gender issues (by which I mean I think I can explain everything using this theory. Either that or I’m awake past my bedtime).

For example, if I laid out a minefield of invisible triggers and then blew up at you in a public place when you tripped one, I think I’d be more able to get away with it(even if it involved physical violence on my part), then if you did.
In the first situation people might even be cheering my abusive behavior on. Whereas in the reverse situation we’d have people jumping in to ‘protect’ me from you.

Yeah, absolutely (I mean, I really don’t think Tiger Woods would’ve gotten cheered if his wife had been the one cheating, and he’d beaten her with a golf club**).

And in your example, honestly, if a woman flipped out and physically attacked me in public, completely spontaneously, I’d be pretty damn afraid of doing anything that might even look like defending myself, as that would have a non-trivial chance of getting me lynched or something.

(**Disclaimer: As I luckily managed to avoid most of the coverage, I might have the particulars of the Tiger Woods scandal wildly incorrect. I revel in my blissful relative ignorance, and regret knowing what little I do know.)

Clarisse Thorn February 6, 2010 at 7:50 am #

Safely touched down! Jetlagged as hell and therefore up at 6.30 AM! Hitting the dungeon tonight! What an amazing place I have happened upon.

I am sorry because I wish I could do all the new comments justice, and I totally won’t. I’m mining a lot of good stuff for my presentation, though.

@mstrnatural — While I think the discussion of privilege that people are having with you is an interesting one, I agree with you that it’s ultimately a red herring, and I really admire the way you have stated some things such as:

I don’t like the term ‘privilege’ either – especially once it has been depersonalized and stripped of the specifics that come to life in ‘Schroedinger’s Cat’. Once it is turned from a tool for stirring empathy (as Phaedra Starling does) to a club to threaten those who don’t ‘get it’ – then it is truly counter productive. I don’t like it – but imperfect as it is, it’s out there and (as the numerous affirming comments to the Schroedinger piece clearly show) it has a potency that can’t be dismissed. So like it or not – I can’t just ignore it or make it go away. But I still have the choice to use it in ways that reframe it and pull it out of the realm of being a blunt instrument to beat up on the unenlightened (including lots of men) and more (as in Starling’s case) as a scalpel that might actually help some people to peel off their calluses from their feelings and establish some empathy.

I also like the way you put this:

The glaring problem with this is that we do not set up our own mine fields. Mostly we are blind to them. … Part of why they are so “explosive” is precisely because we had no control at the time of their installation nor during their subsequent repeated reinforcement.

I have a trans activist friend who recently got incredibly mad at me when I triggered hir with something I wrote — ze told me that I had fucked up majorly, it was personal as well as political, that I have a responsibility to educate myself, etc etc. I took it for a while as best I could, but when ze told me that ze would be angry at me until further notice and didn’t feel we could have a normal relationship for a while, I had to admit that this course made me feel angry and hurt. But I tried to be as gentle about it as possible … I was like, “When have I ever failed to listen to you? How have I failed you, now, in this conversation, since my original fuckup? How can you call yourself my friend and refuse to read me charitably?” I think things are getting back to normal with us now, though I’m not 100% sure.

It gets to me, too, that people will sometimes insist that there is no responsibility whatsoever for a trigger-bearer to pay attention to their own feelings and be open-minded about what others actually mean rather than assuming they’re attackers. But I totally agree with you that there is a more important responsibility on those who trip triggers to be open-hearted and kind and to listen when it happens.

@makomk — There’s this odd idea within wider society that women have a better idea of how men really think, what they experience, and what they need than men. (For example, that’s probably why the Daily Show segment Sam mentioned is hosted by Samantha Bee.) This is especially true within feminism, where the women involved are used to being in this position of power.

I agree, and yeah, it bugs me too. On another post, machina said this: “If there’s one thing that annoys me about feminism (and there’s not, there’s way more, just you wait) it’s the idea that women understand men and masculinity because they live in a world where men are so visible. It’s like reading Cosmopolitan and thinking you understand women.”

The only part that I disagree about is that feminists are the only ones who do this — I think that women in general do it, as makomk said. In fact, I would argue that feminists are less likely to do it because we’re more likely to be thinking critically about gender experience in the first place. But this isn’t an important distinction — the point is that I agree this tendency exists, and it sucks.

In re self-sacrifice, Motley said: I’d say women still get credit for being self-sacrificing, but that they don’t lose credit if they’re not; men lose a lot of social cred if they fail to seem properly self-sacrificing, but don’t necessarily get rewarded for being so. Which side’s actually coming out ahead in the Oppression Olympics, there, I’d call a toss-up.

I disagree — I think women do lose credit if we aren’t self-sacrificing in a large number of contexts. Long-term romantic relationships come to mind, at least in my opinion; I think we’re expected/allowed to be assertive at the outset, but in the long-term there is a lot of social pressure for women to adapt to a man’s career path / etc. I am sure people might disagree with me on that example, and people will also be quick to point out that men are expected to romantically sacrifice too, so here’s a more clear-cut case: motherhood. Women who don’t make some pretty big sacrifices for motherhood are viewed as very suspicious, irresponsible, etc.

I remember one woman who applied to a housing co-op where I used to live. She was about my age, and had a daughter, whom she was leaving with her mother for a while during a vacation. My housemates were really negative about this. “How can she leave her daughter for so long?!” etc. If this woman had been a man, it would not have been a big deal (in fact we had one single male housemate for a while who didn’t see his kid that much, in fact we never actually met his kid, and no one had a problem with this).

@typhonblue — However I also think a lot of women hunger for some standard of behavior they can feel proud of attaining, they’re just lost in a morass of people(men) constantly depriving them of the consequences of their actions.

This is interesting when I think about it in the context of female service submissives. I am not a service submissive myself (fuck that — I want to be held down and tortured, dammit). But on the other hand, female service submissives are usually told to do kitchen things, etc etc while male service submissives have (I think) a more interesting range of typical orders to obey. I wonder if I’d be more interested in service submission if male doms were less likely to give me orders that have to do with baking or washing dishes or displaying my body, and more likely to give orders about fighting or accomplishing something interesting in the professional world.

Clarisse Thorn February 6, 2010 at 7:57 am #

Oh my God the Internet is so fast here. Was I accustomed to this once? Damn.

Clarisse February 6, 2010 at 9:46 am #

P.S. Please note comment #512 by Zoe Brain, recently approved.

Zoe Brain February 6, 2010 at 10:20 am #

Thanks, Clarisse.

For what it’s worth… while 99%+ of such transitions go from F to M due to 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3)… there are a few, extremely rare, conditions that can cause things to go the other way. From M to F.

While such people provide fascinating case studies for psychologists, it is worthwhile remembering that they are human beings, rather than laboratory animals. Unfortunately, they tend to be treated as the latter by many researchers, who are so caught up in their interest in the subject that they forget this.

Both theologians and experts in gender studies prefer to ignore their existence, as their personal narratives contradict so much of what is the accepted wisdom in those areas.

About a third are unalterably male, another third unalterably female, and the final third are “bigendered” and able to adapt to such changes. This suits no-one.

The degree of change varies between individuals too. From a slight masculinisation of an already somewhat masculine form, all the way through to an apparent “natural sex change”. But the degree of change has no bearing on sex identity (usually called “gender identity” for historical reasons).

Motley February 6, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

Congrats on making it here. (It’s off-topic, but I’m curious how formerly-familiar things look after, what, a year away? Everything like you remember it, or do things look different?)

Re: mstrnatural’s

The glaring problem with this is that we do not set up our own mine fields.

My counter-argument is basically: It’s your minefield. Own it.

I have a trans activist friend who recently got incredibly mad at me when I triggered hir with something I wrote…

Wow. If that’s how said person treats their “friends”… why is it that someone would want to be included in that category? Certainly people who treat me that way don’t get counted as my friends, they get counted as obnoxious assholes. If someone’s got no regard for your feelings, what obligates you to care about theirs?

In fact, I would argue that feminists are less likely to do it because we’re more likely to be thinking critically about gender experience in the first place.

I would argue that in theory that it would seem like feminists would be less likely to do this, but that in practice this hasn’t been the case. I mean, I don’t know any feminists who don’t think that they know more about men than I do about women. (Which, incidentally, has invariably been incorrect, for obvious reasons – I started from an assumption of knowing nothing about women, and worked to learn more; people who start from an assumption of already knowing everything about a topic are going to remain ignorant forever.)

Hi, Zoe Brain.

Really? Is that the only reason? Was that a conscious decision on your part?
Does that mean that only people born with testes – I assume 2 – can ever be men?

While such people provide fascinating case studies for psychologists, it is worthwhile remembering that they are human beings, rather than laboratory animals. Unfortunately, they tend to be treated as the latter by many researchers, who are so caught up in their interest in the subject that they forget this.

In defense of said researchers, though, that’s not unique to said cases. Researchers tend to see all test subjects as test subjects first, anything else second. It’s their job; much like the way in which lawyers tend to see parties in a dispute as “components of a logic puzzle” first, and people second. “What you are” and “what you are to me” isn’t ever going to be the same thing.

Do you consider all people born without testes to be women, or is there another option?

Yes, no, no.
Quite possibly.
Obviously there are more options.

Motley February 6, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

Hmm, I seem to be screwing up blockquotes a lot lately.

machina February 6, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

Clarisse, hope you have a nice vacation back home.

The only part that I disagree about is that feminists are the only ones who do this — I think that women in general do it, as makomk said. In fact, I would argue that feminists are less likely to do it because we’re more likely to be thinking critically about gender experience in the first place. But this isn’t an important distinction — the point is that I agree this tendency exists, and it sucks.

Oh I don’t think feminists are the only ones who do this. I think the critical thinking is often limited to looking for systems of oppression and how individuals can be freed from that though.

mstrnatural February 6, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

@ typhonblue

[Mstrnatural to typhonblue: "But you still don’t really know any of my strengths or my vulnerabilities."]

You state: And you don’t know any of mine.

Yet you assume I have more of one and less of another then you. Likely because you embrace a philosophy that I’m somehow more vulnerable then you by virtue of my gender.

Without even knowing a thing about me(aside from my gender), you’ve already decided that you’re less vulnerable then me.

To which I reply: And without even knowing a thing about me (aside from my gender) you have already decided that I think all women are more vulnerable than me – which, ironically, is not an attitude that I have ever had much interest in embracing – it has never offered benefit and usually gotten in the way when others assumed it.

As a man I grew up understanding – based on media stereotypes – that I was “supposed” to get excited about being in the presence of a (stereotypical), mythical ‘fragile widdle bitty pwincess’ – perhaps wetting my pants in anticipation of how masculine I was supposed to feel when I get to “take care of her” [OK - have I painted at least a vaguely accurate picture of the stereotype you envision?]
- but I never – even as a kid – found that stereotype especially interesting or attractive – when what I really was more attracted to was a strong, “geeky”, out doors type woman friend with whom I could be myself – both strong and playful but also vulnerable and sensitive. So, while I think I understand your stereotype (because it’s out there in our culture – especially in the mass media), you need to know that there are men who don’t buy it and who have felt just as resentful as you of its existence and the pressure applied on us to try to get us to conform to it!

You add: “I think that’s you exercising your male privilege over me.”

In my discussion of “male privilege” I own that there are ways that I was raised (as a white, Anglo, first-born, cis,het, male child) that meant I simply did not have to deal with lots of obstacles that might keep me from trying out my wings in all sorts of ways in my life – and getting plenty of pats on the back from adults around me for my efforts. I also didn’t experience any of the physical and sexual threats of the sort that Phaedra Starling lists [well mostly - I was a short kid on the playground and I got bullied and called a sissy sometimes by bigger older guys} - but mostly, I was free from many of the fears that are routinely experienced by women, or people of color, or people whose gender identity is non-normative, or people with physical disabilities. (Oh, yes, among my other privileges is my status as a TAB!)

So my big privilege is my freedom from the FEAR of being vulnerable (and not whether I actually, as a member of a privileged group [fill in the blanks from some or all of the above categories], I am any less or more vulnerable than anybody else.)

[Sooner or later, if/when we choose to exercise that freedom - we are likely to get "roughed up" by our life experiences as a result - and we all become a bit more fearful and cautious. But growing up without a huge load of fear is a big plus, no doubt about it.]

But acting in ways that illustrate my relative freedom from fear (i.e. acting out of my “privilege”) is NOT in any way having power or “privilege OVER” you or anybody else. That’s a huge area of confusion. A member of some other group that had to deal with a lot more scary situations and attitudes directed at them growing up – might well look at my “charmed” childhood with resentment or envy – for the relative freedom I have to act without first looking over my shoulder (to see if anybody sinister or suspicious is watching). But my freedom to act need not – in any way – detract from your, or anybody elses’, right or ability to act similarly.

So it’s very important to differentiate these two ideas: Yes I may have had some privileges (freedom from fear) compared with you – but those do NOT equate to my having any POWER OVER you. Very essential distinction. Your power (even if you are more scared when choosing to exercise it) is not dependent on my ability to act without having to feel as scared as you might feel in the same situation.

@motley

Re: mstrnatural’s comment: “The glaring problem with this is that we do not set up our own mine fields.”

You replied: “My counter-argument is basically: It’s your minefield. Own it.”

and

re: Clarisse’s comment: “I have a trans activist friend who recently got incredibly mad at me when I triggered hir with something I wrote…”

And you replied: “Wow. If that’s how said person treats their “friends”… why is it that someone would want to be included in that category? Certainly people who treat me that way don’t get counted as my friends, they get counted as obnoxious assholes. If someone’s got no regard for your feelings, what obligates you to care about theirs?”

I actually quite agree that people who are carrying around minefields [which is most of us] need to own them. But despite your assertions to the contrary – most people really ARE blind to them. So what does it serve to blow them off as “obnoxious assholes”? Getting pissy back at them isn’t a great next step toward getting them to take responsibility for their mine-fields (especially when they interpret our pissi-ness as coming directly from our mine-fields – and they would, no doubt, be right!)

So how would you feel if somebody asked you “why do you always have a sarcastic remark up your sleeve for every occasion?” [Just a hypothetical, of course!] Most of us just bristle at comments like that and just repeat more militantly all of our rationalizations and explanations for why we act like we do. (“I’m in a bad mood!” “It’s Monday, Jesus Christ!” “How would you feel if….”, etc.) – but the real story would require a lot more willingness to be really vulnerable to get down to it – and it would take time to unravel. Most of us don’t get that kind of attention (and probably never did).

But if you do want to be seen as powerful (and exceptional) and sought out as a friend (/lover?) – just make a point of taking a deep breath and just letting go of that old reflexive counter-attack mode – and just show genuine surprise (should be no big problem there) and interest/curiosity. (And then take the next step and ask yourself just what would need to shift within yourself to actually believe that you could be/are interested. That’s the first steps. Then it gets easier and more intuitive from there.

Zoe Brain February 7, 2010 at 11:09 am #

Hi Motley! (waves)

I’m a researcher in this area myself, and have been pulled up a few times (with justification I might add) for committing this particular sin.

My natural inclination is to think that if I were in their position, I’d jump at the chance to further human knowledge, and would check my dignity at the door. Being a “LabRat” is a proud and noble existence, an opportunity to contribute above and beyond what most people are granted, in addition to being able to contribute as a human being.

Others differ though, and I should respect that.

Lest I be accused of being a hypocrite, that if I *were* in that situation, I’d think differently… I *am* in that situation. Technically speaking, I’m a protandrous dichogamous pseudohermaphrodite, though I prefer the term “woman with an unusual medical history”, or just plain “woman” for short. I have one of the “few, extremely rare, conditions that can cause things to go the other way. From M to F.”

As such, I may be able to contribute something to the question of gender. More on that anon.

First though, I’d like to talk a bit about sex identity (or gender identity as it’s usually referred to, inaccurately).

The best theory we have on the subject is Milton Diamond’s Biased Interaction theory. That we determine, usually unconsciously, which sex we are by comparing ourselves with others.

Take a newborn child, put them on a desert island, and they would grow up not having a gender identity as such. But as soon as they meet other people, a gender identity would start to crystallise.

Before then, they would show some degree of what we call “typically gendered behaviour” anyway, based on biases inherent in their neuro-anatomy. Male and Female brains are different, just how different we’re only now coming to understand as the result of autopsies and MRI scans. As Prof Sidney Ecker wrote to me:
“We showed how Transgender Brains think, smell, and hear like the opposite sex.”

Yes, there are sexually-dependant differences in thought modes, emotional responses, even sense of hearing and smell. These are measurable on objective tests.

Transsexual (what Sid mis-names “transgendered”) people have cross-sexed neuro-anatomy.

That indicates that it’s not presence (or absence) of testes that’s important. I mean, I knew I was a girl at 10 years old, even though I had testes. It’s not appearance either nor how you dress. I looked very male, and dressed as such. It’s not even what we call “gendered behaviour”, though some of that is a consequence. I was always a Tomboy, I wanted to be an Astronaut or Fighter Pilot like Destiny Angel on “Thunderbirds”, not a model or beautician. I liked toy cars – even if my favourite was Lady Penelope’s pink Rolls Royce.

The thing is more subtle and elusive. Do you see boys as puerile, their competitive pecking-order stuff terribly immature? Did you cry when Bambi’s mother died? Do you feel protective about children, and desperately want to have them? Things like that.

Now not all women have all those characteristics, and not all men lack them. There’s considerable overlap. There may not actually be a 100% stereotypical man or 100% stereotypical woman on the entire planet. But just as men tend to be taller than women (though some men are shorter than most women, and some women taller than most men), the sexes are differentiated neurologically too, and to the same extent. Enough to make two distinct populations, but not enough so that people shouldn’t be treated in every respect on their own merits.

Getting on to gender… when I thought I was permanently condemned to “doing the boy act”, pretending to be male because there was no way on Earth I’d ever look female, I tried to be the best Man I could be. I didn’t realise it at the time, but it’s obvious in retrospect I tried to be in all respects the kind of guy I wanted to marry and have as the father of my children.

Think Sir Galahad – that comes close. Brave, Kind, Courteous.. also Expendable, the “Birkenhead Drill” and all that.

One of the most manly sayings I know is the theme of Sir Winston S Churchill’s work, History of WW II:
“In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity: in peace, goodwill”.

Yes, old-fashioned, corny, but it’s me. Because I soon came to the conclusion that a gal could do a lot worse than attempt to follow that adage herself. Guys may be the traditional owners of that turf, but they don’t have a monopoly on it.

The rest of the masculine stuff, the strutting, the bravado, the macho BS, the gynophobic chauvinism – I discarded as not just valueless, but something I was unable to attempt anyway. I could only carry the “boy act” so far.

I didn’t see the value of the suave Casanova bits either – that’s because my metabolism was screwed up, I was asexual. Now that things have in the main righted themselves – or been coerced into it by hormones and removal of misbehaving glands in the areas that were still wonky – I can see the value of a firm, muscular set of arms, a hairy chest, fresh male sweat…. Oooh yeah!

It’s all just neural wiring (sometimes re-wiring from hormones), neurotransmitters and pheremones.. but having a libido certainly puts a spice in life.

It came as a shock to find out I wasn’t lesbian though, I’ll admit that. I still don’t understand guys, despite being a “spy in the enemy camp” until puberty hit. At age 47… so you’d think I would have done it by then.

typhonblue February 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

Yes I may have had some privileges (freedom from fear) compared with you – but those do NOT equate to my having any POWER OVER you.

Are you telepathic? How in goodness’ sake do you know that you have the privilege of ‘freedom from fear’ over me?

I’m saying you are demonstrating privilege by consistently insisting you know my personal experience without knowing a single thing about me other then my gender. So you are invulnerable due to your gender, in your world view, and I am vulnerable due to my gender.

If you can’t see where my gender can have the effect of making me more powerful then you, you either lack imagination or experience.

For example, this entire exchange has illustrated your need to _justify your philosophy to me_ to either convince me you haven’t stepped on one of my ‘landmines’ or try to defuse it even as I become increasingly irrational about accusing you of being a big ol’ meanie. A big crass ogre who just doesn’t measure up to the kind, sensitive, respectful standard that a guy like, oh, Motley embodies. ;)

Why do you have that need? Why not say ‘well, lady, I don’t know you from adam and these are my beliefs and they’re justified because they’re _mine_.’ Could it be because, *gasp!* I’m a woman and you’re a man? And for some reason in your world view my (female)opinion of you counts for more then even your own?

Actually, I’m going to take a stab on why it counts for more. Because you don’t want to see yourself as one of ‘those guys who hurts the ladies’. That means I can make you dance to any tune I set with a crocodile tear.

You, even with all your muscles, are like a speck wafted by whims of women like me. We define you. We decide where you stand. No greater power in a social species.

Unfortunately the dark side for us women is that by getting all these white knights to slay our little dragons(cause they don’t want to be ‘that guy’), means we face the really big ol’ fire-breathing bastard all on our own and with not a shred of experience.

In the end, we only have ourselves.

Sam February 7, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

Clarisse,

in addition to what I’ve said in #477, last night got me thinking about this quote again -

I think this is one thing that routinely gets to me about sex/gender discussions. It’s really creepy to read people who bitch because they think that working hard to gain consent makes it harder for them to get laid. I mean, if consent were actually a priority for them, they would be glad to be challenged on their ideas about how to gain it — or at the very least, they would argue that they are already getting consent (via a standardized social framework) and that’s what’s important. But no, too often the arguments around consent and sexual assault are framed as “But if I spend so much time trying to get my partner’s consent, I’ll never have sex!” And that is just immensely fucked up.

Again, I think that you’re basically right about that frame. But consider this example -

Last night, a friend, N, called late and I went to a bar to meet him. He was already way beyond the point where he was able to drive when I arrived, so I basically decided to make sure he wouldn’t, which would essentially mean staying with him until he was ready to go home. He was drunk, and horny and needy last night, which is about the least attractive state to be in for everyone, and certainly the least attractive state to be in to meet women, particularly if you’re not just out there to be pitied.

Still, N wanted to hop from one bar/club to the next, until we eventually came to a place where we met a girl whom we had met a couple of months ago, A.. A. was also drunk and rather evidently looking for entertainment, probably with something physical in mind… When I had first/last met her, in October last year, we had a flirtatious chat about female erogenous zones. She remembered every word I had told her, and was visibly excited to meet me again.

N was also very excited to meet A. again, since she was his best shot at anything last night and she was quite cool and outgoing. So A. steered the conversation towards what was apparently on her mind: First topic, kissing, second: breasts. She complained about hers not being sufficiently large, very likely fishing for compliments. At that point, my friend suddenly put his left arm around her shoulder and his hand slowly crawled down from her left shoulder until he finally touched her left breast. She didn’t even look a bit surprised – actually she didn’t seem to care at all, one way or the other. He started whispering something into her ear and kept slowly massaging her breast, she smiled, but only a bit. After a little chat and picture taking (she kissed my on the cheek for the picture N took of us), N leaned in and attempted to kiss her. And it worked. They started making out for a bit. A. then left for the toilet, handing me, not him, her bottle of beer, which was probably saying either “do something, I’d rather do this with you” or “duh, dude, look what you just lost due to inaction, now you gotta hold my beer instead.”

I talked to my friend telling him that I was stunned about that last move, that I thought that was, well, borderline, possibly across the border. He didn’t quite get what I was talking about…

She came back and they continued to make out and didn’t stop until A.’s friend, E., came back from the dance floor wanting to leave and attempting to make A. go with her. I didn’t mind that idea at all, I wanted to drive N. home and go to bed.

So I was standing there, talking to E., while A. and N. were making out right in front of us. Eventually E. talked into my friend N.’s ear, and then told me this: “I just told him, we’re leaving in a minute, so it’s time for him to make a decisive move. She’ll either reject that clearly and she comes home with me or she’ll go home with him.” I replied – “Seriously? You’d expect him to do something to force her to say no? Because, at that point, I’d expect her to know what she wants and say yes.”

E. looked at me like a deer in the headlights and said dryly: “Seriously? But no woman ever does that! I wouldn’t do that, ever!” I said “Some do. I know that for sure…”, but I knew she had a point. Still, E. was apparently so fascinated by my statement that she told A. – but in a way all of us could hear – “he thinks *you* should say ‘yes’ if you want to go home with him…”

It was the point at which A. decided to leave with E.. Five minutes later, N and I finally called it a night.

“But if I spend so much time trying to get my partner’s consent, I’ll never have sex!” – is not just a defense pulled out of thin air, it’s also, apparently more often than not, the female expectation of male behaviour – a gender role quite literally. And it’s one that requires an inversely structured role to function. This probably isn’t something new, it’s just a story I thought I should tell with respect to this thread.

Sam February 7, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

Zoe Brain,

thanks for your interesting comments. As I mentioned above, I think transsexuals have a very special insight into the things we’re talking about here.

I’m pretty sure I’ll come up with questions, but at this point, I’d just like to say thanks for giving your point of view.

typhonblue February 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

mstrnatural,

It pretty much boils down to this.

By recognizing what you believe to be are my vulnerabilities(as a woman) you take responsibility for them as a man. In a sense you cast yourself as my ‘white knight’, even if you think you are protecting me from _you_. Or protecting me from those ‘bad men’–a role that various groups of men have played throughout history, such as black men.

At the same time you seem to deny the possibility that men can be vulnerable to women, thus that women have any responsibilities towards men. (Or at least, not vulnerabilities equal to or greater then those of women towards men.)

In terms of granting responsibilities(which are the key to personal growth and self-reliance, btw), you have cast me as a second class citizen to yourself.

I’m sure you have lots of justifications for this behavior. A lot of men do.

Zoe Brain February 7, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

Hi Sam

Technically, I’m not TS – but I hang out with them so as not to stand out too much.

Biologically speaking, they’re comparatively normal.

You know you’ve got an interesting life when you can say that – and it’s true.

I won’t go into how women are treated in a Patriarchal society. Suffice to say that all that Feminist stuff is 100% true, and more besides. I know that guys don’t believe it, but that’s because guys who have even heard of it or consider it aren’t the major offenders. Nor do they associate with them.

Not all men are pigs, not even most; but there are enough Grade A porkers out there who get away with it because other guys don’t pull them up for it.

As one of my G/Fs put it : “You’re the only woman I know who hit the glass ceiling from above… SPLAT!”

I’m as pretty as a picture – one by Hieronymus Bosch though. Like many Intersexed people, I don’t have “body issues”, I have a lifetime subscription. Yet even I get hit on, sometimes quite crudely.

I’m amazed at the power women have, solely due to the fact that guys have a sex drive that’s more a compulsion than a desire. It’s something like us having the keys to a restroom, when they have their back teeth swimming.

I’m still learning there – 51 going on 17. I may be biologically female (well, more F than M), and psychologically female, but I’m still learning the ropes. I was never socialised as female.

Nor as male – people with female neurology see the world through female eyes, they can never experience a boyhood, just a distorted girlhood. But I digress.

Guys *do* have it tough in many ways. Airlines think nothing of seating me next to a child – but they won’t seat a man there. It’s grossly unfair how guys are treated as if they’re guilty until proven innocent. Especially when it comes to child custody cases. If I commit a crime, I know I’ll likely receive a lesser sentence than a guy would.

Things are out of whack in other ways too. A woman can slap a man – but if he hits back, he disgraces himself. Of course, every now and then, a woman who does that will end up being not slapped, but used as a punching bag and ending up in the ER – or the morgue. Trouble is, so do women who don’t do that.

The first thing I learnt from my G/Fs is fear. To avoid walking home after dark. To avoid being alone after dark, or in a strange place. To never leave a drink unattended. I became prey.

The second thing they taught me was how to get around some of the bullying I’d get in the course of my job. Not there, the firm was really good about things like that, but from clients. How to take being talked over, ignored, my ideas dismissed and contributions discounted.

The CEO told me that the most striking thing about my fast-forward puberty was not the physical changes, but the mental ones. How I’d gone from being forthright and unafraid, to being quiet and a bit shy. I grew out of that, but the hormonal shifts changed me, not always in ways I wanted.

Hormones have a far greater effect than most realise. Yes, I know, PMT etc, but also Testosterone. It’s a very powerful mind-altering drug. The effect is particularly noticeable on FtoM guys – they’ve not had years of practice handling it. They were always boys, but have to learn things like shaving – and coping with “blue balls” even though all they have are silicon implants. Their sex drive explodes, as does their physical strength, and they really should be babied the first few weeks. Any woman who sees what it can do has a lot of respect for T.

As I said, I hang out with TS people.

Clarisse February 7, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

Interesting stuff — sometime I’ll pick apart Sam’s story — but I only have time to drop off and cross-post the comment I just left on Toysoldier’s blog:

@Toysoldier –

FYI:

I pushed for the UChicago group to open up the masculinity event to everyone, so they did. Here’s the info:

SEX-POSITIVITY FOR ALL! INCLUDING THE MENS!
Thursday, February 11, 7-9 PM
University of Chicago, 5710 S Woodlawn Meeting Room

What is masculinity or male advocacy as a movement, and how is it in dialogue with contemporary feminism? Can it be incorporated into feminism, or can the values of the sex-positive feminist community speak to its concerns? What does positive, productive talk about masculinity sound like? Feminist, pro-BDSM activist Clarisse Thorn — currently on vacation from working in Africa — will discuss the above questions in a short lecturette and then facilitate small discussions on kinky male sexuality, men in the pickup artist community, and men who buy sex. This event is generously hosted by University of Chicago student group The Feminist Majority.

Obviously, you are welcome to come, and if you do then I’d like to shake your hand. HOWEVER, I am asking you — PLEASE — keep in mind that this event is being done for a feminist group, and that they framed it around feminism (the questions at the beginning of my description are from them; I didn’t make them up). Given that, I am BEGGING you to try to be polite (rather than “blunt” “apathetic” and “cold”) so that they are not discouraged from making events like this open to the public in the future.

Sam February 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

Hey Zoe,

I like your sarcastic humour (Hieronymus Bosch)… whatever you say about his paintings, they certainly aren’t boring, and that’s usually quite something.

I think there is an interesting contradiction – as I see it – in these two statements of yours in the last comment.

“Suffice to say that all that Feminist stuff is 100% true, and more besides.”

I’m amazed at the power women have, solely due to the fact that guys have a sex drive that’s more a compulsion than a desire.

“Hormones have a far greater effect than most realise.”

I don’t know what “all that feminist stuff” is for you – and I think it’s not advisable to have yet another epistemological debate about the merits of standpoint epistemology as applied by feminism, but I’d say that two main prescription of feminism are that men don’t have a compulsive sex drive and that hormones don’t have a lot of influence compared to socialisation/patriarchy. So how do you put those two statements together?

As for testosterone – I think a lot of women know what it can do, they just don’t attribute it correctly. I’m not entirely sure about this, but apparently alcohol doesn’t merely help out with GABA, but also leads to a testosterone spike, which, according to some paper I’ve once read, but can’t reproduce now, is apparently making very drunk women “think like guys”…

Sam February 7, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

Clarisse,

“sometime I’ll pick apart Sam’s story”

Please do, it’s not one that made me happy, I think you know that.

Toysoldier February 7, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

Unfortunately, I am quite uncomfortable around large groups of feminists given my childhood experiences, and given the topics I think it would remind me too much of my aunt and her friends. It is probably for the best considering that my experiences would not provide any useful or meaningful insight. Thank you, however, for the offer.

mstrnatural February 7, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

@ Typhonblue

You state: “mstrnatural, It pretty much boils down to this. By recognizing what you believe to be are my vulnerabilities(as a woman) you take responsibility for them as a man.”

My reply: What I see is you once again ignoring completely what I have been saying and instead responding to a two dimensional straw man entirely of your own creation !

Despite the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out that I have personally made no statements about your vulnerability either as a person [since I've noted also repeatedly that I don't yet know you, and so out of personal (not gender) courtesy I would simply not make statements about anybody about whom I have no personal knowledge] -nor have I or would I be inclined to make such judgments about you as a woman!

Yet you continue – without presenting any concrete evidence – to attempt to put words into my mouth and thoughts and motives into my head – so that you can attack me and play this game.

I have never said that I believe that your are vulnerable “as a woman” or that I take any responsibility for yours or anybody’s vulnerability. Yet you continue with every post to steamroller forward in this discussion ignoring my words and stories completely. You insist on putting me into your ideological boxes – despite lots of examples I give to the contrary that indicate it is very inappropriate for you to do so.

Again you [Typhonblue] state: “In a sense you cast yourself as my ‘white knight’, even if you think you are protecting me from _you_.”

And again I have to keep reminding you: I don’t and never have cast myself in any such role as anybody’s “White Knight” or anybody’s protector – but you refuse to acknowledge my words and come right back to the same baseless assertions/accusations about me. [And I have also stated that I DO understand that "damsel in distress" and the "White Knight" are archetypal gender role stereotypes that exist in the larger culture. But there are plenty of women and men who have never stepped into either of those stereotypes - and never wanted to - and I have tried to offer multiple examples to demonstrate that I have the capacity to be one of those many men who do not and have not bought into those rather two dimensional pseudo-identities - and offer the personal stories to back it up. Yet repeatedly you absolutely refuse to hear my point or acknowledge my stories as evidence, and you return yet again to the same sweeping generalizations that you make about me which are based ONLY on my gender and race!

And then you add: "Or protecting me from those ‘bad men’–a role that various groups of men have played throughout history, such as black men."

Now I don't know what your racial background is - I didn't get any sense of that in reading through all the comments on Clarisse's blog before I chose to join the discussion - so you are "race-unspecified" as yet for me: But if I were a black man reading your statement I would likely see your sentence as a pretty blatant example of racial stereotyping on your part. Again this stereotyping is springing full blown out of your own mind - it is based on nothing that I have said or anything that you know I have done. Your assumptions seem to be based solely on the fact that I have said I am white and male. [You know nothing about my relationships with people of color or how long I've had them or how deep my communication might be with my friends and colleagues of color. You know nothing of my personal story in that regard - yet you accuse me of trying to protect you from "bad men" and go on to equate that with "Black Men". How dare you make such ungrounded - and frankly classically racist appearing - assumptions about me without any evidence what so ever!]

And then you pile it even higher: “At the same time you seem to deny the possibility that men can be vulnerable to women, thus that women have any responsibilities towards men. (Or at least, not vulnerabilities equal to or greater then those of women towards men.)”

That statement flies in the face of repeated examples I have related where I have talked about my own vulnerabilities with women – and with other men – and pointed out that I believe that we all need to be taking responsibility for our own behavior in life situations; and that my taking charge of my own life and interactions with others [men and women], does nothing to deprive those others of doing the same: the taking of responsibility is not an ‘either/or’ situation – it is not a zero sum game. The more of us who act like adults – the easier time we will all have of reaching satisfactory solutions.

Yet again you offer another sweeping falsehood about me: “In terms of granting responsibilities (which are the key to personal growth and self-reliance, btw), you have cast me as a second class citizen to yourself.”

There is nothing I have said or alluded to that would suggest directly or indirectly that I have cast you or anybody into the second class citizenship role – that assertion is either fantasy or obsession on your part – but it is clearly a consequence of your unwillingness to take my words and gentle reminders at face value. If you had looked at what I have been saying repeatedly – you simply could not continue making such baseless and biased statements!

Perhaps you are doing all this just for the fun of trying to “pull my string” – or perhaps you are so wedded to your ideological stereotype that white men simply cannot treat women or people of color with respect and as equals – that you simply refuse to look at any realities that might contradict that stereotype – and thus you have gone into full scale obsessive denial. But either way you are being personally abusive!

I don’t presume to tell Zoe Brian that she is wrong in hir assessment of the mindset of MtoF persons or her assessment of the power of hormones, or that her perspective on now being a woman who was never socialized as one – is somehow not valid, or that the unique understanding she has of men – having been in close proximity to males growing up – but now not being one of them, etc.is also somehow not valid. No, not to take her at her words would be personally insulting.

I don’t presume to tell Clarisse that she is wrong about her insights into the BDSM community. As a much more vanilla-sex person I just automatically assume that most of the information I’ve gotten over the years is stereotyped and basically not to be trusted – and I welcome the perspectives of an insider who is willing to share her perspectives.

So why then do you continue to make these sweeping presumptions about how I think and about the stereotypical attitudes that am accused of having about women in general – and about you in particular – when I have repeatedly stated that those presumptions simply are not true?

Some sort of explanation is in order, Typhonblue, for your continued blatant abuse of my right to speak for myself in this discussion group and the right to explain my own motivations as a man without you feeling that your ideological assumptions about me get to trump my own stories – an explanation of your abuse is definitely in order and preferably an apology is in order as well.

typhonblue February 8, 2010 at 12:51 am #

Some sort of explanation is in order, Typhonblue, for your continued blatant abuse of my right to speak for myself in this discussion group and the right to explain my own motivations as a man without you feeling that your ideological assumptions about me get to trump my own stories – an explanation of your abuse is definitely in order and preferably an apology is in order as well.

Okay. I’ll apologize.

As long as you never assume that you are less vulnerable because you are a man then a woman is because she is a woman. Even if you point out specific vulnerabilities you’ve felt due to being a man, you’re still judging, based on gender, that I am more vulnerable then you.

When you say things like ‘I’ve lived a life free of fear compared to women’ you are assuming just that. This is what I object to. That you’ve decided for me that my experience of fear outweighs yours*. That situates you in a more powerful, protective position.

If you really do own all the ways women have made you feel vulnerable as a man, then how can you dismiss MRA’s views out of hand? Maybe they are responding to the very vulnerabilities you, yourself, have felt?

* Probably does, but for different reasons then my gender.

Motley February 8, 2010 at 8:40 am #

So how would you feel if somebody asked you “why do you always have a sarcastic remark up your sleeve for every occasion?” [Just a hypothetical, of course!] Most of us just bristle at comments like that

In my experience, most of us wouldn’t bristle at that. I think most people actually have the maturity to handle criticism and mockery. I’m certainly not interested in being friends with someone who doesn’t.

But if you do want to be seen as powerful (and exceptional) and sought out as a friend (/lover?) – just make a point of taking a deep breath and just letting go of that old reflexive counter-attack mode…

I think you mean “But if you do want to be seen as powerful and exceptional and be sought out as a friend/lover by immature jackasses…

That’s my point. I actively wish I was less attractive to people who are looking for a “friend” (by which we mean “unpaid therapist”). The friends I already have, already deserve more time than I can spare for them. I have less than zero interest in acquiring “friends” who are walking minefields, and even less in acquiring “friends” who think it’s okay to be walking minefields. If they can’t be bothered to deal with their issues, than neither can I. (Being unaware of your own issues is no excuse.)

And no, “counter-attack mode” is not the appropriate response. It might have been the default one, when I was maybe fifteen, but I’m not any more. Barring peculiar circumstances, my response is more likely to be something along the lines of saying “Tell me how you really feel” in my usual deadpan, and then going back to whatever I was doing, having made a mental note to exclude the person* involved from the rest of my life, to whatever extent is convenient.

(*I’m here using the term to include “walking minefields who for some reason think that I am obligated to be their unpaid, always-on-call therapist.” I have an even harder time than usual considering that sort of creature a “person.”)

I wonder if this might be an age issue; fifteen years ago, I was no doubt much more forgiving of my friends being messy balls of angst-ridden confusion. Now, not so much; I expect all my friends (and anyone aspiring to that designation) to be adults (And here I do not include “people” of the aforementioned description under the term “adult”).

My natural inclination is to think that if I were in their position, I’d jump at the chance to further human knowledge, and would check my dignity at the door. Being a “LabRat” is a proud and noble existence, an opportunity to contribute above and beyond what most people are granted, in addition to being able to contribute as a human being.

Yeah, I’m with you there. On both counts, actually; I’ve been in the “Labrat” spot more than once, for a variety of reasons (Whenever one of my friends is writing a paper on abnormal psychology, I’m one of the go-to research subjects; biological research, less often, but still now and then).

Male and Female brains are different, just how different we’re only now coming to understand as the result of autopsies and MRI scans.

Yeah, I have a pet theory in that regard, that I heard from a (somewhat inebriated) neuroscience guy a few years back. As with all similar pet theories, I think I can explain every behavioral difference between men and women using that theory. I’ve probably mentioned it upthread.

@typhonblue -
In mstrnatural’s defense, this quote from Zoe Brain:

The first thing I learnt from my G/Fs is fear. To avoid walking home after dark. To avoid being alone after dark, or in a strange place. To never leave a drink unattended. I became prey.

While I would never leave a drink unattended either, that’s beside the point. True or not, it is the common perception that women live with more fear than men do. I don’t think operating under that assumption is actually mstrnatural exercising male privilege, I think it’s taking the popular consensus as a given. (Though admittedly I’m not caught up enough on feminist theory to know if that’s the same thing or not)

A big crass ogre who just doesn’t measure up to the kind, sensitive, respectful standard that a guy like, oh, Motley embodies. ;)

Heh. Funny on numerous levels. Amusingly enough, “big ogre” is not a terribly inaccurate physical description of me, to be honest. Also amusingly, I snorted a bit of tea up my nose when I read that. That’s twice now for this thread (at least it was water the first time). Not least because “kind, sensitive, and respectful” is how quite a few casual acquaintances would probably describe me (Which is one of the dividing factors between “friend” and “casual acquaintance”). And because I sometimes have to remember to say “he” or “she” instead of “it.”

back to mstrnatural:

Perhaps you are doing all this just for the fun of trying to “pull my string” – or perhaps you are so wedded to your ideological stereotype that white men simply cannot treat women or people of color with respect and as equals

Five dollars on option A, with a side order of “But is also making a point.”
(Hmm, written before reading TB’s 12:51 am. My guess is unchanged, though.)

Zoe Brain February 8, 2010 at 8:43 am #

Sam -
“I’d say that two main prescription of feminism are that men don’t have a compulsive sex drive and that hormones don’t have a lot of influence”

I wouldn’t.

They’re views held by some feminists. Other feminists think that people like me should be exterminated (literally). But in general… no, feminism has nothing to say about that.

The branches that do have something to say face the same problem as bible literalists: they may take it as an article of faith that the Earth is Flat, but there’s rather a lot of evidence against that proposition, which then casts doubt on the rest of their beliefs.

“That Feminist Stuff” in my view means the generalised and unconscious oppression of women by a Patriarchy. Now I’m not saying that anyone’s at fault here. Men are privileged in many ways that they don’t think about, and aren’t aware of.

But so am I. For example, I have two legs. I am sighted. So are the majority. But unless I think about the issue, I don’t realise just how marginalised those with disabilities are. I can immediately think of some areas, but things like the ADA should take care of those – so I tell myself. In fact, there’s a whole host of other issues where I’m privileged and don’t know it – many areas where things should be changed so I’m not so advantaged.

It’s not my “fault” I was born sighted: nor should I have to apologise for the privilege that gives me. But I should listen to disabled people, recognise my privilege, and do something about it so that they are privileged too.

The comparison with Feminism should be obvious.

Getting onto cases… most commercial organisations are highly hierarchical and competitive internally. That works very well with the male psyche, unless taken too far. When it is, you get the japanese sarariman, dead at 50 from a heart attack after working 80 hour weeks all his life.

Few firms offer paid daycare. Few offer part-time work. Those that do only promote full-time workers.

For an organisation to be female-friendly, it needs to provide daycare, and part-time work. Two people, each part-timing for 30 hours a week, can be more productive than one stakhanovite doing 70. They don’t even have to be in the same place: by having people all around the world in different time zones, 4 women each working 6 hrs a day can do one job 24/7. Vs the traditional “my life is my job” man, competing in a dog-eat-dog fashion, doing at most 18 hours a day. And those 4 will cost less.

I know as a woman, with exactly the same CV, qualifications, experience, and work history, that I will be offered a smaller salary than if I was male. I know, I *was* legally male (and still am in some jurisdictions… but that’s another story…)

Because due to my unusual position, I’ve conducted that experiment. Usually it’s a 30% cut, though often it’s 50%.

I work in a very specialised area. There’s little demand – but when they want you, they really, really want you. A guy gets offered $300 an hour. I get offered $100.

It’s not universal – I’m doing a PhD fulltime at the moment, and I’ve noticed zero difference in the way I’m treated within academe, from before and after.In industry though, oh yes.

I may have to go back in – living on $20,000 a year (that’s about $16,000 US) before tax, and having some elderly relatives to support, isn’t easy. Subsistence scholarships are exactly that – just enough so you don’t qualify for food stamps, medicare etc.

At least with my PhD, I should get double that, between the rare bouts of lucrative expert witness and consultancy work. A week of that can literally double my annual pay.

Sam February 8, 2010 at 10:45 am #

ZoeBrain,

“But in general… no, feminism has nothing to say about that.”

yeah, well, we do seem to have a different perception of feminism, or the feminist mainstream. To me, Simone de Beauvoir’s statement about not being born a woman but becoming one by acculturaion/ socialisation is, I think, still one of the most important fundamental axioms of people identifying as feminist. And it’s not rare at all, in my book. Just pick any thread on a mainstream third-wave site like feministing, and mention that you think “hormones are important” and “testosteron” should be taken seriously as a behaviorally modifying agent…

As for the disability comparison – I think there’s a lot of problems with framing these things. Above, MrNatural and I are having a similar discussion about privilege. I think that the subtext of “privilege” is “unfairly acquired invidual advantage that could/should/has to be be taken away for justice to happen.” So, as much as I agree that it’s very valuable to be aware of the fact that other people are a lot worse off, I don’t think the term privilege is a useful one.

As for companies, sure, there has been a gender based division of labour since the dawn of the ages based on physical (and possibly, psychological) differences between men and women. There probably was a economic advantage to such a structure, that only recently, starting with industrialisation, seems to have lost its economic rationale. Corporate structures are changing, requirements are changing – the current economic crisis is a prime example thereof. More men are losing their jobs than women are – the fabric of society is changing without the need to invoke “oppression”. Things happen, that no one would have ever believed could happen in such circumstances: nytimes.com/2010/01/24/fashion/24marriage.html?pagewanted=1

So basically, I don’t disagree that some social institutions are biased, paricularly informal institutions. I also think that feminism has done a lot of good in speeding up changes in those areas. But I wouldn’t call that “all the feminist stuff” – and in my opinion, given the pseudo-marxist intellectual origins of feminism, most feminists are still more fascinated by “social design” in the realm of sexual politics than by lobbying to have paid daycare. I’m lobbying for paid daycare, I’m lobbying for a different work-life balance structure, I don’t like corporate hierarchies, I prefer loose networks, and I don’t think that makes me feminist.

Good luck with that consulting job!

mstrnatural February 8, 2010 at 11:11 am #

@ Typhonblue

You state: “Okay. I’ll apologize.”

Thank you. Apology accepted. [I'd much rather have you as an ally and be able to see you as a person - than use you (or feel I'm being used) as a foil for some head-bashing debate of abstract ideas.]

You continue: “As long as you never assume that you are less vulnerable because you are a man then a woman is because she is a woman. Even if you point out specific vulnerabilities you’ve felt due to being a man, you’re still judging, based on gender, that I am more vulnerable then you.”

I hope I don’t make those assumptions. I’ll also ask you again to be careful with the generalizations here. I have only the information about you to go on that I’ve gleaned from this discussion group. It doesn’t begin to offer enough information for any comparisons between us – so I choose not to make any. Please accept my words: I am not making any judgments about comparative vulnerabilities – I would find it a fruitless and counter productive assumption. I just don’t go their.

You add: “When you say things like ‘I’ve lived a life free of fear compared to women’ you are assuming just that. This is what I object to. That you’ve decided for me that my experience of fear outweighs yours*. That situates you in a more powerful, protective position.”

Yes, I can be clearer here. Let me rephrase this: “Many women acquaintances have made a point of telling me that ‘I have lived a life that was relatively free from fear compared to theirs’ and I take those repeated comments into consideration when I relate my story to others (including other women).” The assumptions I have shared about women vs. men are ones passed on to me from other women. (e.g. the Schroedinger’s Rapist blog entry) I have had enough women say things like that to me, that I think it useful to let people know that I am aware of these common claims. Clearly these women don’t speak for you and you have a right to be heard and your differing view of yourself as a woman accepted – which I do accept, Typhonblue.

You add: “If you really do own all the ways women have made you feel vulnerable as a man, then how can you dismiss MRA’s views out of hand? Maybe they are responding to the very vulnerabilities you, yourself, have felt?”

You make a good point here. Actually (referring to my comments in an earlier posting), while I was stating that I did not strongly identify with the MRA viewpoint – I was not saying that men in those groups didn’t have legitimate gripes. They indeed do and I’m sure that I could go to a Men’s Rights meeting and find some affinity with lots of the men on some of their issues – and would be able to sense their pain and respond supportively in that context. But as a strategic direction mostly they are too confrontive and caught up in adversarial politics to be very effective.

(You added a foot note on vulnerability) “* Probably does, but for different reasons then my gender.”

Thanks for owning the personal side. In the end, that’s where the most meaningful encounters occur – when we get past the generalizations and start looking at the exceptions (which is most of us).

—————————-
Online discussions have lots of pitfalls. I’m a veteran of lots of contentious posting controversies and have had to intervene and moderate more than a few. We don’t get to see or experience any of the normal clues we are trained to pick up on in real face to face encounters: tones of voice, breathing patterns, facial expressions, speaking cadences, body postures, etc. Our awareness of all of these in our day-to-day personal interactions, tends to make us automatically more sensitive and empathetic to one another – and thus a lot more civil. Online we have a tendency to pick out a few key words that trigger some inspired diatribe and then launch right into it without really looking deeper to see what the other person really intended.

When I decided to read through all of the previous postings on Clarisse’s blog before offering one of my own – it was as part of my personal discipline of taking the time and making the effort to get to know you a little as persons and not simply as available adversaries in some debate. Thanks (in advance as well) for taking the time to read one another’s postings and taking the further time to actually try to understand where others are coming from. That attention to the details pays off in more mutual respect all around.

typhonblue February 8, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

mstrnatural;

The assumptions I have shared about women vs. men are ones passed on to me from other women. (e.g. the Schroedinger’s Rapist blog entry) I have had enough women say things like that to me, that I think it useful to let people know that I am aware of these common claims.

I wonder if these assumptions are less a reflection of reality and more of their own biases. A lot of women think they own sexual victimization when they don’t.

In my own experience–for some reason men open up about their vulnerabilities to me a lot–a significant number of men I know have experienced exploitative sexual behavior on the part of women.

Men won’t talk about this stuff with women they don’t trust which probably includes any woman who believes sexual vulnerability is a female thing. A self-perpetuating bias if you will.

The statistics I posted earlier–2.1% of college age men experiencing forced vaginal sex vs. 1.6% of women–at least confirm my own experience. Men are sexually vulnerable to women.

They just don’t express it. I find that image darkly amusing. A woman saying ‘women need to educate men about rape’ to a man who may have been raped every day of his young life and then raped in adult encounters by people he is supposed to be able to trust. Pomposity, indeed.

Also, I can easily imagine that kind of arrogant blindness may have triggered many a suicide attempt or mental breakdown or worse. And I can totally understand why certain men would run in terror from people who embrace an ideology of exclusive female victimhood.

Motley February 8, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

@Zoe Brain -

Out of curiosity, who is this “Patriarchy?” (From the capitalization, it looks like you’ve got something specific in mind).

But so am I. For example, I have two legs. I am sighted. So are the majority. But unless I think about the issue, I don’t realise just how marginalised those with disabilities are. I can immediately think of some areas, but things like the ADA should take care of those – so I tell myself. In fact, there’s a whole host of other issues where I’m privileged and don’t know it – many areas where things should be changed so I’m not so advantaged.

I notice nothing gender-related is mentioned. Are you of the belief that being female carries zero advantages?
(Though I’m wondering if, due to the timing of the transition, if you missed most of the benefits that women get, as I think they’re largely “front-loaded” time-wise. I speculate that it’s more advantageous to be a woman for the first half, and a man for the second half of life.)

Few firms offer paid daycare. Few offer part-time work. Those that do only promote full-time workers.

I’m not so sure what you’re saying here. Do you remember being offered these concessions as a man? I don’t think men get these things, either.

(It occurs to me that it’s unfair not to mention in advance: If you say “Well men don’t need or want these things,” I’ll pitch a fit ;)

And now, to poke fun a bit:

Anyone else notice how “All that feminist stuff is 100% true” quickly becomes “Well, some feminist stuff is true” which quickly becomes “This one particular and abstract part of feminism is true” when the specifics of mainstream feminism are inquired about?

Not picking on you, ZB, (particularly as I’m assuming in advance that you won’t have a problem defining “Patriarchy” or oppression), it’s a pattern I see often:
Person A: I agree with everything feminism says.
Person B: How ’bout that part (“that part” being a common theme that one can find on the front page of every mainstream feminist site)?
A: Not that part.
B: Or that other part?
A: Not that other part either.
B: What about this part?
A: Not that part either.
B: …then what parts did you mean?
A: (either) This one particular item you’ve never heard of, (or) This one part of the extremely vague theoretical underpinnings, which I will refuse to clarify.

I think I’ve seen that conversation maybe a hundred times. Oddly, it never stops being funny. (I’ve seen identical political discussions on a variety of other topics. Most recently, someone espousing 100% loyalty to the GOP’s platform. And then claiming not to have meant tax cuts, or deregulation, or war, or theocracy, or immigration things, or… and then saying finally “Well, I’m for tort reform.”

mstrnatural February 8, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

@typhonblue
You noted my comment:

“The assumptions I have shared about women vs. men are ones passed on to me from other women. (e.g. the Schroedinger’s Rapist blog entry) I have had enough women say things like that to me, that I think it useful to let people know that I am aware of these common claims.”

And you added: “I wonder if these assumptions are less a reflection of reality and more of their own biases. A lot of women think they own sexual victimization when they don’t.”

My comment: Or they rely on hearsay from other women. And if support and “sisterhood” is important to their sense of self – they will start to accept the prevailing ethos (women as victims) and shape their stories accordingly – reframing earlier experiences in light of the newly embraced value system. [This sort of dynamic happens whether the woman is embracing ultra-orthodox feminism, or conservative religious fundamentalism, or hard-line Oprah worship. And the same process effects men as well (the Rush Limbaugh/ Glenn Beck groupies, the fraternity pledge's self-demeaning subordination, the new convert to radical Marxist analysis, or the army recruit fresh out of basic training.)]

You comment: “In my own experience–for some reason men open up about their vulnerabilities to me a lot–a significant number of men I know have experienced exploitative sexual behavior on the part of women.”

Guy culture is probably changing – but men still don’t have as many opportunities to share emotional vulnerability as much with other men as it appears likely that women do. Men being vulnerable with one another is still seen as borderline “sissy” and men who do show feelings can easily be targeted for put-downs. It’s less confusing and safer for men to talk with women – especially someone who is open and appears to have her shit together. On the other hand (precisely because of having to first overcome that stereotype) when men feel supported by other men – it feels like a bigger deal to them and may have a longer lasting impact.

You comment: “Men won’t talk about this stuff with women they don’t trust which probably includes any woman who believes sexual vulnerability is a female thing. A self-perpetuating bias if you will.”

In your previous quote your add men open up to you “for some reason..” Could this be the reason: that these men sense that you won’t throw them to the wolves if they talk about how women have hurt them?

You note: “The statistics I posted earlier–2.1% of college age men experiencing forced vaginal sex vs. 1.6% of women–at least confirm my own experience. Men are sexually vulnerable to women.”

Does that number distinguish between men being pushed into sex by the women they are with – or simply feeling pressured to have intercourse even though they weren’t ready? There is a lot of pressure on guys by other guys to show that they can perform (and “brag” about it later – or act like they are bragging anyway) – even to the point of young men being pushed by their male peers to loose their virginity with a prostitute or as an accomplice in a drunken frat-house gang bang. Those numbers you quote beg more detailed breakdowns.

You state: “They just don’t express it. I find that image darkly amusing. A woman saying ‘women need to educate men about rape’ to a man who may have been raped every day of his young life and then raped in adult encounters by people he is supposed to be able to trust. Pomposity, indeed.”

“Also, I can easily imagine that kind of arrogant blindness may have triggered many a suicide attempt or mental breakdown or worse. And I can totally understand why certain men would run in terror from people who embrace an ideology of exclusive female victimhood.”

The notion of exclusive victimhood of any kind [gender identification, economic status, race, age, etc.] is appealingly simplistic – but reality never is simple in those ways.

typhonblue February 8, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

mstrnatural,

Just to expand a bit on the whole vulnerability thing.

Women in our society seem to have locked up the vulnerability discussion. Society has decided that women are more vulnerable then men. (Without really looking at men’s side of the equation, btw.)

This means women set the social agenda when it comes to vulnerability. This is justified through various stabs at social science (DV, rape, etc.) Up thread Clarisse quoted someone as saying(paraphrased) ‘why don’t we just help people who are victimized, regardless of gender and stop pointing fingers at who does what more?’ Great idea except… a lot of people are invested in female victimhood. From feminists to tough-on-crime politicians to conservatives. These people want women to be bigger victims then men.

I think they’re selling women a bill of goods, meself.

This is why.

In mythology there’s generally a point where the hero comes upon her shadow self and names it, thus unlocking her true potential. By seeing only female victimhood, our society denies women the opportunity to see their shadow self and become whole and true heroes in their own lives.

MRAs, despite their anger, show me my shadow self. They show me where I’m strong as a woman and thus show me where I need to take responsibility for being strong.** Through the process of recognizing my strength and the damage I’ve done to others(men) through ignorant or selfish use of my strength, I become a whole person. I reserve the right to ignore criticisms I think are unfounded, of course, but through listening to men’s vulnerabilities I become a stronger, more independent person. I ride the lightening, so to speak. It’s true growth.

I become the kind of woman who can walk up to a podium in front of hundreds of people who are hostile to her views and speak her mind while womyn huddle in a corner talking about how the patriarchy oppresses them, thus giving up their strength to others.*

Women have controlled the discourse on vulnerability for a long time now. They’ve set the humanitarian agenda; the agenda that society follows when it apportions aid. The trade off is that women must groom themselves to be perfect victims–which locks them away from their own strength.

And I don’t think we can claim that strength with more philosophies of victimhood.

*In a social species, real strength isn’t necessarily being the biggest, baddest thing on the block but simply being able to endure being cast out from the group when the group is wrong.
**In a sense, they’re the pioneers of a new gender paradigm that includes women’s strength and men’s vulnerability. At least the ones who aren’t conservative nut bars obsessed with regaining some old and broken notion of gender. (These ones are safely ignorable.)

mstrnatural February 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

@typhonblue

“mstrnatural,

Just to expand a bit on the whole vulnerability thing.”

————-
Thanks for the expansion – very well thought out and articulated.

It is part of the irony that you will be attacked by feminist women if you are strong in a way that contradicts the stereotype. [You are essentially "outing" the powerful woman in them by showing them how it is done - and that scares the shit out of some people - who respond by attacking the messenger - you in this case as the one bearing the message that women can act outside their "comfortable" victim frame.]

Sam February 8, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

By the way, not sure you noticed it (or saw it on tv). Apparently, there was a plethora of ads shown during last nights superbowl that were relevant to the masculinity theme.

I’ve seen some of them on feministing.com, and while I think all of the ads shown there are stupid, and partly beyond stupid, I do think the common theme is indicative of the growing importance of the subject we’re talking about.

I’m not sure whether I’m surprised or not that this meta level is not recognized in either the posts or the comment threads on feministing.com, but, alas, it is not.

Example:

feministing.com/archives/019949.html

typhonblue February 8, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

mstrnatural,

I think you shouldn’t underestimate the gift of your anger.* I don’t mean anger for anger’s sake or violent anger, but clearly articulated or even awkwardly but earnestly articulated anger and the vulnerability it represents.

I think women need to hear men’s anger because it helps them understand themselves, take responsibility and thus become truly independent. Consider this when you find another woman with an ‘invisible minefield’.

Women may have needed to cultivate themselves as the perfect victim in the past in order to have control over their lives in a time when men had most of the political and legal power and it may be that ‘victim’ politics was necessary to achieve political and legal equality. I concede that.

A while back I heard a Buddhist saying; ‘once you get to the shore, let go of the boat.’

I think women are still trying to drag the boat around and it has become the reason why they aren’t achieving their full potential.

Worse I think ideologies of female victimhood are creating more misery, more crippled women, even more dead women then the things they teach women to fear. In my life I’ve watched a woman die a horrible death, in a very real way she choked to death on her own fear.

One way to get out of a prison of fear is to realize there is someone else in there with you. Enter men’s vulnerability. Even better if you realize you can help them with their own fear.** Enter men’s vulnerability to women.

I’ve argued a lot with the forces that push female victimhood because I find their evidence unconvincing. I think it’s because I want to break free; I realize that they are pushing a drug(fear) that does more to harm women then what they say they’re protecting against.

Consider that the next time you’re compelled to embrace the idea that women are more vulnerable, thus should be more afraid, then men. Maybe instead of embracing it, question it, look at the alternative viewpoint, be open to evidence that suggests that isn’t so. It exists, it just needs people willing to see it.

If I am aware of your vulnerabilities and respect them because you’ve owned them and made me aware, that doesn’t mean you can’t be aware of mine and respect them in turn.

Hell, maybe if women were more aware of men’s vulnerabilities and more respectful***, more men would do the same and then more women and we’d have a positive feedback loop that could make the world a seriously better place.

Here’s a link to the study I referenced earlier, btw:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

*I’m referencing an MRA writer, actually.
**I think taking responsibility for yourself is foundational to an adult identity, independence and a sense of personal power. Even more when you take responsibility for someone else.
***Why should women do this? Because we have the power to and it’s the right thing to do. And doing it confers incredible benefits in terms of being released from fear and becoming an active agent in your own life.

Motley February 15, 2010 at 7:54 am #

@Sam -

By the way, not sure you noticed it (or saw it on tv). Apparently, there was a plethora of ads shown during last nights superbowl that were relevant to the masculinity theme…

And is it just me, or is Dockers trying to claim that khakis are the “manly pants?” (As in, more so than jeans). Maybe I missed a memo somewhere…

@typhonblue -

A while back I heard a Buddhist saying; ‘once you get to the shore, let go of the boat.’

The problem is (and this is by no means a problem limited to feminism) is that the people who make a living (or define themselves by) rowing that boat are going to fight tooth and nail against this idea.

I imagine this will be a problem with any feminist-sponsored discussion of defining a positive masculinity. The first question that I’d direct towards feminists for that is “Will you allow it?”
If some of the parties in the discussion insist (and define themselves by the belief) that ascribing any positive qualities whatsoever to masculinity is anti-woman, then any such discussion that includes them isn’t really going to go anywhere.

A second issue with letting go of the proverbial boat, I think, is the natural “if it worked once, keep using it” idea. If something works, people will keep using it long after it’s stopped being useful.

I think taking responsibility for yourself is foundational to an adult identity, independence and a sense of personal power. Even more when you take responsibility for someone else.

But then wouldn’t taking responsibility for someone else remove their opportunity to have an adult identity? I’m not sure I understand.

Clarisse February 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

I am totally exhausted and jetlagged but I will respond to Sam’s story at least soon!

If I went to the effort of posting my masculinity slides and/or the case studies I distributed during my workshop, would any of y’all bother to download them?

makomk February 16, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

Clarisse: feminism doesn’t magically encourage introspection of the sort required to spot this in women – or indeed men, who are generally only required to rethink their attitudes to women. (Not to be confused with examination [trigger warning], which is often a method of social control used to avoid actual introspection.)

There’s also a whole bunch of feminist ideas that help support, protect and justify this attitude. For a start, there’s the not-uncommon belief that since we live in a male-default culture, all women know the male experience inside-out. (I think the radical feminists may have started that one…)

Even more common in my experience is the the use of “patriarchy hurts men too” as a thought-terminating cliche: since all the problems affecting men originate in patriarchy, and since feminists are fighting patriarchy, they don’t have to think about how their actions affect men or how faulty their assumptions may be. (Radfems go even further, and use this to excuse racism and transphobia too.)

IIRC, the most recent feminist example of assuming better understanding of men I’ve seen involves the social status of male geeks. Then there’s this type of reaction to non-female controlled attempts to reconsider masculinity.

typhoonblue: sorry, missed your comment. Our culture of male on male violence is one of the bigger coercive forces; there’s no opt-out, and indeed any attempt to do so is a very good way of marking oneself as a victim. I suspect there are more subtle aspects though.

Sam February 16, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

Clarisse,

good luck with the jetlag!

“If I went to the effort of posting my masculinity slides and/or the case studies I distributed during my workshop, would any of y’all bother to download them?”

I’d be very interested!

Motley February 16, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

If I went to the effort of posting my masculinity slides and/or the case studies I distributed during my workshop, would any of y’all bother to download them?

Pretty likely.

@makomk

Our culture of male on male violence is one of the bigger coercive forces…

I think this gets ignored in a feminist context, incidentally, with the whole “that’s a male problem” line. Which is a lot like saying that a “patriarchy” has nothing whatsoever to do with female-perpetrated slut-shaming.

mstrnatural February 16, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

@typhonblue:

I think women need to hear men’s anger because it helps them understand themselves, take responsibility and thus become truly independent. Consider this when you find another woman with an ‘invisible minefield’.

I reply: I guess I do generally own my own anger – but your affirmation of the point has encouraged me to think more about how quickly (or not) I choose to show it in “minefield” settings

You state: “Women may have needed to cultivate themselves as the perfect victim in the past in order to have control over their lives in a time when men had most of the political and legal power and it may be that ‘victim’ politics was necessary to achieve political and legal equality. I concede that.”

My observation: We all tend to consider social phenomena both retroactively & proactively. I suspect that we all can justify the “sins” of previous generations while asserting our power to do something different from this moment forward. But I suspect that past generations had their share of heroic women – and male “trusted servant” type leaders (i.e. charismatic individuals who broke the conventional gender stereotype roles of their era.)

Your comment: “A while back I heard a Buddhist saying; ‘once you get to the shore, let go of the boat.’”

Me: I like it!

You go on: “I think women are still trying to drag the boat around and it has become the reason why they aren’t achieving their full potential.”

“Worse I think ideologies of female victimhood are creating more misery, more crippled women, even more dead women then the things they teach women to fear. In my life I’ve watched a woman die a horrible death, in a very real way she choked to death on her own fear.”

My thoughts: Men, of course, are just as driven by fear – they just tend to be more programmed to respond with knee-jerk bravado. And if they are confronted with evidence that they are reacting to a situation in a fear-mediated manner – they will often react with heightened anger/rage (both as a way to distract themselves from any scared feelings that might have surfaced -and to try to push away hard anybody who had the audacity to trigger their fear awareness in the first place – and keep them from doing it again!

[Here is where your analysis of men's anger needs some clarification: There is a significant difference between that instant flash of "rage-reactivity" (pure lizard-brain mediated adrenaline!) and a more considered and slow boiling "righteous indignation". The former is often totally un-thought out and acted out in a way that is intentionally intimidating. The latter involves a more patient waiting out of the first couple of one's own flash-in-the-pan impulses - and that restraint does honor the other individual - at least to the extent of allowing them time to reconsider their actions and change or apologize spontaneously. Only when the provocation continues to rise to a high-threshold level does the provoked person then finally blow up - and then not so much in order to intimidate or punish as to "educate" and "inform" their provocateur.

"Rage-reactivity" tends to hide wounds that the person raging is too scared to reveal. Righteous indignation is usually the (considered) response of someone who understands their own wounds and is waiting (to build a little social capital with the person with whom they are interacting) before they open their wound again - in the presence of somebody who they may not know very well at all.

Rage-reactivity tends to be dangerous to everybody involved - it tends to create more wounds than it protects or heals. Righteous indignation owns something universal about the wounding/healing process - and invites trust and growth as its end goal (and the theme is not so much about "self-defense" as in the case of Rage Reactivity - but rather about "fairness"!)]

You add: “One way to get out of a prison of fear is to realize there is someone else in there with you. Enter men’s vulnerability. Even better if you realize you can help them with their own fear.** Enter men’s vulnerability to women.”

[With which I agree: As I stated earlier, I'm a strong proponent of the notion (for men especially) that "vulnerabilityis strength" - and partly because of the ally-building qualities that it evokes.]

You add: “I’ve argued a lot with the forces that push female victimhood because I find their evidence unconvincing. I think it’s because I want to break free; I realize that they are pushing a drug(fear) that does more to harm women then what they say they’re protecting against. ”

mstrnatural: Fear is a big drug – not just with women – but across the board. It’s what keeps people docile and willing to accept ‘kyriarchies’ and play out the oppressive dynamics that kyriarchial thinking fosters and thrives on.

@C.T.
“I am totally exhausted and jetlagged but I will respond to Sam’s story at least soon!”

“If I went to the effort of posting my masculinity slides and/or the case studies I distributed during my workshop, would any of y’all bother to download them?”

mstrnatural: I, too, would appreciate seeing your slides – when you get over your jet-lag somewhat.

Sam February 16, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

makomk,

wow, that IT-people bit is really a wonderful specimen of feminist hypocrisy. For someone who harshly critisizes other peoples alleged inabilities to go beyond stereotypes, the author of that piece certainly employs a lot of stereotypes…

Clarisse February 17, 2010 at 10:45 am #

I’ll upload the slides and such next time I have free internet rather than per-byte (next week probably).

@makomk — I dunno. I see some of what you mean with those links, but I also see some valid critique in them. I think male geek culture falls into a lot of the same issues as general Nice Guy ™ stuff. Which isn’t to say I think that feminist takes on these things are immune from criticism (see my comments about Nice Guy stuff above, for instance), but there has to be a way to critique the way so-called “low-status” guys tend to blame women etc etc.

@Sam — It’s funny. I was just thinking about sexual encounter gender roles, the no-means-no model, etc. in the context of two things: 1) my just-published coming-out story and 2) a documentary that I screened last Friday called “Graphic Sexual Horror” (INCREDIBLY FUCKING AWESOME MOVIE by the way).

1) My coming-out story basically pivots on a man doing exactly what men are “supposed to do”, viz., go after me very bluntly and push my boundaries while figuring that I’ll say no if I need to. And I even note at one point in the narrative that “I hadn’t said no, and I wanted to figure out why” — more no-means-no model …. I wouldn’t have considered being forthright with Richard even for years after I came into BDSM — partly because things have always been so weird with us, but also partly because the normative model had such control. In fact, I was just reflecting on how far I’ve come when I met him for dinner this past weekend. At the end of it I sat back and looked at him. “How are you feeling?” I asked. “What do you mean?” he said. I could have danced around things, which is how things have always been with us — we’ve often sort of let things develop out of very unclear but constant attraction, but instead I just smiled and said, “I’m thinking I might want to do a scene with you, but I’m not sure. What do you think?” Very different from the way I was when I met him, and I guess very different from the norm.

2) “Graphic Sexual Horror” is about a very extreme BDSM porn company, now closed, called InSex. The documentary features interviews with lots of the models, artists, etc involved and also describes how the place was shut down (the department of homeland security claimed that bondage porn funnels money to terrorists — seriously. oh my god sometimes I hate America). There are a lot of fascinating angles on consent throughout the film, but one of my favorite moments was the words of a model who was anally penetrated with an object during one of her shoots. In the movie, she says that she didn’t agree to that kind of activity ahead of time, and “feels like” she was raped — then she adds, “But I wasn’t raped; I didn’t safeword ….”

(there was also a fascinating addition to the post-film discussion from an attendee who is currently a BDSM porn model, who said that one of the reasons she likes being paid for sex is because paid sex is as close to non-consensual sex as she can get, and she kinks hardcore on non-consent. but all this is irrelevant, and I’ll write about the film some other time …)

so anyway ….

The story you tell reminds me of some situations I got into when I was younger: eg being felt up by a guy I didn’t especially like, but being unwilling to say no, because … I don’t even know why, at this point. Hearing your description of that woman who didn’t stop your friend N from making out with her, etc makes me remember that headspace. But it’s hard to pick apart where the pressure not to say no comes from. I mean, we’re always told that “no means no” … so shouldn’t we feel like we can say no when we need to? In the case of InSex there are very concrete motives to point to that might make someone hesitate before saying no (money, mostly). But in other cases there often aren’t. I often say that it’s hard for submissives to safeword — I have direct experience with this — but it’s difficult to pick that apart sometimes. Pride in pleasing your partner, or being able to take it? I think the biggest fear is alienating a partner. And that’s probably the biggest reason it’s hard to say no — anyone you reject might be able to fuck up your life in the future, should they choose to ….

I also wonder whether E would have been so shocked by your assertion if it had been framed in a different way. For example: She’s never said yes? Really? She’s never, oh, say, been making out with a guy or associating with him in some way and then said something like, “Let’s go” and glanced meaningfully towards the door? Not even with a boyfriend?

Is it just that we get so used to being pushed into things, we lose the ability to be forthright when we want something?

I guess I didn’t have anything intelligent to say, though I thought I did. Oh well. I’ll post the rambling anyway.

There is this, which typhonblue said on a different topic –

Women have controlled the discourse on vulnerability for a long time now. They’ve set the humanitarian agenda; the agenda that society follows when it apportions aid. The trade off is that women must groom themselves to be perfect victims–which locks them away from their own strength.

This probably does have some influence on the sexual encounters discourse, too — a woman who doesn’t act like a victim (eg, a woman who is forthright about her sexual needs) is sacrificing her victim status. I’ve mentioned this before, I’m sure, but kinky female rape victims are more likely to lose their trials. So women are very concretely motivated in that way to stick to the no-means-no model — if you interpret a yes-means-yes model as putting ourselves in danger.

Sam February 17, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

Hey Clarisse,

Again, thanks for sharing your story.

I guess I didn’t have anything intelligent to say, though I thought I did. Oh well. I’ll post the rambling anyway.

I think you’re doing quite well
for being jetlagged.

Is it just that we get so used to being pushed into things, we lose the ability to be forthright when we want something?

Interesting! I wonder if it isn’t the other way around: We (and that includes men, I think, we’re just not allowed to indulge that, in a way) want to be pushed into things because we feel that *asking for something* is inherently lowering our value compared to the person we’re asking. Saying I *want* is a bit different from just asking, but in the end, it’s asking for something with an intrinsic motivation. Maybe it’s this perceived value shift that we want to avoid, particularly in situations in which the person asked possibly would prefer not to be asked, so the decision is *not* theirs to make. Creating a new status quo – acting – allows us to avoid such pitfalls of limited rationality – but, and that’s the problem – it also requires someone who can trust that he’s allowed to test: like the dominant people in the “extraordinary lovers” paper you linked to.

“The story you tell reminds me of some situations I got into when I was younger: eg being felt up by a guy I didn’t especially like, but being unwilling to say no, because … I don’t even know why, at this point.”

Well, we should note, though, that I can only tell the story from my perspective, and that includes my bias and assumptions about what the other people were thinking. I think, now, that she, like him, was really looking for some physical pleasure. I think she didn’t say no because she believed nothing better would present at this point of the night – and I think that was at least partly because of my inaction.

I mean, I can’t read minds, and as I have explained a couple of times, I’m very very hesitant when it comes to initiating something physical, but she was doing everything she could to make me kiss her, short of simply asking for a kiss.

But that night, I probably would not have kissed any woman in front of N. given the vulnerable, depressed “I need some love , hug me, please”-state that he was in, and certainly not a woman that he was visibly attracted to, even though she was definitely showing more attraction towards me than towards him. And apart from the N.-issue, she was also very drunk, and I wasn’t. But had we been in a comparable state of mind, and without N. around, I may have kissed her. And that’s saying quite a bit about the extent of her advances.

But I would have never seen her breast-size-complaining as an invitation to cup her left one. Maybe it was. I don’t know, maybe N., despite being completely drunk, read her intentions better at that point. She wasn’t saying yes, but she also wasn’t saying no. Someone had to present her with options to help her make a decision/avoid a decision. He did. For me, what he did was outside of the accepted realm of physical interaction at that point. It was, well, a “sequence violation”. But apart from handing me the bottle of beer, she didn’t seem to mind… so maybe it wasn’t for her. Maybe this – not having to make a decision herself – was what she wanted, after all.

“he thinks *you* should say ‘yes’ if you want to go home with him…”

I suppose I wasn’t as shocked by her saying that she wouldn’t do it as I was by her being so surprised to tell it to A. We’re talking about two teachers in their mid-thirties here, women who have very likely been “around the block” sexually.

Well, maybe she’ll say “yes” instead of “not-no” the next time ;)

Motley February 17, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

I suppose I wasn’t as shocked by her saying that she wouldn’t do it as I was by her being so surprised to tell it to A. We’re talking about two teachers in their mid-thirties here, women who have very likely been “around the block” sexually.

I think it’s easy to underestimate just how ingrained the “push-me-into-it” script is. My own (limited) experience with bucking this trend (in a “say ‘yes’ and not ‘not-no’ sense) is from college (so the culture may’ve changed since then, I don’t know). There was a very active feminist group on campus, and I’d happened to read one of their handouts about consent, rape, and so on. So a while later, a girl (with whom I thought I was about to have sex) said something like “I don’t want to do this” or something like that while unbuttoning my shirt (I forget the wording, but it sounded a lot like a weak “no”). So I said “Oh, okay,” took her hands off of me, buttoned up my shirt, and went back downstairs to the party, chuckling. The look on her face was absolutely priceless. I think she’d never had someone take “no” as “no” before. She left a while after that, and, seriously, of all the times I’ve ever seen someone cry, that’s probably one of the funniest. And it’s still funny, even though it’s been more than a dozen years.*

But yeah, that whole “token resistance” idea seems to be pretty deeply ingrained in our collective psyche.

Hence, I’m not much surprised by Sam’s story; the notion of actually having to express consent seems to be a really foreign idea to our society.

*(I probably would’ve done it again — I kinda get off on denying people the things they want/expect but have no right to demand — but, when it came to the moment of decision, I tended to want sex more than I wanted something to laugh at. Which is too bad, for a variety of reasons.)

Sam February 17, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

Motley,

she was saying “no” while she was doing “yes”? That’s a whole new level of complexity…

I have a good female friend whom I told off for doing something similar to a guy she had a crush on. Making out, going home with him, making out more *in his bed*, then suddenly telling him to back off in not unclear terms (“Take your fingers off of me!!!” – which he did, probably slightly puzzled) while telling me (two days later) that she just wanted to see how invested he was that night.

I really don’t know what she was thinking there.

Motley February 17, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

I really don’t know what she was thinking there.

Heh. I’ll bet she was thinking how much fun it is to hurt people and play with their emotions…
I know exactly what that’s like, but I don’t claim not to be a sociopath. I see that sort of behavior in women all the time, and the fact that they generally get away with it (and that I would generally not) is one of my big problems with both feminism’s basic assumptions and the Victorian assumption of inherent female moral superiority.
(Using people’s feelings as toys is fun, but it’s a strict Kantian no-no.)

she was saying “no” while she was doing “yes”? That’s a whole new level of complexity…

Really? I’ve seen that… I don’t know, a lot. The whole “Her mouth said one thing, her body said another” idea gets demonized as rape-apology a lot, but there’s actually a reason that men assume that the words do not always accurately reflect the intent.
To the extent that the girl in question seemed exactly as hurt by the idea of me actually paying attention to the words coming out of her mouth as she would’ve been if I’d broken her wrists instead of just gently moving them off of me (in fact, at the time, I briefly considered the possibility that that’s what had happened).

Sam February 17, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

Motley,

“Heh. I’ll bet she was thinking how much fun it is to hurt people and play with their emotions…”

no, I bet she wasn’t. I think it was more of a test whether he would say something like “I love you”. This may have very well been a case of the Foster-Wallace thing: double bind – she wanted but felt she needed more “passion”/inevitability due to cosmic forces so she wouldn’t give herself up for less than her perceived value. So him merely offering the physical part apparently wasn’t enough for her insecure ego at the time.

That doesn’t make her behaviour better, but it’s not about her being a sociopath. I don’t usually associate with sociopaths, and she’s a great person who made a mistake she probably regretted the most that night.

“Her mouth said one thing, her body said another”

Yeah, well, I know “her mouth said no but her eyes said yes” – which assumes a certain passivity on the woman’s behalf – aka “not-no” or “yes”. Here the was escalating herself, thus saying “yes”. I suppose I would have to ask at the point – “What exactly is it that you don’t want to do, because your hands seem strangely interested in getting me out of my shirt…?”

You know, I’m happy to play along with the current dynamic to a degree. At some point, I think everyone involved bears the same responsibility to make it happen – or not. If a woman is sitting on my bed, unbuttoning my shirt, saying “no” so she can “blame” me for escalating instead of owning her own decision, then I’m sorry, nothing is not going to happen between the two of us until she knows what she wants.

Motley February 17, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

no, I bet she wasn’t. I think it was more of a test…

Y’know, when I ran interesting little tests on people, with no particular regard for the feelings of my subjects… yeah, just saying.

I don’t usually associate with sociopaths…

Statistically speaking, I’ve got some unfortunate news for you…
More seriously: we don’t wear signs, and after the first couple decades most are very good at passing for normal.

…and she’s a great person who made a mistake she probably regretted the most that night.

Ah. That changes things (assuming that you’re confident about that “regret” part; plenty of people think I’m a “great person,” too. They’re not entirely wrong, in a certain sense, but it still doesn’t speak well for their character-judgment).

typhonblue February 18, 2010 at 10:05 am #

That doesn’t make her behaviour better, but it’s not about her being a sociopath.

Yeah, I know. What can you do when a person treats a group they’ve been taught has no real human emotions like crap? After all it’s not their fault. It’s the fault of how they’ve been taught.

Your friend exhibited empathy-fail on a catastrophic level. Either she’s a sociopath or she hasn’t developed emotionally beyond that of a three year old.

I’m sorry, Sam, but I’m seeing a trend with you. You excuse the most appallingly callous and selfish behavior on the part of women, _constantly_.

Has she even ever expressed regret? Have you ever called her out on that breech of basic humanity?

But that night, I probably would not have kissed any woman in front of N. given the vulnerable, depressed “I need some love , hug me, please”-state that he was in, and certainly not a woman that he was visibly attracted to, even though she was definitely showing more attraction towards me than towards him.

Have you ever thought that it might not be a good idea to throw your friend to the bears(ie. pick up scene) in that state of mind? God knows what kind of psycho he might have ended up being violated by.

BTW, Motley… your story is awesome. You’re my new hero! (Too bad more men can’t act like that and just walk away from women who don’t offer basic respect, honesty and understand adult responsibility. Ah well. Maybe in a few centuries.)

Motley February 18, 2010 at 10:45 am #

BTW, Motley… your story is awesome. You’re my new hero! (Too bad more men can’t act like that…

What’s funny is that, since she was crying really loudly for maybe an hour, everyone acted like I was being an asshole. Apparently whoever cries gets the moral high ground? Which is what I said at the time, but the perpetually-offended types didn’t buy it. In retrospect, asking whether they’d have agreed with me if I had been crying–and then, asking “how about if I had a vagina?” might not’ve been the best possible course of action. If, of course, my goal had been to avoid giving offense, which by that point it really wasn’t.

So lesson learned: If you don’t take “no” for “no,” you’re an asshole. If you do take “no” for “no,” you’re an even bigger asshole. If I were the sort of person whose feelings could be hurt by being called an asshole, I suspect that would’ve sent me spiraling into Nice-Guy bitterness.

(Though to be fair, I imagine that in any situation between a girl who can’t stop crying and a guy who can’t stop laughing, we’re all programmed to assume that the guy’s done something horrible and is a jerk.)

typhonblue February 18, 2010 at 10:47 am #

So when you explained the situation as ‘she said no, and I took her word for it’ they still thought you were the asshole?

Did you have the feminist pamphlet to show them?

typhonblue February 18, 2010 at 10:49 am #

Were you _obligated_ to have sex with her according to them?

Clarisse February 18, 2010 at 11:02 am #

@Sam — I really don’t know what she was thinking there.

See, I used to do stuff like that before I found the BDSM community and learned how to actually negotiate my shit. Sometimes I think that the majority of people are on the mild end of the BDSM continuum, and have really light kinks for non-consent, and that they negotiate those by sending typical mixed signals.

But mixed signals can be hot, I have to acknowledge. When you say “You know, I’m happy to play along with the current dynamic to a degree”, I have to agree … for all my insistence that the Social Solution! is to destroy that dynamic and be forthright, etc.

but she was doing everything she could to make me kiss her, short of simply asking for a kiss.

I wonder if part of the reason she didn’t shove him off was that she wasn’t sure how to do that non-aggressively, and didn’t want to seem like an Aggressive Manhater in front of you. It sounds to me (again, I wasn’t there) like she didn’t react to his blatant advances, maybe because she was hoping that if she didn’t react he would take the hint and stop …. I’ve been in this situation before — Women Aren’t Supposed To Be Mean!, so you don’t reject outright, especially in front of other people, you just have to hope that the guy in question picks up on it, and if he doesn’t then things just get more and more uncomfortable until you find a quiet way to escape.

I remember I once went to a nightclub where some drunk guy went after me on the dance floor. I smiled, but tried not to smile too invitingly, and angled my body away from him. He continued to be aggressive — he was holding this flower, and started trailing it over my body. I wanted him to stop but I really didn’t want to make a scene — because if you stop a guy, you always have to be afraid he’ll flip out on you and make everything difficult — and I started feeling vaguely panicked. In that case, the bouncer noticed what was going on, read my body language correctly, and came over to get rid of the drunk guy. I would be more forthright with the drunk dude if I encountered him today, but I’m not sure when I would have stopped him back then; I might have chosen to just leave the club quietly instead (which is probably why the bouncer chose to intervene so blatantly — he understood that the applicable social scripts could end up with the club losing a female patron if he didn’t act).

Clarisse February 18, 2010 at 11:12 am #

@typhonblue — I’m sorry, Sam, but I’m seeing a trend with you. You excuse the most appallingly callous and selfish behavior on the part of women, _constantly_.

Actually, the trend I’ve been seeing with Sam is that he is the most consistently even-handed person in this discussion. You, typhonblue, tend to get incredibly angry at women for social programming type stuff; I tend to get angry at men for it; Motley does a little bit better than either of us, but can still be pretty mean. The only regular here who seems to always default to sympathy for others’ perspectives is Sam. Which I really, really admire.

Also, wasn’t there some point when we were trying to make this not about blame?

Clarisse February 18, 2010 at 11:16 am #

P.S. I do think there are some other commenters who have been doing well at perspective-sympathy, by the way, so I didn’t mean to exclude anyone from that evaluation. I guess I’m just restricting my observation to the four of us with (I think?) the highest comment count.

Motley February 18, 2010 at 11:19 am #

Did you have the feminist pamphlet to show them?

No,* unfortunately, but that same one was all over campus, so I can’t imagine they hadn’t seen it (and I’d be very surprised, statistically speaking, if at least some of the offended-people hadn’t been involved in writing it).

*Though, after mentioning the story here, I was joking about it with a couple friends last night, one of whom was there for it, and he claims that there were copies of the pamphlet in the room. Says he thinks he brought it up, but isn’t completely sure (he was pretty drunk too, and it was years and years ago, so who knows?). I don’t remember anything about that, but that doesn’t mean much, given the circumstances.

Were you _obligated_ to have sex with her according to them?

I have no idea. Maybe? If their reasoning involved more complexity than “there’s a crying girl, and you’re not grovelling, therefore you are bad,” then, well, I missed it. To be fair, I was more than a little drunk, and was probably still laughing too hard to be very coherent, so I might have missed whatever else might’ve been going on.

I should note though that I didn’t actually start laughing until I got back downstairs, which should in my opinion have excused me from blame. I mean, it took tremendous restraint, and I was a little annoyed that I hadn’t gotten credit for that. :)

(Which is an ongoing amusing issue we have. _I_ think I ought to get credit for things I wanted to do but didn’t.)

typhonblue February 18, 2010 at 11:44 am #

You, typhonblue, tend to get incredibly angry at women for social programming type stuff

Hey! Thanks! I try not to brag, but I certainly have a lot of anger. It’s nice of you to notice. ;)

(Which is an ongoing amusing issue we have. _I_ think I ought to get credit for things I wanted to do but didn’t.)

I know exactly what you mean.

Clarisse February 18, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

Possibly relevant blog post on women committing sexual assault:
http://rachelhills.tumblr.com/post/378706458/but-women-dont-rape-sexual-pressure-rejection-and-the-ma

typhonblue February 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

Thanks for the link, Clarisse.

I see one guy jumped in with the usual homophobic* downplay of men’s vulnerability.

Why do I say homophobic? Because humans bond to vulnerability; guys who immediately say ‘but women are more vulnerable’ are likely re-directing those uncomfortable squishy feelings onto appropriate vulnerability-objects. (And promoting a culture of female-fear, for women’s ‘benefit’, natch.)

As a related note, it took me a while to realize what the hell cheerleaders are needed for… then I realized they present an appropriate ‘release valve’ for the tremendous erotic energy generated between male fans and male _players_.

Motley February 18, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

See, I used to do stuff like that before I found the BDSM community and learned how to actually negotiate my shit.

That’s sorta what I was talking about earlier (basically, people’s shit is their own). Incidentally, how’d the spat with your trans-activist friend turn out?
(Apparently I’m an endless font of good advice ;)

Also, wasn’t there some point when we were trying to make this not about blame?

I wasn’t assuming that was blaming, so much as identifying a trend. For what it’s worth, I just skimmed the thread again, and while I’m not so sure I’d phrase it as forcefully as typhonblue did, Sam, I’d say ya might be displaying a bit of that women-are-naturally-more-moral stuff. No offense intended. If we’re talking blame, I’d blame whatever the cause of the difficulty in escalating is, it might also cause a certain heightened level of sympathy for a woman’s perspective (in my admittedly limited experience, its exceedingly common in men who spend a lot of time in feminist circles).

I’d say mstrnatural caught some flack from TB earlier for basically the same trait.

But, as I’m sorta amused by the rate-the-bunch-of-us-game:

You, typhonblue, tend to get incredibly angry at women for social programming type stuff; I tend to get angry at men for it; Motley does a little bit better than either of us, but can still be pretty mean. The only regular here who seems to always default to sympathy for others’ perspectives is Sam.

Clarisse, if we filter out the mild pro-woman perspective you mention, that leaves Sam and me with a mild pro-woman bias :)

Though I’m not really surprised that I come across as “mean,” I guess (Generally, “mean,” “obnoxious” and occasionally “vicious” are how people describe me when I’m trying for “honest”).

Anyway, on an unrelated note
@ mstrnatural -

Here is where your analysis of men’s anger needs some clarification: There is a significant difference between that instant flash of “rage-reactivity” (pure lizard-brain mediated adrenaline!) and a more considered and slow boiling “righteous indignation”. The former is often totally un-thought out and acted out in a way that is intentionally intimidating. The latter involves a more patient waiting out of the first couple of one’s own flash-in-the-pan impulses – and that restraint does honor the other individual – at least to the extent of allowing them time to reconsider their actions and change or apologize spontaneously. Only when the provocation continues to rise to a high-threshold level does the provoked person then finally blow up – and then not so much in order to intimidate or punish as to “educate” and “inform” their provocateur.

I had this semi-unrelated thought over the weekend, and had been meaning to reply:

Couple other things about “righteous indignation” bear mentioning:

1. It’s indistinguishable from self -righteous indignation.

2. The feeling of “righteous indignation” is more addictive than any drug I know of. Being angry is awesome-fun, and feeling right feels great, doesn’t it?

One hit of the stuff quickly becomes a lifestyle, much faster than meth. And self-righteousness is what keeps the internet community running.

Lastly, and again unrelatedly:

As a related note, it took me a while to realize what the hell cheerleaders are needed for… then I realized they present an appropriate ‘release valve’ for the tremendous erotic energy generated between male fans and male _players_.

I’m absolutely bringing this up the next time people around me want to watch a football game…

Sam February 18, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

Typhonblue,

“Has she even ever expressed regret? Have you ever called her out on that breech of basic humanity?”

Both – I thought I said that above.

Have you ever thought that it might not be a good idea to throw your friend to the bears(ie. pick up scene) in that state of mind? God knows what kind of psycho he might have ended up being violated by.

Ahm, as I mentioned in the original story, I only stayed with him so he wouldn’t drive. He wanted to go to the place, and since he hasn’t given the episode the kind of thought I/we have, I’m pretty sure he got an ego boost from it – and that is something for him.

I’m sorry, Sam, but I’m seeing a trend with you. You excuse the most appallingly callous and selfish behavior on the part of women, _constantly_.

I can’t do anything about your impression, typhonblue, but as I said *way* up in the thread, I think the complexity of the kind of communication that we’re dealing with here implies that we should cut each other a bit of behavioural slack. It is part of my disagreement with some general feminist attitudes that, in my impression, there is a tendency to only cut that slack for women. But I certainly can’t ask for something I’m not willing to give myself…

Clarisse,

“But mixed signals can be hot, I have to acknowledge. When you say “You know, I’m happy to play along with the current dynamic to a degree”, I have to agree … for all my insistence that the Social Solution! is to destroy that dynamic and be forthright, etc.”

But isn’t that another reformulation of “yes means yes” as social discourse and “no means no” as approach for individual encounters? What I mean by “playing along” is that I think that in early stages of interactions, communication accidents tend to be far less problematic than at later points in an interaction when a lot is at stake – both positively and negatively. This goes back to the balance of opportunity, risk, and situation-appropriate “experimentation space” which we discussed above. I think it can be ok to use mixed signals to find out whether to continue a conversation after having said hello, I don’t think it would be ok to do so in a situation like the one described by Motley.

Women Aren’t Supposed To Be Mean!, so you don’t reject outright, especially in front of other people, you just have to hope that the guy in question picks up on it, and if he doesn’t then things just get more and more uncomfortable until you find a quiet way to escape.

I don’t think that was the case in my story. She wasn’t looking for the exit. I don’t know to which extent my presence may have made it harder for her to make a decision one way or the other, that is certainly a possibility, but, absent mind reading ability, I’d say she actually didn’t *want* to make up her mind and act but be forced to react – I think, and this is purely speculative, had he told her “let’s go”, she would have gone with him.

I can actually sympathize a lot with that position: as I’ve mentioned before, I’m having trouble initiating. I’m usually the one *being kissed*, not the one kissing, so while my mind is screaming *yes* I am usually too afraid of making a mistake by doing/saying something to that effect. But just as it is limiting one’s own realm of action, it’s also asking something of the other party one is unable/unwilling to do so oneself.

I do believe that there are certain social pressures telling women to be “nice”. But on the other hand, I’m not sure how common these pressures still are – I’ve seen women act mean even when they’re not being overly annoyed. Hard to say. In the conversation about Foster-Wallace/double-binds that went great (mentioned above) we actually also talked about approaching/being approached and how it’s both difficult and requires a different set of social skills. I do think that approaching is the tougher part in that respect, but that doesn’t mean that rejecting people doesn’t suck and is an easy thing to do – particularly if you don’t want to hurt people.

Clarisse February 19, 2010 at 6:27 am #

@Motley — Incidentally, how’d the spat with your trans-activist friend turn out?

Oh … it was an oldish spat, actually. From last year. I hung out with hir in Chicago and ze said that ze doesn’t have a problem being friends, feels comfortable with that, but that ze might have a problem allying politically. Which is a shame, but better than no friendship.

And self-righteousness is what keeps the internet community running.

So it can’t be all bad, right?

@Sam — I think it can be ok to use mixed signals to find out whether to continue a conversation after having said hello, I don’t think it would be ok to do so in a situation like the one described by Motley.

That’s a good breakdown …. I think I agree.

But I guess this means that the difference between, say, a “rape apologist” and a non-rape apologist will often depend on where the line is drawn — where mixed signals become not-okay. I often get uneasy with typical feminist discussions of rape & rape apologism for that reason, actually. While I agree that there is lots of rape apologism that sucks insanely, I am unwilling to state that absolutely every conceivable boundary crossing is rape, particularly ones that occurred with good intent ….

On a tangentially related note, ever see the Almodovar film “Talk To Her”? BRILLIANT.

I do think that approaching is the tougher part in that respect, but that doesn’t mean that rejecting people doesn’t suck and is an easy thing to do – particularly if you don’t want to hurt people.

I guess I’m back to claiming that women have it worse than men in this respect, which is oppression olympics and, on reflection, may not even be true. I mean, we all agree that men have a hard time rejecting advances, too …. Maybe the real difference is that women, at least women of a certain class/education level, tend to be more aware and to push back when we’re having difficulty rejecting, and that we tend to get more social support (eg bouncers).

Motley February 19, 2010 at 8:43 am #

Which is a shame, but better than no friendship.

Heh. You and I disagree on that, looks like.

So it can’t be all bad, right?

I was more thinking that it reflects poorly on the internet that most of the people on it seem to be rage-aholics. (Not that I blame ‘em; self-righteous rage is godawful addictive).

But I guess this means that the difference between, say, a “rape apologist” and a non-rape apologist will often depend on where the line is drawn…

Yeah. “Rape apology” is in the eye of the beholder, and all that. Though it’s weirder than that, of course (over at Feminist Critics, Lady Raine just accused people of “eye rape.” Way to de-stigmatize rape… awesome).

@Sam -

Both – I thought I said that above.

Nope.

Ahm, as I mentioned in the original story, I only stayed with him so he wouldn’t drive. He wanted to go to the place, and since he hasn’t given the episode the kind of thought I/we have, I’m pretty sure he got an ego boost from it – and that is something for him.

Yeah. Oddly, if your friend had been a woman, I would’ve said you’d done something wrong there. I seem to be assuming that women’s ego’s generally suffer after a one-night stand, and that it usually helps a man’s. Don’t know if the assumption is actually correct, as I’m just running off of anecdotal evidence.

typhonblue February 19, 2010 at 11:07 am #

I seem to be assuming that women’s ego’s generally suffer after a one-night stand, and that it usually helps a man’s. Don’t know if the assumption is actually correct, as I’m just running off of anecdotal evidence.

In my experience its a personal, not gender based distinction.

Interesting how guys are prone to seeing comfort in terms of random women who don’t give a shit about them and not in terms of some sort of male solidarity or friendship.

After all, I assume Sam cares more about his friend then a random horny woman would, yet it’s the RHW who likely only wants an ego-boost or a bit of physical pleasure that his friend is expected to turn to for comfort and support.

This dynamic strikes me as rather sad and ultimately self-defeating. (Sad in terms of the emotion, not the judgement.)

Motley February 19, 2010 at 11:55 am #

Interesting how guys are prone to seeing comfort in terms of random women who don’t give a shit about them and not in terms of some sort of male solidarity or friendship.

After all, I assume Sam cares more about his friend then a random horny woman would, yet it’s the RHW who likely only wants an ego-boost or a bit of physical pleasure that his friend is expected to turn to for comfort and support.

Nah, not comfort, not support.

You said something, waaaay upthread, about not wanting a man who was just looking to have his ticket validated? (I don’t recall the precise wording, but it was something like that)

They’re not looking for any actual support – they’re just looking for a “See? Chicks Still Dig Me” moment. And our hypothetical RHW is okay with providing that, so, cool. If the RHW just wants an ego boost or a bit of physical pleasure, the fact that she deemed the guy in question worthy of providing it is a huge plus to his self-esteem, generally speaking.

I think women in general just don’t understand the extent to which men define themselves by their “success” with women.* (It was certainly one of the more irritating things to have to learn to simulate, as it’s both nigh-omnipresent and pretty weird)

*I get the impression women do something slightly similar, but that it’s more abstract, more a matter of “I Am Attractive” than of “That One Guy Over There Would Totally Have Sex With Me.” And that it’s less essential to their concept of themselves as a worthwhile human being. But I haven’t studied “being a woman” to nearly the extent that I’ve studied how to be a man, so I don’t actually know; again, these are just impressions I get.

Sam February 19, 2010 at 11:56 am #

Clarisse,

That’s a good breakdown …. I think I agree.

I think the problem about mixed messages is that, well, even if they appear mixed that may not be a matter of conversational strategy but rather of people adjusting and readjusting what they think they want from/with respect to a specific interaction. If I had a purely intellectual, stimulating debate with a woman, and at some point noticed her beauty and became sexually interested, my conversational style would probably become different to a degree. She would (hopefully) notice, and probably be a bit confused about what was going on. But that’s not necessarily about mixed messages, it’s about actually changed conversational objectives. I think most people in most conversations are testing and even unsure what they want. And apart from it being impossible, it would take the fun out of getting to know people and flirting. But it’s different in Motley’s case. She cannot expect him to magically know if her fetish is saying no while meaning yes. If that’s her thing, she’ll have to explain that and put it out there even if that may not be exactly the same for her.

But I guess this means that the difference between, say, a “rape apologist” and a non-rape apologist will often depend on where the line is drawn — where mixed signals become not-okay. I often get uneasy with typical feminist discussions of rape & rape apologism for that reason, actually. While I agree that there is lots of rape apologism that sucks insanely, I am unwilling to state that absolutely every conceivable boundary crossing is rape, particularly ones that occurred with good intent ….

I completely agree. I think a part of that problem is the “sweeping argument” thing we had above when you mentioned something as a “general” point but later realised that you thought of it more as a tendency, something to be taken into account rather than a rule. That is, in my opinion, the case for a lot of public feminist discourse – there seems to be an implicit belief that people will understand that statements about rules will be understood as “tendencies”, applicable only under certain conditions and not “in each and every case”. And I think that’s a big problem for feminist discourse. Part of it is probably unconscious, but another part of it probably isn’t – I think that not a few feminists believe that being nuanced in this respect will both losing the long fought for definitional prerogative (discoursive, mainly, but also legally) about what constitutes rape and subsequently cause more rape. I think it’s a discoursive misapplication of the broken window theory or the old saying “resist the beginnings”. I also tend to think that, in private, many of the feminists arguing like that in public, are much more willing to argue in a more nuanced way.

On a tangentially related note, ever see the Almodovar film “Talk To Her”? BRILLIANT.

No, I haven’t yet. But I’ll pick it up on the way to the gym later on.

Motley,

Yeah. Oddly, if your friend had been a woman, I would’ve said you’d done something wrong there. I seem to be assuming that women’s ego’s generally suffer after a one-night stand, and that it usually helps a man’s. Don’t know if the assumption is actually correct, as I’m just running off of anecdotal evidence.

Isn’t that odd? Isn’t that, again, where the problem starts? We’d consider her to have given more and him to have received more… this goes way back to #70. Btw, there was no one night stand. They made out in a club.

typhonblue February 19, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

I think women in general just don’t understand the extent to which men define themselves by their “success” with women.

Oh, I’m aware. That’s why I think it’s sad and self-defeating.

Sam February 19, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

Typhonblue, Motley,

They’re not looking for any actual support – they’re just looking for a “See? Chicks Still Dig Me” moment. And our hypothetical RHW is okay with providing that, so, cool. If the RHW just wants an ego boost or a bit of physical pleasure, the fact that she deemed the guy in question worthy of providing it is a huge plus to his self-esteem, generally speaking.

I think women in general just don’t understand the extent to which men define themselves by their “success” with women.

I agree with both.

typhonblue February 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

Motley:

Nah, not comfort, not support.

Eh… I dunno. This:

N. given the vulnerable, depressed “I need some love , hug me, please”-state that he was in

Tends to suggest a very different motivation.

To me it’s sad that men seem to have only one source for emotional and physical comfort. They are forced to be sexual with women if they want any of their comfort needs met (even non-sexual needs for comfort).*

And then society turns around and ‘tsk-tsks’ about how aggressive they are sexually. Well, jeeze, it’s hard to see where THAT’S coming from… O.o o.O

*You know how a kid when he’s embarrassed or ashamed about something he couldn’t prevent but didn’t want will say ‘well, I actually, really wanted to do it’… I’m thinking men embracing that whole fuck-focus meme is pretty much that dynamic.

Motley February 19, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

Tends to suggest a very different motivation.

I don’t think you’re actually disagreeing with me there…

Sex is what we can (sometimes) get instead of “comfort and support.” Men don’t ever need comforting or supporting, remember? ;)

So yeah. To us, “human contact” = sex. Other forms of intimate human contact = “gay.”
Amusingly, this part actually works very well for me (oddly, I’m much closer to the “male ideal” here than any normal men I know. Strange).
But since (presumably) society wasn’t actually designed for people like me, it’s always seemed pretty weird.

Clarisse February 21, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

@Motley — I get the impression women do something slightly similar, but that it’s more abstract, more a matter of “I Am Attractive” than of “That One Guy Over There Would Totally Have Sex With Me.” And that it’s less essential to their concept of themselves as a worthwhile human being. But I haven’t studied “being a woman” to nearly the extent that I’ve studied how to be a man, so I don’t actually know; again, these are just impressions I get.

Yeah, that’s a pretty good summary, save that it’s still extremely essential to female concept of worthwhile human being-ness, it’s just that we display it less / in more personal contexts. For example, women tend to kind of freak out if their boyfriends won’t have sex with them, but this is often less about actual desire for sex (though that certainly plays a role) and more about “oh my god, if even my boyfriend won’t have sex with me then I have totally failed to be attractive and must not be worthy as a human being ahhhh!” Which ends up sucking for both women and men, because not only does it make women feel bad but is ALSO just one more factor putting pressure on men to be sexual all the time. I got into this a little bit in my CN abstinence piece [ http://carnalnation.com/content/45211/1133/sexual-abcs-africa-part-1-abstinence ] and I also linked to a comment on Alas that goes into it more [ http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/03/04/thinking-about-condoms-for-the-first-time-in-a-very-long-time-1/#comment-355387 ].

You’re probably right that women in general don’t understand how much men define themselves by success with women, though.

@Sam — If that’s her thing, she’ll have to explain that and put it out there even if that may not be exactly the same for her.

Heh — and it’s always the “it may not be exactly the same for her” thing that trips people up, really. And in fairness, it is considerably hotter when I’m doing a non-consent scene with someone who needs less direct guidance. But we’ve gotten into this before, I think.

I also tend to think that, in private, many of the feminists arguing like that in public, are much more willing to argue in a more nuanced way.

Totally agree. One thing I’ve thought about a lot is feminist rhetorical style / “culture” and how this is incompatible with purely rational modes of speech. I got into this a little bit in the comments on this post [ http://pdf23ds.net/implications-and-debate/ ], which I really like in general, but which was initially really feminist-hating (has since been edited).

machina February 22, 2010 at 1:02 am #

One thing I’ve thought about a lot is feminist rhetorical style / “culture” and how this is incompatible with purely rational modes of speech.

I don’t think it is necessarily. I mean not more than other social theories. It’s possible to be quite dry and argue purely within philosophical or legal or anthropological or whatever framework. In that piece you linked the author equates feminism and environmentalism in being bad at discourse. I remember having a lecturer whose PhD thesis was used in a legal case against a company breaking pollution laws, and she had dealt with with environmental groups subsequently. She said it was interesting dealing with them because they were mostly interested in the aesthetic qualities of certain environments and that you had to just accept this.

I guess it’s the same with feminism. Maybe not so much aesthetics but a kind of political righteousness that people keep returning to. In some ways I see femininism and environmentalism as secular prostheses for religions, particularly as an identity. So there’s a touchiness when you start questioning people on them that makes rational discourse difficult. This doesn’t apply to all femininists or environmentalists though, it’s just something to beware of.

Clarisse February 22, 2010 at 3:05 am #

@machina — In some ways I see femininism and environmentalism as secular prostheses for religions, particularly as an identity.

Yeah, I’ve heard this point made a lot. There were some really interesting studies in the NYT a few years ago that found that peoples’ politics are in no way shaped by their actual beliefs, rather by their families and associates, and — creepier yet — they insidiously change their perception of reality (misremember statistics, etc) in order to match their politics.

As promised, here are links to download my presentation. The slides themselves, as anyone familiar with my masculinity threads will notice, are almost totally compiled from thread comments. Note about the images: All of them except for the ones on slides 1, 2, 5 & 16 are what came up when I did a Google search for “men’s rights activist”. (Oh, and the knight on slide 15. I threw that in because one of the covers for MRM, the men’s rights magazine, features a knight, but I couldn’t easily get the cover itself, so I just searched for an awesome knight picture.) I used them in the presentation because I hate making presentations that don’t have pictures (they put the audience to sleep) and I thought that this sampling was really interesting considering the search term. Also sometimes hilarious.

The format was that I gave the presentation, and then the attendees organized themselves into breakout sessions around discussing the case studies. While presenting, I definitely could have done better at pulling all the threads of the discourse together — I was a bit frazzled by that point in my stay — but I think I probably did okay.

http://www.mediafire.com/?dujyotuzvmn — Case studies

http://www.mediafire.com/?zczwyfbmyyy — Presentation

Sam February 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

Clarisse,

thanks for the slides! For that, you’re gonna get a masculinity cupcake ;)

http://www.feministing.com/archives/020122.html

I think you picked some very good comments, particularly, from the earlier part of the thread. And I think it’s a good idea to use case studies to approach different types of masculinity before attempting to synthetize them into a grand theory!

One group of men I felt was absent (there are certainly more) was the (statistically bigger than expected) group of men who are disaffected from their sexuality and powerless because of it – wether they are involuntary celibates or not.

Could you tell us a bit more about the discussion. I would be particularly interested in the ” sex: accomplishment vs. pleasure” bit. Also, because it picks up the thread where we left it…

You’re probably right that women in general don’t understand how much men define themselves by success with women, though.

Motley February 22, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

Yeah, that’s a pretty good summary, save that it’s still extremely essential to female concept of worthwhile human being-ness, it’s just that we display it less / in more personal contexts.

Yeah, I really don’t know how to measure “essentialness” – but I’d have no problem asserting that “No woman would ever fuck you” is one of the worst things one can say to a guy. (And is why variations of that sentiment are so commonly used to attack people). I imagine this has something to do with using “gay” as an insult (sort of a “you’re such a failure with women that you must not even want one” or something).

You’re probably right that women in general don’t understand how much men define themselves by success with women, though.

I read a comment somewhere (possibly here, I don’t remember) from a trans, saying that the male sex drive was like really, really needing to piss, and only the women around you having keys to the restroom –and that this was unimaginable from the former, female, perspective.

here were some really interesting studies in the NYT a few years ago that found that peoples’ politics are in no way shaped by their actual beliefs, rather by their families and associates, and — creepier yet — they insidiously change their perception of reality (misremember statistics, etc) in order to match their politics.

Yeah–this matches my experience completely. Incidentally, if you’re willing to put in the effort, you can vandalize people’s politics by subtly adopting completely opposite and incoherent beliefs, and gradually turning every conversation in that direction. The beliefs change, but the identification with the older beliefs doesn’t, which can lead to hilarity.

(There are a number of pro-gun, anti-immigration “liberals*” and pro-abortion, pro-healthcare-reform “conservatives” wandering my region because of this.)

(*If you’re playing the game, this one doesn’t win any points–getting people to spout veiled hatred of people-who-look-different is too easy to be worth credit)

@Sam -

One group of men I felt was absent (there are certainly more) was the (statistically bigger than expected) group of men who are disaffected from their sexuality and powerless because of it – wether they are involuntary celibates or not.

Just going by personal experience here, I suspect that this demographic is even less likely to self-identify than most non-stereotypical-male groups.

Clarisse February 23, 2010 at 1:31 am #

@Sam — One group of men I felt was absent (there are certainly more) was the (statistically bigger than expected) group of men who are disaffected from their sexuality and powerless because of it – wether they are involuntary celibates or not.

I was sort of trying to get at this with the kink masculinity studies ….

Could you tell us a bit more about the discussion. I would be particularly interested in the ” sex: accomplishment vs. pleasure” bit. Also, because it picks up the thread where we left it…

That angle didn’t come up much, from what I observed. A lot of the discussion was just learning the case studies themselves and figuring out how to present the information to the other attendees. Also, since the group was very feminist, there was a lot of normal feminist suspicion about the very concepts at the heart of the seduction community and sex work. The kink discussion developed a little further, I think, but in a more personal way — people sharing their sexual angles, etc.

@Motley — Yeah, I really don’t know how to measure “essentialness” – but I’d have no problem asserting that “No woman would ever fuck you” is one of the worst things one can say to a guy.

“You’re ugly” is probably pretty similar for women, or “no man would ever want you” — maybe not “to fuck” exactly, but definitely “no man would ever want you”. Straight women, of course.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

I’ve just read all 590 comments up to now, I found some I wanted to respond to.

“421
Motley:

It was a little upsetting to have a conversation focused around a dealbreaker list that might as well have my name written at the top…

That’s been bothering me. Why’s it upsetting? All I can figure is either a) the deep-down assumption that all men are obligated to be attracted to all women, or b)one of those things I just don’t get.”

When that assumption is about assumptions made about a person or something, then yes I find that problematic.

For example, if everything goes well with someone, but they figure they can’t date me because I’m trans, yet remain supportive and might be bisexual or pansexual, I’ll think that this person is just assuming stuff about trans people or trans women in particular, especially if they have something against a post-operative transsexual (given that nothing should be apparent about their apparent birth-sex) – and as for the fertility argument, I’d reveal that in time when the ‘do you want bio kids?’ question comes up, like any other infertile person.

So yeah, if someone lists or talks about “trans people, pre and post-op are a dealbreaker” I’ll think they’re just being jerks, by assuming stuff that isn’t there.

Like people who asume “black people do this” or “people of color smell weird”, baseless.

I’d like to know how to do quotes btw, is it with < or [ brackets and is it 'quote' or 'blockquote'?

Schala February 23, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

450
Toy Soldier:

“As much as its wrong to discriminate against transsexuals for no reason, I think its wrong to expect people to ignore the practical differences that do exists and how they can culturally significant.

I do not think it is discrimination against trans people if a person does not agree those individuals are now part of the opposite sex. As it relates to masculinity, I think the issue goes back to how a person defines masculinity and who gets to define it. It is worth having that discussion in a broad sense in order to understand certain cultural shifts. However, I am not sure that discussion could occur without first addressing the notion that being male is just a social construct and is not related to biology. That may go way beyond a discussion of masculinity, though. The most practical solution is to acknowledge the cultural norms while acknowledging certain groups different opinions. In practice, I think the race discussion is the best model because it allows a particular group to define their identity, but it also allows those who are not part of that group to also join in the discussion (in theory, at least).”

It is discrimination to not recognize a trans person’s preferred sex, just like you prefer not being referred to as female, I prefer not being referred to as male.

Trans men have a particular view of masculinity, but it is not something they can ‘pick and choose’ anymore than it was for you. It’s notions that society forced upon us all and that we decide what to make of, lest we be incredibly socially disabled, it will affect us wether we want it to or not.

The same way trans women have their own view of feminity that isn’t in a separate category from that of other women.

There shouldn’t be segregation under the name of biology, since it’s pretty clear that being trans is something immutable that is at the very least partly biological. Intersex conditions demonstrate this pretty succintly.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

452
desipis:

“I think it’s important for everyone to acknowledge the similarities and differences between trans and cis people, determine the important drivers behind any situation that discriminates based on sex and realise that transsexuals may or may not fall into the group that they (or others) are comfortable with. In certain cases, such as reproduction, they may fall outside ‘both’ groups (along with other infertile people).

Applying this to masculinity, I think it’d be possible to find masculinity based groups that would include trans men. In such cases there may be cause to fight against bigoted attempts to change the group’s basis to excluded trans men. However I don’t think that trans men have a right to access all masculinity based groups as the basis for these groups could excluded trans men due to practical differences.”

Besides groups pertaining to prenatal courses, I see no reason any trans person should be excluded. It is not as if there are certain biological qualities that warrant exclusion, nor are there social qualities that are universal to all men or all women. Exclusion rarely has any pertinent reason for its basis.

I see no practical differences that could have any actual impact on courses/groups that would warrant limiting participation from trans men (or trans women in a feminity workshop). If you know of any, go ahead.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

463
Clarisse:

“Why not? A lot of trans people do. Being misgendered, having others refuse to acknowledge your chosen gender, is cited by a lot of trans people as one of the most traumatic recurring experiences they have.”

At first its definitely very traumatic, eventually it just becomes an annoyance – an annoyance that could be reason enough not to date, have a friendship or do business in some place. But no one wants to get used to being misgendered.

It’s such a central part of most everyone’s identity (including most cis people), why would someone take great pains to deny someone’s identity?

Do they figure it couldn’t ever happen to them, see them as subhuman, posing, deceiving, ‘playing’, pretending, defrauding others? And if so, how is it that apparent birth sex would have primacy over someone’s identity, even moreso when that identity is no more chosen than other people’s?

Schala February 23, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

464
Motley:

“Why not? A lot of trans people do. Being misgendered, having others refuse to acknowledge your chosen gender, is cited by a lot of trans people as one of the most traumatic recurring experiences they have.

I’ll play with this one for a moment.
Put simply: So…?
If you claim a certain identity, your reaction to my perception does not affect whether or not I find your claim plausible. If a man who is four feet tall is offended at being thought short, this does not make him tall. Nor does it obligate me to pretend that he is not four feet tall.

If I define myself as Space God Xenu… I’m still not Space God Xenu. Even if I’m horribly offended at your disbelief – how dare you question my Space Godness! – you’re still entitled to disbelieve. You can choose to believe, as a courtesy, but reason does not require it. And, if you choose not to go along with the notion of my space-divinity, you’re not discriminating against me. (Committing space-heresy, perhaps; discrimination, no)

(Incidentally, can you tell I’m out of my mind on a bunch of cold-medicine right now?)”

Do you routinely call butch women as men or call feminine men as women in public, in full view and heard by everyone?

If not, how do you know they really are women and men? I bet you don’t ask them, you just assume.

So do this with trans people too: Assume they are the sex they present as, ask yourself no more questions than you would for others.

Claiming an identity I don’t know about (and probably am not interested in) like your space god and Ceasar, doesn’t mean anything. Ceasar doesn’t have Ceasar-only toilets, doesn’t own Ceasar’s Palace (ironically) and doesn’t get free entry on ladies night. Claim you’re Ceasar all you want, it won’t change my perception of you as male claiming to be some particular male. I’ll default to ‘male’.

On the opposite side, there’s me, who claims womanhood, but might appear male to some incredibly pushed observation and probably conversation, with me. I should not be prevented from using women’s room, I also don’t own Ceasar’s Palace and should have free entry on ladies night.

Wanna claim to be a woman? Easy, just drug yourself with hormones until you’re impotent and infertile, grow breasts and change your pheromone smell. The rest is window-dressing (how I dress doesn’t matter, and my long hair just means I got long hair).

If you’re willing to sacrifice your well-being (high-estrogen, no-testosterone on cis men has a pretty distressing effect), your sex life and probably your social life to be in my position, go ahead.

I’ve made real sacrifices to be recognized as myself. Though I never really cared for my fertility or being potent, had no friends and no career. I lost little. But I can be myself. If you did that you probably wouldn’t be, on top of making yourself miserable with meds.

You seem to think a trans identity is something that most people would choose* on the drop of a coin. Very few very rich people and some who have mental problems might wrongly choose it for either superficial or equally wrong reasons, but most are not. The few false-positives should not make the rest be seen as fakes, posers or what have you.

*The only choice is to do something about it or not, hence transition. Some people prefer living death, because the change might be too rough for them.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

468
desipis:

“I think it’d also be interesting to consider how much males are forced into the particular brand of masculinity they grew up with (i.e. the views of their father, peers, etc) when compared to the potential freedom trans men, or butch women have to adopt a masculinity that suits them.”

I’d agree to some extent about butch women, since they’re rarely having the kind of pressure men have to adopt masculine behaviors, dress or such.

Trans men is another thing though, they face the exact same pressure you have, they just rarely have parents to do it (unless they transition while underaged) as much when they’re extra vulnerable to them. They have the same double-binds about initiating if they’re heterosexual, the same about adopting certain behaviors, dressing certain ways and all that. They have the same social pressure as other men to be masculine.

If a trans man adopts the ‘masculinity that suits them’ they’ll face consequences for it that butch women might not, but that other men would face.

Someone who identifies as a flamboyant “trans fag” (a term some pick) will get the same homophobia that other feminine gay men get. Sure they can pick it, but let’s not assume its consequence-free.

Motley February 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

When that assumption is about assumptions made about a person or something, then yes I find that problematic.

For example, if everything goes well with someone, but they figure they can’t date me because I’m trans, yet remain supportive and might be bisexual or pansexual, I’ll think that this person is just assuming stuff about trans people or trans women in particular, especially if they have something against a post-operative transsexual (given that nothing should be apparent about their apparent birth-sex) – and as for the fertility argument, I’d reveal that in time when the ‘do you want bio kids?’ question comes up, like any other infertile person.

I should mention that I think it ended up being Option B, “Something I just don’t get.” Apparently some women are bothered by the notion that some guy, somewhere, isn’t attracted to them. I meant to ask if the existence of gay men (who are by definition not so attracted) is worrisome too, but I think I forgot. Doesn’t make sense to me, but, well, lots of things don’t.

I generally don’t draw too many conclusions about people based on their dealbreaker list. People are complicated things and they are also entitled to their own preferences; between these two factors, who the hell knows whether an item on your dealbreaker list means you’re a jerk?

I mean, dealbreaker lists are highly random. Where I’m coming from: To start with, a couple entries on mine, for example (with explanation)

In no particular order:
1. Must not be into horses. (Every relationship with horse-fans turns out badly)
2. Must be shorter than me. (It’s a basic assumption, because I’m apparently a caveman)
3. But not more than a foot shorter than me (I’m a bit clumsy)
4. Must not wear glasses. (I’m clumsy)
5. Must not be really into seafood. (‘Cause I won’t tolerate the smell).
6. Must not be fat. (Fat girls don’t really do much for me)
7. Must not weigh less than 130lbs or so. (I’m clumsy)
8. Must not be really into golf. (Freakin’ boring.)
9. Must never, to my knowledge, have cheated on a boyfriend. (I’m territorial, and not particularly trusting)
10. Must never ever seem too interested in my roommate. (’cause that’s shit I don’t need to have with a roommate)
11. Must not be too into art museums. (Boring.)
12. Must like Shakespeare. (Goes without saying :)
13. Must be appropriately gullible (or else she’d never come near me, obviously)
14. Blondes only. (a bit of Scandinavian Inbreeding Reflex there)
15. No drugs (couple experiences with meth people).

Amusingly, my wife is a brunette who’s much smaller than me, wears glasses, and can see through me like through some transparent thing. Also, she was a friend of my roommate’s back in college before we started dating, and she was also engaged to someone else when we started dating. And she likes art museums. We’ve been married for close to a decade, and I’ve never regretted anything for even a second.

So given that: I don’t really judge people based on their dealbreaker list. It’s random, it’s largely a result of past experiences, and it’s generally not all that serious to begin with.

I’d like to know how to do quotes btw, is it with < or [ brackets and is it 'quote' or 'blockquote'?

It’s with < and it's 'blockquote.' (I just recently found that out myself).

Schala February 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

471
makomk:
“Nope, you’re quite hard to mistake for a feminist. While there may be no hive mind of feminism, there are still certain patterns that repeat again and again – and both the exclusion of trans women and the reasoning behind it is one of them. The same arguments are being used here to call for the exclusion of trans men.

(Also, arguably feminism’s past treatment of trans women is an exception to the “no hive mind” statement. There seems to have been quite a bit of coercion used against feminists who didn’t reject trans women – most famously against Olivia Records for employing Sandy Stone. That’s way off-topic, though.)”

Most of those who reject them nowadays are radical feminists. Back then it was second wave feminists who rejected trans women as women. Mainstream feminism seems ambivalent about them, but generally positive, if ignorant. There is loads of transphobia still, even in mainstream feminism.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

475
Clarisse:

The argument isn’t about plausibility, so much as respect and not hurting other people. I don’t give a damn if you honestly have difficulty visually perceiving a trans man friend as a man, but I will think you’re an asshole if you refuse to acknowledge my friend as a man.

I don’t see why people do this. It’s not like trans people are there in order to offend or deceive people, basic respect costs nothing. And like I said above; it’s been demonstrated that it is at least partly biological.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

476
Motley:

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend I don’t accept that a trans person is their preferred gender (in my actual personal opinion regarding “is a trans-man a man or a woman” the jury’s still out. Bear with me a bit, as this isn’t a question I’ve really considered before).

Options:

A) If I define gender as something you’re born with, then no, it can’t be changed. You were born with one, that’s the one you’ve got. We’re not obligated to identify you as anything different.

B) If I define gender as how you identify yourself, then yes, it can be changed. Pick whichever one you want, and we’re all obligated to identify you as that one.

Now: Is there a case for one definition over the other?

It’s A), you’re born with it, but while my birth certificate may presently state that I was born male, this was oversight over the fact that I had a female brain (and not just female-typical in how it ‘works’).

In other words, my birth sex is female, my present sex is female, and being referred to as anything but female is incorrect.

It’s not about being empathic or systemic, or emotional or anything like what you’d find in ‘brain tests’. It’s about your system reacting most favorably to female-typical endocrinology and reacting badly to male-typical endocrinology, much like how cis men would react to testosterone deprivation or high estrogen: badly. Just ask men with prostate cancer treatment with cyproterone acetate (kills testosterone production to limit the cancer expansion).

My system is simply outfitted with the incorrect hormone-producing system (testes instead of ovaries). This produces deep distress, killed my libido before I even had one, prevented my having any normal puberty effects-wise and made me not-identify as male. I eventually figured I identified clearly as female, and worked to correct the situation.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

481
Motley:

You’re still taking as given that a trans person’s preferred gender IS their gender.
Why? (Not how much do you believe this: Why do you believe this? That’s been my question from the start. I’m not denying a trans person’s identity; I’m asking what that person’s identity IS and why you think so. Can you understand the distinction?)

…

You take it as a given that gender is a choice and not a condition of birth. WHY?
(Not a rhetorical question. You seem to have decided that you count a transperson as their preferred rather than original gender. The question I’ve been asking from the beginning of this tangent: what were your reasons for doing so?)

A trans person’s preferred gender IS their gender yes.

Why?

I said so in the post before this one pretty much.

You take it as a given that gender is a choice and not a condition of birth. WHY?

It’s not a choice, just like being gay or lesbian. It’s a predisposition set before birth, surely in the womb or before that. Possibly genetically.

My boyfriend thinks my ideas about gender socialization are too weird, because I’m against blue and pink models of raising children (we have none). He says he never had what’s considered girly interests even before he knew that it was, and I see no reason to doubt that most males are masculine and most females feminine (just not to the extent society or my boyfriend believes).

He had a predisposition to masculinity.

Note that being trans is not having masculine or feminine predisposition, it’s more biological than social, and about fitting with a certain body configuration and endocrinology, not a role or stereotypes (as some feminists very often misinterpret transition to be for role or stereotype reasons).

Schala February 23, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

485
desipis:

I disagree. Many cis men have a strong part of their gender identity tied to their definition of what it means to be a man. To force others to accept trans men as men would stifle the identity of many cis men who’s identity is tied to a definition of man that doesn’t include trans men.

Too bad for them. My identity as a woman does not depend on someone’s (or a group’s) non-identity as a woman, and it should be the same for men.

Anything else is plain being uncomfortable and it’s not minorities’s role to make the majority feel comfortable about not being the ONLY one.

Schala February 23, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

503
Motley:

I think of myself as a man. I think this because I was born with testicles.

If I woke up in a different body, thinking I was the same person, my idea of who I am would be demonstrably incorrect. Similarly, if I woke up thinking I was Julius Caesar, that would also be incorrect. Similarly, if I woke up in 88 BC, in Julius Caesar’s body, thinking I was Motley, that would also be demonstrably incorrect. So, in answer to your question, YES. I have a rule about believing things that are demonstrably incorrect. It’s what I use to resolve conflicts between belief and evidence. It’s a very simple rule. Can you guess what it is?

Everything you and Clarisse have said about this tangent (that I thought we were supposed to be dropping) is based on the presupposition that gender is more than the set of plumbing you’re born with. You can make that assumption, that’s fine. But if you’re demanding that I do the same, I would have to know the reasoning in support of accepting this premise.

It’s based on more than visual evidence.

I think you misinterpreted the hypothetic example of waking up with an opposite-sex body while retaining everything else including memory. I think most people wouldn’t ‘drop their pants’ and base their entire life on what they see. Gender identity is much deeper than that.

People identify as male or female usually before they even know what it means (knowing what genitals are, are for, and signify to society), though there are exceptions where people know about genitals, procreation and its significance to society before having a clear identity – others have no clear measure of what it means to be male or female, but have an obvious preference or dislike (more rarely) for it – not talking about dress, behavior etc, only category membership.

A MRI would reveal that my brain is female typical. It would have revealed that absent taking hormones as well. There’s your evidence. Yet I don’t need to see that evidence to know I am female, it’s deep-knowledge. The seat of identity is incredibly rooted in the brain.

Motley February 23, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

[sigh] Here we go again.

I’ll quote myself again.

Everything you and Clarisse have said about this tangent (that I thought we were supposed to be dropping) is based on the presupposition that gender is more than the set of plumbing you’re born with. You can make that assumption, that’s fine. But if you’re demanding that I do the same, I would have to know the reasoning in support of accepting this premise.

Similarly, if you’re going to dictate how I get to define my own identity, you had better have some kind of reason for doing so. And it’d better be a damn good one, to convince me that my gender and orientation force me to forfeit the right to define my own fucking identity.

“Because I define your identity differently” is not a reason why you’re insisting that my identity isn’t defined the way I define it. You’re simply telling me that you define my identity differently than I do.

It’s my identity. Not yours. Therefore _I_ define it and you do not. Why are you claiming, still, that when the “I” in question is a cis male, I immediately forfeit the right to define my own identity?

Too bad for them.

Fuck that. “They” have the same rights you do.

My identity as a woman does not depend on someone’s (or a group’s) non-identity as a woman, and it should be the same for men.

Fuck that. You don’t get to decide what it “should” be for men. If I don’t get to dictate your identity, you do not get to dictate mine (yes, even if I’m a cis male; this may come as a shock, but normal people are still people, and still have all the rights that non-normal people have).

Why is this so hard to understand?

What is it that makes you think that having a non-normal identity entitles you to dictate the identities of everyone else?

I mean, I’m not normal. Do I get the right to dictate what women are and what they are not? Are women who disagree with my bullshit definitions somehow being evil and oppressive?

Schala February 23, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

@Motley

“Because I define your identity differently” is not a reason why you’re insisting that my identity isn’t defined the way I define it. You’re simply telling me that you define my identity differently than I do.

It’s my identity. Not yours. Therefore _I_ define it and you do not. Why are you claiming, still, that when the “I” in question is a cis male, I immediately forfeit the right to define my own identity?

You can’t define me out of existence. At least my definition includes you in it.

-If I define the universe as only having one person in it, me, I’m being incredibly narcissic.

-If I define the universe as only having ‘people whom I acknowledge to be male personally’ in the category male (vice-versa for female), then I’m being an ass by defining a ton of people out of existence. This has to be done willfully.

-If I’m operating out of an outdated definition of male and female that rely solely on procreative power, I’m making an appeal to popularity or authority, depending on how people see those definitions, or an appeal to animal kingdom classifications that don’t include the complexity of humans (there could be trans animals, but until they can talk, we won’t know, we’ll just classify them by sexual behavior – humans on the other hand, can talk).

In any case, I’m trying to define people according to criterias that don’t match reality – that people are not so easily classified if I do that. I should revise my definition for it to reflect reality then.

My identity as a woman does not depend on someone’s (or a group’s) non-identity as a woman, and it should be the same for men.

Fuck that. You don’t get to decide what it “should” be for men. If I don’t get to dictate your identity, you do not get to dictate mine (yes, even if I’m a cis male; this may come as a shock, but normal people are still people, and still have all the rights that non-normal people have).

I get to say you can’t willfully define people out of existence OR use outdated definitions that don’t reflect reality.

Why? Because you can’t leave people in limbo.

My definition of female:

Someone who identifies as female upon some biological basis.

Male:

Someone who identifies as male upon some biological basis.

Bigender/Intergender/Agender:

Someone who identifies either as neither male nor female (completely), as something completely different, or who eschew the above classification. Those people generally have diagnosed intersex condition and refuse to ‘pick a side’.

People who do the above in practical life are exceedingly rare. It’s not simply androgyne or about stereotypes.

My definitions don’t reject anyone as far as I know. They don’t depend on the non-admission of people to prove that I am admissible.

Oh and one more reason not to go with your definition:

Two groups are most adamants that transsexual women are in fact men, male, and will always ever only be:

-Radical feminists, especially the separatist variety, often lesbian.

-Fundamentalist conservatives, especially women.

Those two groups swear to whoever that plumbing at birth or how you were raised (despite possible ambiguity in both) is the be-all end-all of your existence, that transition and surgery are unnecessary mutilation and that trans women who had surgery are simply “men without penises”. Still agree with them?

Motley February 24, 2010 at 6:47 am #

You can’t define me out of existence. At least my definition includes you in it.

My identity as a woman does not depend on someone’s (or a group’s) non-identity as a woman…

See the problem there?

If I define the universe as only having ‘people whom I acknowledge to be male personally’ in the category male (vice-versa for female), then I’m being an ass by defining a ton of people out of existence. This has to be done willfully.

So you’re defining a lot of people as asses, and defining all of the non-ass people who don’t agree with you out of existence?
While arguing that definitions that define people out of existence are wrong. Odd.

Anyway, none of this is addressing what I was saying.

I can define gender as “what sort of genitals you had at birth;” or as “what sort of genitals you have right this minute;” or as “what gender you identify as upon some biological basis” or as “what gender you identify as right now;” or “what color your parents painted your bedroom.”

Except for that last one (and I’m not even sure of that), it looks like there’s really no reason that any of these is more valid than the other.
So apparently the answer to the original question is “no.” As in, “No, there’s no obligation for me not to define gender however I feel like defining it.”

Those two groups swear to whoever that plumbing at birth or how you were raised (despite possible ambiguity in both) is the be-all end-all of your existence, that transition and surgery are unnecessary mutilation and that trans women who had surgery are simply “men without penises”. Still agree with them?

You apparently think I agree with them. Which is strange, as you certainly ought to know better by now (hint: I’ve repeatedly stated whether or not I’ve come to a conclusion on this. Clarisse kept ignoring it, and I guess now that you have too, maybe I wasn’t quite emphatic enough).

Incidentally, though, if I did happen to agree with these groups you mention, I still would, and I’d have no problem saying so. I’m exceedingly difficult to shame, so attempts to control me by likening me to groups of which I’m not fond isn’t going to work very well.

Schala February 24, 2010 at 10:42 am #

As in, “No, there’s no obligation for me not to define gender however I feel like defining it.”

There is when it impacts others. At other times you can do whatever.

I don’t discriminate against gay, lesbian or bisexual people because I perceive them to be non-men and non-women or anything like that, so when in the presence of LGB people, I have to give them basic respect that I want extended to me (correct gendering, full assumed participation in the category I identify in), doing anything less would be hypocrite.

As it stands, most people take correct gendering for granted, if they do it stands to reason they return the courtesy to others.

Incidentally, though, if I did happen to agree with these groups you mention, I still would, and I’d have no problem saying so. I’m exceedingly difficult to shame, so attempts to control me by likening me to groups of which I’m not fond isn’t going to work very well.

It wasn’t to shame, but to show that their reasoning is essentially the same while coming from a vastly different perspective (but weirdly enough they have another component in common – taking ideology as an article of faith).

They don’t judge upon logic or evidence. They are impervious to it, and for having discussed for some months in a row with some of those anti-trans radfems two years ago, I can tell you it’s like talking to a wall (a wall that insults your very existence to boot), no argument matters. Pretty toxic in the long run, which is why I left MWMF forums.

Anyone whom after having learned of the existence of trans and intersex people, continues to classify those as “not the same as me” is using double standards, advocating segregation/separatism for no good reason, and trying to bully those with less power than him to seem a little better (to no avail since it has little impact on social status).

It goes into the masculinity conversation (or an eventual feminity one) by saying that some characteristic makes one unqualified to speak about something they actually know about vicerally.

As if black people were considered lesser human beings on the basis of their skin color and therefore don’t deserve equal voice…wait it’s happened for hundred of years and still occurs worldwide.

Motley February 24, 2010 at 11:29 am #

There is when it impacts others.

Nope. Correct is correct, incorrect is incorrect. Someone being offended that you like ferrets doesn’t obligate you not to like ‘em. Some guy killing himself because you liked ferrets? Doesn’t obligate you not to.

but weirdly enough they have another component in common – taking ideology as an article of faith).

It’s a pretty common human trait. For example, look at post 607 and note the number of times you imply the belief that your personal definition of “what is gender” is the correct one, despite not having, as far as I can tell, a reason for actually believing that.

…and as you’ve probably just noticed, people really hate it when you point out that something they think is an unquestionable truth is actually just their own unfounded opinion.

Everyone thinks that their own beliefs are a result of reason, not random ideology. Nobody actually does (except me, of course! ;).

They don’t judge upon logic or evidence.

Most people don’t, in my experience. It’s not something that comes naturally to humans; using logic instead of knee-jerks is a skill that usually takes a lot of training and practice to muster.

They are impervious to it, and for having discussed for some months in a row with some of those anti-trans radfems two years ago, I can tell you it’s like talking to a wall (a wall that insults your very existence to boot), no argument matters. Pretty toxic in the long run, which is why I left MWMF forums.

If it helps at all (and I don’t expect it will, but whatever) the experience you describe isn’t unique to being trans… talking to rad-fems, fundies, and batshit psychos feels oddly similar to me as well.* (And I have more than enough experience with all three of those categories to feel pretty confident making that claim).

*Basically anyone who is of the opinion that a belief is something you should have at the start of a thought process rather than at the end of it. Incidentally, these are the same people who interpret questioning that belief as vehemently disagreeing with it.

Sound like, well, everybody?

Schala February 24, 2010 at 11:43 am #

It’s a pretty common human trait. For example, look at post 607 and note the number of times you imply the belief that your personal definition of “what is gender” is the correct one, despite not having, as far as I can tell, a reason for actually believing that.

I do have a reason. I take as a starting point that every human ought to be equal, and that there are none who are sub-human or considered lesser in the absolute.

From this I draw that I expect basic decency and respect and should return it to all people in turn. It’s an equal exchange in this way.

So if someone is clearly presenting as female, I do not question it, I take it at face value that who they present as is who they want to be referred as – much like everyone else wants to be referred to in the way they present, not some hypothetical other because of characteristics people generally can’t control (being tall or short, especially hairy etc).

In other words, if someone has big feet, or is somewhat hairy, I don’t discount their presentation or count those as ‘counter-evidence’ to their stated/assumed presentation. Everyone has a right to express their identity in ways they prefer (wether that be goth, punk, preppy or what have you) I’m not one to complain – I sometimes wear a pink sweet lolita dress, which clearly looks weird in our time period (its Victorian-inspired).

I’m not against questioning some of my ideas, or all of them, but my arguments seem pretty solid and inclusive of reality and its people. It’s a truly egalitarian ideal imo, it doesn’t leave people out, nor make some lesser.

If someone is considered male or female, it doesn’t diminish the ‘capital of maleness’ or femaleness. There is no zero-sum about gender identity, enough to go around for all.

That’s why I see arguments about restricting gender identity to some people as privileged and unequal, also illogical.

Motley February 24, 2010 at 11:55 am #

So you’re including “accepting my definition of what gender is rather than having your own” under “basic decency?”

Look, if someone has a definition of gender that conflicts with your own, you’d reject it. In fact, you just did so. By the standards you just laid out, you’re failing to show basic decency to all sorts of people now. And thus, by your own statements, forfeiting your right to expect it from others.

That’s been my point from the beginning. You think gender is “what everyone presents as.”
Not everyone thinks so. If you are entitled to define it the way you want to, so are they.
Failure-to-think-what-you-think is not actually oppression. The fact that you take your own opinion as a given does not actually obligate anyone else to do so.

I think seafood is pretty godawful. You don’t think so (well, you may, but whatever). Is everyone who likes seafood failing to show me common decency? I mean, they are disagreeing with an opinion of mine!

Schala February 24, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

So you’re including “accepting my definition of what gender is rather than having your own” under “basic decency?”

No, unless you have arguments proving your way is more correct than mine, which I doubt – but go ahead. You don’t state a definition, you justify and prove it – which I did.

Look, if someone has a definition of gender that conflicts with your own, you’d reject it. In fact, you just did so. By the standards you just laid out, you’re failing to show basic decency to all sorts of people now. And thus, by your own statements, forfeiting your right to expect it from others.

I just said that it didn’t apply to basic decency to accept other people’s definition of whatever until proven that it is better than whatever is the current one – and I can affirm mine is more egalitarian and counts that people exist.

Here are some real life facts:

-Doctors define sex at birth by presence/absence or approximation of whatever named phallic structure (yes, a clitoris is a phallic structure) and assign a sex based on that – only in cases of visual or previously-detected ambiguity (in-utero because of other cases in the family, especially cases such as AIS) do they do more tests in order to assign a birth sex. Yet none of them do a MRI scan (although its questionable if a newborn baby could pass one) or wait until said newborn is old enough to know – they should, they’d be quite surprised.

In other words: this definition of sex is flawed because it only takes 1 argument for or against a sex, when there are many many more, and some have more weight than external plumbing at the time of birth.

-Intersex people represent roughly 1.5% of the population, much of them are assigned a sex (usually based on doctor assessment) and many only discover their condition in teenage years or much later (if at all).

-Trans people represent roughly 0.2% of the population. Age of transition and wether it occurs depends upon region. Thailand favorises very early transitions (before puberty) while much of the first world favorises it at earliest in early adulthood (18+) and it occurs later due to negative societal attitudes in much of the first world (Thailand is 90+% Buddhist – and Buddhism is not anti-trans in the least).

Those people (intersex and trans) do not represent a high amount of people in the absolute, but they do want their identity respected like everyone else.

-People all have certain identities, some stronger than others, gender being one of the strongest for most people.

-People are entitled to their definition as long as it doesn’t infringe on my person – pursuit of happiness and all that. Misgendering me is infringing on my pursuit of happiness, hence violating the constitution of the US (and easily the Chart of Rights and Liberties in Canada).

Wether they think I’m male or female, they can keep it to themselves. If they interact with me, they gender me correctly, just like I would gender them correctly. This is basic decency, and the only lawful and moral conduct.

I don’t police thought, but I police behavior and speech that goes directly against my person. Just like most people don’t like having libel, insults or bad behavior directed at them (and can sue people for it).

I think seafood is pretty godawful. You don’t think so (well, you may, but whatever). Is everyone who likes seafood failing to show me common decency? I mean, they are disagreeing with an opinion of mine!

Btw I hate seafood also.

People who like seafood are fine. If you’re allergic and this is known, they should refrain from bringing seafood in your vicinity (at work for example). This was a policy where I worked, 1 allergic person out of 200 employees, no seafood.

If people forced you to eat seafood, then yeah, not the same thing, but liking it is benign.

Failure-to-think-what-you-think is not actually oppression. The fact that you take your own opinion as a given does not actually obligate anyone else to do so.

If you misgender me then I am entitled to misgender you based on nothing else than spite against you (eye for an eye) even if you look convincingly masculine or feminine. See where this could lead?

Motley February 24, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

No, unless you have arguments proving your way is more correct than mine, which I doubt – but go ahead. You don’t state a definition, you justify and prove it – which I did.

No, and no. All of your “proof” presupposes the thing you are trying to prove. That’s actually not proof.

I just said that it didn’t apply to basic decency to accept other people’s definition of whatever until proven that it is better than whatever is the current one…

First, this all started with me asking what is the current one (this question instantly got me accused of misgendering people. It was actually shockingly similar to when I asked somebody why he thought homosexuality was immoral).

“Here are some real life facts”… all of which are relevant if and only if we presuppose as a given the thing you are trying to prove. If you’re trying to prove Theory X, your proof must not take X as a given. Tautologies don’t actually prove anything.

People are entitled to their definition as long as it doesn’t infringe on my person – pursuit of happiness and all that.

Nope. Your pursuit of happiness isn’t more important than anyone else’s. Similarly, what happens in other people’s heads is their business, and is not under your authority even if you do not like what they think.

I don’t police thought…

Insisting that people accept without question your definition of a term is policing thought. Even if you think you’re right.
They think they’re right, too. And nobody’s thoughts invalidate anyone else’s; not even yours.

isgendering me is infringing on my pursuit of happiness, hence violating the constitution of the US (and easily the Chart of Rights and Liberties in Canada).

I have some bad news for you: Holding beliefs with which you disagree isn’t actually the same. “Doing something I don’t like” and “not holding all of the same opinions as me” aren’t actually infringing on anything. I could make a better case against farting in public, and that’s not against the Constitution either.

People who like seafood are fine.

Nope. I define seafood as “bad.” You define gender as “what you look like.” If disagreeing with you is a crime, then so is disagreeing with me.

If you misgender me then I am entitled to misgender you based on nothing else than spite against you (eye for an eye) even if you look convincingly masculine or feminine.

Nope. You’re entitled to your definition, I’m entitled to mine. I’d register as masculine for both. If you fall under some other gender according to someone else’s definition, then they’re not “misgendering” you, they’re just starting from a different (and, I’m assuming, equally insupportable) definition of what “gender” is. Similarly, if you accidentally address a feminine-looking guy as a woman, you’re not “misgendering” him, you’re just operating by the definition you’ve picked.

See where this could lead?

I’m guessing this might lead to me being permitted to set up a field of landmines in my neighborhood and get away with it, and to dismiss criminal charges with “those people tripped my invisible hair-trigger, Your Honor.”

…I’m not really seeing the downside :)

Schala February 24, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

No, and no. All of your “proof” presupposes the thing you are trying to prove. That’s actually not proof.

I’m trying to say that the current definition “male = penis, testes, sperm – female = vagina, ovaries, uterus” is too simplistic, disregards reality and alienates people whom it shouldn’t.

I proved it by giving facts that say that reality isn’t reflected by a and/or dichotomy in the way the current definition states. My definition takes those into account, their does not. To their credit, much of the findings about trans and intersex are recent enough (last 50 years mostly).

“Here are some real life facts”… all of which are relevant if and only if we presuppose as a given the thing you are trying to prove. If you’re trying to prove Theory X, your proof must not take X as a given. Tautologies don’t actually prove anything.

I don’t understand what you mean there. X exists therefore we must take it into account into theory Y is not tautology. And it’s much better than ignoring X exists or presupposing X is lying.

Nope. Your pursuit of happiness isn’t more important than anyone else’s. Similarly, what happens in other people’s heads is their business, and is not under your authority even if you do not like what they think.

My right to happiness stops the moment I infringe someone else’s, therefore holding anti-x people beliefs are infringing on other people if they are put in practice in any way whatsoever (not so much if they remain in their head forever, but few actually keep it to themselves in all circumstances unless consequences are really bad).

This is like people who hold racist thought, all fine until they do racist acts and speech against people of color. Which they most likely will do in an environment permitting them to do so. Anti-trans sentiment and misgendering are not with consequences as bad as racism. Therefore people hold transphobic ideas in public much more readily than they do racist ideas – whatever it is they actually think.

Nope. You’re entitled to your definition, I’m entitled to mine. I’d register as masculine for both. If you fall under some other gender according to someone else’s definition, then they’re not “misgendering” you, they’re just starting from a different (and, I’m assuming, equally insupportable) definition of what “gender” is. Similarly, if you accidentally address a feminine-looking guy as a woman, you’re not “misgendering” him, you’re just operating by the definition you’ve picked.

To me if a man refers to me as male, mister, man, men etc I hold the right to refer to him as miss, mrs, woman, women. I don’t care AT ALL if he uses another definition, he’s clearly insulting me deliberately. So am I to him, and he can suck it up since he started. Not that male or female pronouns are insulting, but I’m deliberately not respecting his stated identity.

It is not up to me to give him my definition or to educate people. They are supposed to give basic decency much like car rage isn’t tolerated. And people usually say “thank you” and “please” to be decent, to random strangers interacting with them. Why can’t them NOT DO an action….that is, why can’t they take something at face value?

By the way, I easily am taken for female by 99.9% of people. The government really loves showing me that my legal status is still male though. Can you tell I hate dealing with them whenever it happens? The rest of the time, this does not affect me (unless someone outs me), yet I’m sensible to the fact that it affects a large number of trans people, and probably could affect me relatively easily if outed (like at my last workplace).

Zoe Brain February 25, 2010 at 3:27 am #

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions. No-one’s entitled to their own facts.

From Brain Gender Identity – a presentation on Neurobiology at the American Psychiatric Association Annyal Conference:

>Abstract:
>Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs. Transgenders are atypical and “think” as the opposite gender. Certain areas of the brain have been shown to be sexually dimorphic. They are different in structure and numbers of neurons in males versus females. Protein Receptors for the sex hormones in different areas of the brain (limbic and anterior hypothalamic) must be present in sufficient numbers to receive those powerful hormones. There are androgen receptors (AR), Estrogen Receptors (ER), and Progesterone receptors (PRs). ARs or ERs are predominant at different times in different parts of the human brain. Hormone receptor genes have been identified in humans, which are responsible for sexually dimorphic brain differentiation in the hypothalamus. The groundwork in brain gender identity is gene-directed and takes place by forming male and female hormone receptors in the brain before the gonads and hormones can influence them. Multiple genes acting in concert determine our sexual identity. The human brain continues to make neurons and synaptic neuronal connections throughout life. This contributes to Gender Role Behaviors making individuals in the continuum of gender identity. Gender behaviors must be differentiated from gender identity (Hines). Gender Identity cannot be predicted from anatomy (Reiner). Brain gender identity is determined very early in fetal development, but gender expression, expressed as behaviors requires hormonal, environmental, social and cultural interactions, which evolve with time. One cannot deny the profound effects of Testosterone, Estradiol and other steroids on genital differentiation in-utero or their effects on behavior from birth or the physical and mental cross gender changes caused by exogenous hormones, but gender identity is determined before and persists in spite of these effects.

Now some may be believe the Moon is made of Green Cheese. Some may believe that all people over 5′ 6″ are male by definition, and all under female by definition. Or believe that everyone with 46XY chromosomes is male, everyone with 46XX ones female. Or believe that genital shape at birth determines sex.

All you have to do to believe any of those things is to ignore evidence, often evidence you have to rely on others to give. I doubt anyone here has actually been to the moon, for example, and how many have had a karyotype (gene test)? It’s true that men tend to be taller than women, just as it’s true that most men have 46XY chromosomes, and most men have male-appearing genitalia at birth. But none of that is universally true, on the evidence.

So no, not all statements about the definition of sex and gender are equally valid, and more than statements about the nature of the moon being lithic or lactic are equally valid.

Zoe Brain February 25, 2010 at 3:28 am #

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions. No-one’s entitled to their own facts.

From Brain Gender Identity – a presentation on Neurobiology at the American Psychiatric Association Annyal Conference:

>Abstract:
>Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs. Transgenders are atypical and “think” as the opposite gender. Certain areas of the brain have been shown to be sexually dimorphic. They are different in structure and numbers of neurons in males versus females. Protein Receptors for the sex hormones in different areas of the brain (limbic and anterior hypothalamic) must be present in sufficient numbers to receive those powerful hormones. There are androgen receptors (AR), Estrogen Receptors (ER), and Progesterone receptors (PRs). ARs or ERs are predominant at different times in different parts of the human brain. Hormone receptor genes have been identified in humans, which are responsible for sexually dimorphic brain differentiation in the hypothalamus. The groundwork in brain gender identity is gene-directed and takes place by forming male and female hormone receptors in the brain before the gonads and hormones can influence them. Multiple genes acting in concert determine our sexual identity. The human brain continues to make neurons and synaptic neuronal connections throughout life. This contributes to Gender Role Behaviors making individuals in the continuum of gender identity. Gender behaviors must be differentiated from gender identity (Hines). Gender Identity cannot be predicted from anatomy (Reiner). Brain gender identity is determined very early in fetal development, but gender expression, expressed as behaviors requires hormonal, environmental, social and cultural interactions, which evolve with time. One cannot deny the profound effects of Testosterone, Estradiol and other steroids on genital differentiation in-utero or their effects on behavior from birth or the physical and mental cross gender changes caused by exogenous hormones, but gender identity is determined before and persists in spite of these effects.

Now some may be believe the Moon is made of Green Cheese. Some may believe that all people over 5′ 6″ are male by definition, and all under female by definition. Or believe that everyone with 46XY chromosomes is male, everyone with 46XX ones female. Or believe that genital shape at birth determines sex.

All you have to do to believe any of those things is to ignore evidence, often evidence you have to rely on others to give. I doubt anyone here has actually been to the moon, for example, and how many have had a karyotype (gene test)? It’s true that men tend to be taller than women, just as it’s true that most men have 46XY chromosomes, and most men have male-appearing genitalia at birth. But none of that is universally true, on the evidence.

So no, not all statements about the definition of sex and gender are equally valid, any more than statements about the nature of the moon being lithic or lactic are equally valid.

Zoe Brain February 25, 2010 at 3:47 am #

As regards virulent Radical Feminist Separatists – One example is at http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/tyranniesaremaleswithdicks/

Don’t try commenting unless you agree: your comments won’t be deleted, they’ll be *changed* to say something else.

But at least this example is relatively mild. Some advocate extermination of trans people “for the good of society”.

Justification for why these “things” should eradicated:

“The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophilic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.”

That’s from one of the major Radical Feminist texts in use today, “Gyn/Ecology” by Feminist Icon, Mary Daly.

Zoe Brain February 25, 2010 at 5:57 am #

Motley – misgendering is not just a matter of semantics, or manners. It can have real consequences.

For example, being denied the franchise. Not being allowed to vote.
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/02/withholding-franchise-highly-suspect.html

Or not being deemed a “natural person”, hence denied standing under human rights law.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-09-19-intersex-and-the-law

Motley February 25, 2010 at 7:34 am #

My right to happiness stops the moment I infringe someone else’s…

I’m under the impression that the world is full of people who’d swear that your existence (and mine, for that matter) is infringing on their happiness. Do you see why accusations of “infringing on my happiness” don’t seem to carry a lot of weight with me?

I don’t understand what you mean there. X exists therefore we must take it into account into theory Y is not tautology.

I was pointing out that you were saying “Given X, therefore Y, therefore X” and putting it forward as proof of X, which it is not. If (and only if) “gender” means what you think it means, then your evidence is relevant. But it does not prove that the word “gender” means what you think it means.

Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs.

Basically, they’re stating that brain chemistry “counts for more” than whatever else. Does it? Why?

Now some may be believe the Moon is made of Green Cheese.

That only works because pretty much everyone agrees on what “rock” is, and on what “green cheese” is. There doesn’t seem to be a universal consensus on what “gender” is.

So no, not all statements about the definition of sex and gender are equally valid, any more than statements about the nature of the moon being lithic or lactic are equally valid.

That would be true, IF your definition (“gender=brain chemistry”) were as universally accepted as the definitions of the lithic and lactic. As you’re probably aware, it isn’t.

Consider for a moment: If half the planet (or whatever) defined the words “Green Cheese” as a type of rock, specifically the kind found on the moon, then that wouldn’t be a settled issue, either.

Though I do want to ask: Given that definition from the APA, does this mean that people who identify as a gender that doesn’t match their genitalia are wrong, if a test reveals that their brain chemistry does match their genitals? Similarly, if someone with a vagina identifies as a woman, is she wrong if it turns out that her brain looks more masculine than feminine? Is she actually a man, despite what she thinks?

That’s from one of the major Radical Feminist texts in use today, “Gyn/Ecology” by Feminist Icon, Mary Daly.

(bolding mine)

Heh. You see why, when you said “all that feminist stuff is 100% true” several of us were like, “…really?”

Looking at that quote from Daly, though, I do see some interesting observations, just not about trans-people. Or necrophiliacs (though I don’t actually know anything about necrophiliacs, so I’m going from guesswork here).

By which I mean “The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of ________ who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit” actually does describe, in a melodramatic kind of way, certain impulses with which I’m quite familiar. Having those impulses, though, is not a mark of being a trans, male, or necrophiliac, though, as far as I’m aware.

Schala February 25, 2010 at 10:17 am #

I’m under the impression that the world is full of people who’d swear that your existence (and mine, for that matter) is infringing on their happiness. Do you see why accusations of “infringing on my happiness” don’t seem to carry a lot of weight with me?

Existence by definition does not infringe rights. Denying someone’s existence is a clear-cut case though.

Existence is something that represents a state (affects no one apriori).

Denying someone’s existence affects that someone (that isn’t you), hence it infringes on that person’s rights.

Basically, they’re stating that brain chemistry “counts for more” than whatever else. Does it? Why?

Because people kill themselves in very high numbers over it. 50% of untreated trans people have attempted suicide for that. If genitals was all it was (and it was congruent with how you had been raised), people wouldn’t worry, let alone die for it.

See this progression:

1) Birth, doctor assigns sex male.
2) Parents bring up as a boy.
3) At somewhere between 2 and 10 years old, a feeling of things not quite ‘fitting’ starts being felt (not that it’s not there before and after that – but that’s when it starts to have actual meaning, when its understood).
4) That feeling of unease becomes exponentially stronger when puberty starts, the wrong hormones have a very depressing effect on the psyche, not even talking about their physical effect bringing distress (that second effect is more social, since it relies on non-congruence with perceived people of the same sex – ie not growing breasts like other girls).
5) The problem is understood for what it is: a non-congruence between body chemistry and brain.
6) Steps are taken…or not.

In my case steps happened at those time:
1) at birth
2) at birth and beyond
3) at 8 years old, but was felt before
4) at 16 years old
5) at 22 years old
6) at 23 years old

Why step 5 happened at 22 and not earlier was because of a lack of a reference frame, we figure it must be fantasy/not-real/impossible to be in the wrong body, that we’re alone on the planet to feel this etc…until we hear about it.

Given my normal-appearing male genitals at birth, I should have had no distress, no problem identifying as male, and testosterone shouldn’t have been a poison for my psyche. If your theory of ‘genitals are more important’ was true anyways.

I was suicidally depressed between 16 and 22 by the way.

By which I mean “The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of ________ who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit” actually does describe, in a melodramatic kind of way, certain impulses with which I’m quite familiar. Having those impulses, though, is not a mark of being a trans, male, or necrophiliac, though, as far as I’m aware.

Lack of empathy is the hallmark of having Asperger syndrome, which I have. I can have sympathy, but not empathy. Yet I don’t have ‘insane desire for power’ (except in videogames) or love to violate boundaries (I probably don’t understand them enough though).

Despite thinking with logic and reason almost exclusively, I’m not a robot, and I imagine pretty farfetched theories. Except I don’t make them out of wholecloth like a novel author. I take elements here and there and try to combine them into theories-of-everything, see if its reasonable.

Clarisse February 25, 2010 at 11:09 am #

@Schala — It’s such a central part of most everyone’s identity (including most cis people), why would someone take great pains to deny someone’s identity?

Right. This is the central point of confusion for me. Why is transphobia seen as so important and necessary for people who refuse to acknowledge the reality of trans people? Why, for example, is Motley willing to argue for dozens of comments in order to support his right to be mean to you? I mean, Motley claims to be pretty unemotional, but this still clearly goes pretty deep for him, as it does for Toy Soldier. It’s really important to them that they be allowed — in fact, not just allowed, but specifically enabled and not viewed as assholes — to misgender trans people.

The point in this discussion that I now view as central to making me pause and and maybe start understanding it was the bit where people started arguing that not acknowledging trans people as part of their gender is an important part of some people’s gender identity.

Why is trans identity seen as a threat to other gender identity? I’m still having trouble understanding this, but I guess it’s true. This may mean that the philosophical distinction between these stances can only be boiled down to a broad one, of exclusion vs. inclusion. Is it more important for a culture, for a movement, to be inclusive or exclusive? Why — what does either side accomplish? There’s some good essays about this out there (I particularly recall great stuff in the anthology Pomosexuals) and the issue isn’t limited to sex and gender. Personally, I’d argue that we’ve seen what segregation does in America, and it’s Not Good. But I’d also argue that you oughtn’t disallow individually-defined clubs and safe spaces. So for me it all comes down to where the line is between the broader group, which (I think) will tend to benefit from inclusiveness, and small groups intended as safe spaces.

Schala February 25, 2010 at 11:28 am #

Personally, I’d argue that we’ve seen what segregation does in America, and it’s Not Good. But I’d also argue that you oughtn’t disallow individually-defined clubs and safe spaces. So for me it all comes down to where the line is between the broader group, which (I think) will tend to benefit from inclusiveness, and small groups intended as safe spaces.

Feminists will often go on about safe-space, how women need it from men, how people of color need it from white people, how disabled people need it from able-bodied people, but never the higher groups in the hierarchy.

You won’t see white-only groups, men-only groups, able-bodied only groups, non-Jew groups etc as having the benediction of feminism.

Those groups are seen as not needing any kind of safe space…up until we speak of trans women, where it’s okay to create ‘women-born-women’ groups (aka all women except trans), where it’s fine to marginalize or exclude the more disempowered group.

If it’s done with any feminist spirit in mind, space that doesn’t include trans women is counter to their own philosophy regarding safe space.

Individually-defined clubs are fine as long as they’re not defining their membership upon ecxluding a minority or a few minorities.

For example, a woman’s club shouldn’t define itself by the absence of women of color, disabled women, and Jewish women. At least it sounds weird that it would be called ‘woman’s club’ if it excluded some women.

Similar issue I have with Michigan’s Womyn Music Festival, saying it’s for ALL WOMEN and then saying that trans women aren’t welcomed. That’s much like saying trans women aren’t women (which was standard discourse in plain sight some years ago, but changed to “women-who-have-had-the-experience-of-being-raised-as-girls” which is just as much bullshit – for all I care I was raised as a girl even if people didn’t realize it).

Example:

Woman A: Those are men’s boots you’re wearing!
Woman B: Those are my boots, so they’re women’s boots.

and I agree with this

So my being raised as what people thought was a boy was still raising a girl. You can raise a dog like a cat…you’re still raising a dog.

And final point: universality of childhood experiences: bullshit, doesn’t exist, no universality. There are so many different ways of raising/being raised, different experiences that I’d be baffled if there was one universal trait that all women and all men (individually) have experienced in childhood.

This includes biological functions, menstruating: not universal, giving birth: not universal, being looked at in a lewd way by neighbor for having baby breasts: not universal. So this whole ‘being raised as a girl and having girl-experiences’ is just a way to say trans women are men (or at least not-women) and thus not worthy of being in women-space.

Motley February 25, 2010 at 11:40 am #

Because people kill themselves in very high numbers over it.

That doesn’t actually support your theory. Additionally, people kill themselves over all sorts of things. I’m really not seeing a connection between “people kill themselves because of a certain problem” and “therefore my theory regarding the solution to said problem is correct.”

If genitals was all it was (and it was congruent with how you had been raised), people wouldn’t worry, let alone die for it.

I really don’t believe that. Perhaps this is one of those things that’s just beyond me. But I know a number of people for whom everything did match who went ahead with suicide attempts despite that.

Given my normal-appearing male genitals at birth, I should have had no distress, no problem identifying as male, and testosterone shouldn’t have been a poison for my psyche.

This looks a little bit like the familiar old “People who are normal in a given respect don’t have any problems” claim. It’s not true, as it turns out. My genitals and brain match, as it happens (more so than usual in a few aspects), but my life has still had its share of conflict.

Lack of empathy is the hallmark of having Asperger syndrome, which I have. I can have sympathy, but not empathy. Yet I don’t have ‘insane desire for power’ (except in videogames) or love to violate boundaries (I probably don’t understand them enough though).

Yeah… what I meant was that, from a certain angle, that Daly quote is, while pretty weird, melodramatic, and highly uncharitable, a not completely inaccurate description of my own orientation.
Hence it seeming pretty amusing when that description gets tossed at people who are, as far as I can tell, not much like me at all.

Despite thinking with logic and reason almost exclusively…

Incidentally, I think everyone I’ve ever met thought this about themselves (myself included). In my experience, though, it’s never true (my own case certainly not excluded).

@Zoe Brain -

Motley – misgendering is not just a matter of semantics, or manners. It can have real consequences.

For example, being denied the franchise. Not being allowed to vote.

You see misgendering, I see paperwork errors (I see a lot of those, all the time).
I’m not sure I see the connection.

But to sum up: Consider my background. Yes, our current systems and definitions don’t fit intersex/transgender people.

These things don’t fit me, either. And I understand the reasons for why that is.
And there are as many of my kind as of yours.
Can you see why the argument that “this system does not permit my sort of person to be who they are” doesn’t really persuade me?

Schala February 25, 2010 at 11:48 am #

That doesn’t actually support your theory. Additionally, people kill themselves over all sorts of things. I’m really not seeing a connection between “people kill themselves because of a certain problem” and “therefore my theory regarding the solution to said problem is correct.”

Not at a 50% rate of attempt and 20% rate of success. If the suicide rate was 20% of people in general, this would seriously affect population renewal and possibly diminish it by heightening mortality rates to war-period peaks, but all the time.

I really don’t believe that. Perhaps this is one of those things that’s just beyond me. But I know a number of people for whom everything did match who went ahead with suicide attempts despite that.

Out of 100,000 people, how many? Out of 100,000 trans people, 20,000 suicided and 50,000 tried to.

This looks a little bit like the familiar old “People who are normal in a given respect don’t have any problems” claim. It’s not true, as it turns out. My genitals and brain match, as it happens (more so than usual in a few aspects), but my life has still had its share of conflict.

You have problems identifying as male? Testosterone is poisonous to you? Transition can solve some of your harder more recurrent problems? Then it doesn’t mean anything for you.

I have other problems you know. But say if half my problems are solveable by transition, it’s well worth it to me.

You see misgendering, I see paperwork errors (I see a lot of those, all the time).
I’m not sure I see the connection.

You see a lot of women being called Mr, with a male name? See men being called Ms, with a female name? No? Then you don’t know what misgendering is.

These things don’t fit me, either. And I understand the reasons for why that is.

The definitions of male and female, either the current system one or mine, don’t fit you? You have no sex organ? You have no identity as either male or female? You lack hormones?

I don’t understand.

Schala February 25, 2010 at 11:52 am #

To be sure, definitions as either male or female don’t include any idea of what is masculine and what is feminine.

Those *derive* from it, but are not in the definition.

So if you think you don’t fit the definition because you don’t fit the ‘mold’ of what a man is supposed to be (behaviors, qualities etc), you’re still correctly defined as male.

Motley February 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

@Clarisse -

Why, for example, is Motley willing to argue for dozens of comments in order to support his right to be mean to you?

Mischaracterization. Though, however, I would, if we were discussing my right to be mean to whoever, ’cause that’s a right I’d defend to the death. :)

I mean, Motley claims to be pretty unemotional, but this still clearly goes pretty deep for him…

1. Nope. When have I claimed that? (I certainly don’t recall doing so, and I have trouble imagining that I would).
2. Assuming “this” refers to trans-people, then no. Under certain circumstances,* I’m quite willing to argue with people who claim that their definition of a term is the definition of the term – when it evidently isn’t – while arguing for “equality.”

*Those circumstances largely being: when I have free time, nothing better to do, and with people I like talking to (read: arguing with), and when I think there’s a chance that it’ll do some good.

It’s really important to them that they be allowed — in fact, not just allowed, but specifically enabled and not viewed as assholes — to misgender trans people.

I understand that it’s tempting – and fun – to ascribe evil motives to people, but it’s not a very useful way of achieving any sort of goal.

The point in this discussion that I now view as central to making me pause and and maybe start understanding it was the bit where people started arguing that not acknowledging trans people as part of their gender is an important part of some people’s gender identity.

If you’re talking about me, then no, again. It is essential to my identity to be able to define my own identity. That’s the case for everyone, isn’t it? Even for men.
Thus, when you dictate to a man what “man” means, and that certain other people get that designation, despite them having little in common with the man in question? Not cool.
It’s my identity. It is not yours. You don’t get to say what it is, you don’t get to say who gets to have it.
Do I get to tell you what a woman is? Do I get to tell you who’s a woman and who isn’t?

No?
Then why do you feel entitled to define my identity for me, and to overrule my own definition of my identity, and to pass it out where you please?

That, and not trans-people themselves, is what’s seen as a threat to people’s gender identity. Not the existence of the trans-people, but the fact that you are directly and explicitly declaring that I do not have the right to define my own identity.

Why is trans identity seen as a threat to other gender identity? I’m still having trouble understanding this, but I guess it’s true. This may mean that the philosophical distinction between these stances can only be boiled down to a broad one, of exclusion vs. inclusion.

This is basically a shaming tactic used against people who commit the crime of thinking that you don’t get to dictate their identities to them. Such things seem to be reflexive within feminist circles, so I’m assuming you’re doing it unconsciously.

Look: We’re talking about a thing. (Trans-people and the definition of gender). During the conversation, you overtly threatened my identity. I reacted as though you were threatening my identity. Then you claimed that I was acting thus in response to the thing we were discussing, rather than to the fact that you had just explicitly threatened my identity.

I am a person, despite my oddities, and despite my testicles. If you get to have your own identity, and to define it for yourself, then so do I. Why does this notion offend you so much?*

(*Yes, in that last sentence I’m just pickin’ on you.)

Schala makes an excellent point:

Feminists will often go on about safe-space, how women need it from men, how people of color need it from white people, how disabled people need it from able-bodied people, but never the higher groups in the hierarchy.

You won’t see white-only groups, men-only groups, able-bodied only groups, non-Jew groups etc as having the benediction of feminism.

Those groups are seen as not needing any kind of safe space…

…or the right to define their own identities (among a great many other rights).

I wouldn’t really have a problem with feminism if it billed itself as a pro-woman group, rather than a pro-equality group. (Though I should amend that to pro-(some) women, in light of Schala’s comment). I mean, in that case I would rightly view feminism as my enemy, as I’m not female, but I wouldn’t think they were being inconsistent.

(In case it hasn’t become obvious, if there’s a thing for which I have a heartfelt loathing, it’s inconsistency.)

@Schala -

If it’s done with any feminist spirit in mind, space that doesn’t include trans women is counter to their own philosophy regarding safe space.

Their stated philosophy, or their actual philosophy?

This includes biological functions, menstruating: not universal…

Incidentally, if they picked, say, menstruation, and excluded everyone who hadn’t done it, that wouldn’t bother me at all. Is that just me?
I mean, groups for throat-cancer survivors, which (I assume) exclude everyone who hasn’t had it, don’t bother me at all.

Motley February 25, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

@Schala -

You have problems identifying as male? Testosterone is poisonous to you? Transition can solve some of your harder more recurrent problems?

No. It’s actually possible to have other problems than that. As you know.
In answer to your questions:
I have problems identifying as human.
Other people’s existence often seems poisonous to me.
Nothing as far as I know, would solve any of my harder, more recurrent problems.

The definitions of male and female, either the current system one or mine, don’t fit you? You have no sex organ? You have no identity as either male or female? You lack hormones?

1. Correct. 2. I do, but I’m not allowed use it in the ways that feel natural. 3. I have no idea what my “real” identity is. 4. No, I’ve got plenty of hormones, and whenever I let ‘em take over for five seconds, I get arrested.

And none of these things seem unreasonable to me.
Does this make more sense now?

Schala February 25, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

Their stated philosophy, or their actual philosophy?

Stated and actual. That some people refuse to conform to their philosophy is just sating that “It’s okay to belittle THAT group, just that one” (about many groups though). It’s a lack of consistency, and ironically, is oppressive behavior on the part of those feminists doing it.

Incidentally, if they picked, say, menstruation, and excluded everyone who hadn’t done it, that wouldn’t bother me at all. Is that just me?

It couldn’t be verified. This group incidentally would include only about 98% of women. And some men. You can bet that group would try justifying exclusion of those men who had menstruated (intersex men and trans men incidentally).

I mean, groups for throat-cancer survivors, which (I assume) exclude everyone who hasn’t had it, don’t bother me at all.

The correct comparison to women-born-women groups would be everyone BUT cancer survivors. Given trans women represent about 0.2% of women.

Would you be okay with a group that said “Everyone welcome EXCEPT cancer survivors”?

Schala February 25, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

The definitions of male and female, either the current system one or mine, don’t fit you? You have no sex organ? You have no identity as either male or female? You lack hormones?

1. Correct. 2. I do, but I’m not allowed use it in the ways that feel natural. 3. I have no idea what my “real” identity is. 4. No, I’ve got plenty of hormones, and whenever I let ‘em take over for five seconds, I get arrested.

And none of these things seem unreasonable to me.
Does this make more sense now?

Yeah it makes more sense.

Keep in mind my definition allows for people outside the binary. What I called bigender/agender (which are not synonymous, but both are not classifiable within the binary).

If you fit within the ‘neither’ category outlined in my definition, my definition fits you better than the current system one, regardless of wether you have male or female organs or ambiguous ones.

I’d say tentatively that most people who do identify as ‘neither’ (or don’t identify at all) have either intersex conditions or lack a sex drive (asexuality) and thus don’t identify as much (or at all) with a sex. I know it’s true of many asexual people, having been on AVEN for a while a couple years back when I was asexual myself (hormones changed this for me).

My problems were:

1) Taken as a boy when I didn’t identify as one.
2) Having a somewhat-male body (not much masculinization) instead of a female body.
3) Having male endocrinology.
4) Being shy.
5) Being sort of anti-social in large part due to Asperger.
6) Being misunderstood when I talk about stuff that is ‘deep’.
7) Being unable to empathize.
8) Having no role model.
9) Easily addicted to games.
10) Very little professional or social ambition.
11) Ideological manner of thinking which when confronted to the ugly confused and corrupted reality makes a clash.

Transitioning fixed 1, 2 almost completely, 3, 4 is no longer a problem since I don’t need to initiate – at least romantically.

4 combined with 5 prevents my having many friends. 6 makes me bored about smalltalk. 8 means I decide what I want to be, but don’t know how to. 9 can prevent friendships too. 10 is okay I guess. 11 is why I am egalitarian.

So you see, I still have other problems. But the stronger ones that could be fixed and that I wanted fixed have been.

Motley February 25, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

Would you be okay with a group that said “Everyone welcome EXCEPT cancer survivors”?

Heh. While reading the line immediately before this, I was about to say “So how about a group that said,” etc. So in answer to the question, no, I don’t think it would, as long as it didn’t bill itself as an all-inclusive group. But someone putting up a sign that says “Everyone who hasn’t had cancer, welcome here” — as long as they actually did welcome everyone who hasn’t had cancer, then no; I’d have no problem with that. (I wouldn’t have a problem with a cancer-survivors group firebombing the place either.) Reaction to both: Meh.

Sam February 25, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

Motley,

“Reaction to both: Meh.”

That’s not exactly what Kant would suggest…

Motley February 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

Nobody’s perfect.

mstrnatural February 25, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

De-lurking for a moment:
[Welcome aboard Shala.]

To some extent the recent discussion looks a bit like a series of salvos being fired back and forth – which are missing their mark.

What we are seeing is vulnerability on your part, Shala [and who knows, perhaps on Motley's part as well - tho he tends to act so curmudgeonly as to hide it if it's there!] And we are also seeing the underlying hurt feelings when that vulnerability isn’t acknowledged. (Which means, in turn, that some, even more deeply held, underlying expectations about how people ‘ought’ to treat us are not being fulfilled.)

So maybe there is an opportunity to reframe the dialog here; presuming that that y’all are actually interested in hearing one another. (And not surprisingly I do ask that question – as so many of us use our e-mail list serves as places simply to “blow off” energy.)

Two things are not working:

1) Logical argumentation: largely because there is no first getting down to a common set of assumptions/ axioms before proceeding. No matter how iron clad the argument – if you start with different assumptions (because you are afraid to see that they are different) you will never be able to persuade your opposite/ (debating opponent) to agree with you. (and:)

2) Emotional “arm-twisting” or “guilt-tripping” (the moral ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ that come as people negotiate without first securing agreement on the basic assumptions and values. [Much of the legitimate gripes expressed in this ongoing blog discussion - have been about a certain sort of feminist ideology which has used that power to guilt-trip others as a way to 'steamroller' an agenda forward - and the adverse effects that guilt-tripping has on some men, some women, and some members of the GLBTQ community.] I think that enough of us have had enough bad experiences with that approach to understand it’s weaknesses. (But that doesn’t keep us, unconsciously, from going right back there and doing it ourselves!)

Stereotyping and discrimination are more about keeping an inner circle in, than about keeping an outer circle out. (OK that’s a bit ambiguous, I agree) It’s about creating a bond amongst members of a small clique (or a large, ideological denomination or “identity” group.) People create exclusive groupings because they believe (rightly or wrongly, no matter) that they are enhancing their personal security when they do so.

Trans gendered persons challenge the(albeit somewhat shallow) self-identity assumptions in both cis-het male and cis-het female groups [at least for that big chunk of people who have not yet addressed their own gender dynamics sufficiently to let go of their xenophobia and see their commonalities with every other human being.]

So,Shala, your vulnerability aside (and your lifetime quest to understand yourself and reclaim an unresolved sense of integrity), while it may be true that you have a “right” to be free from the internalized stigma and confusion that comes of having lived a ‘misgendered’ life as child, you can’t automatically use that sense of new personal ‘freedom’ and ‘entitlement’ as a passport to get you into a group of women (for example) who have had no or little transgender experiences themselves, and who will feel threatened by your presence and the ways that it exposes some of the more tenuous sides of the assumptions they hold about who they are.

[Clarisse/Shala] Motley is not advocating/advancing any desire on his part or intention to discriminate against you, Shala, as a transgendered woman. But he is being excruciatingly careful not to allow any vague assumptions in this blog discussion to give you any wiggle room on the “ought” & “should” side of the issue.

If I read his argument correctly, Motley is playing stand in for all those folks who have not come to peace with their inner gender ghosts and therefore cannot yet see what is (in an idealized world) an inherent truth that your humanity trumps their stereotypes. Until they do that work and come to their own personal epiphanies in that regard, they will continue to carry their fears and stereotypical attitudes, and occasionally abuse their power to discriminate against you [exercising it as though it were some kind of 'right'] – and you will need to be prepared to address such folks human to human (and not necessarily engaging them as a transgendered woman to a cis-woman, cis-man, etc.)

Schala February 25, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

My name is Schala btw, with a c before the h.

If I don’t force down doors and force people to face their demons with regards to their own gender insecurities, chances are they won’t ever do it of their own accord.

Civil rights for people of color were achieved with both non-violent and ‘violent’ acts (in that I count violating white people’s ‘racial boundaries’ in restaurants and such).

I’m of the opinion that challenging people’s preconceived notions directly by ‘violating their gendered boundaries’ is the best course of action towards removing harmful stereotypes (such as the bathroom panic about trans women being rapists-in-disguise or gender identity ordinances allowing (male) rapists to enter the women’s bathroom).

Only with trans women using those bathrooms will people come to realize that this is nonsense.

Motley February 26, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

Mstrnatural makes several good points, I think.

[and who knows, perhaps on Motley's part as well - tho he tends to act so curmudgeonly as to hide it if it's there!]

Incidentally, that was one of the more convenient aspects of our culture (in terms of “traditional masculinity”), for me. It got a little trickier when I figured out that under some circumstances we are supposed to express some kind of vulnerability. I had a few very weird situations in which I picked a “vulnerability” at random to attempt to express… and expressed it incorrectly, and apparently picked the wrong one. I don’t remember the particulars, but I remember it being pretty funny.

Logical argumentation: largely because there is no first getting down to a common set of assumptions/ axioms before proceeding.

Yeah. Pretty much the entirety of my question was a) What assumptions are you making them, b) why are you making those particular ones instead of others, and c) why or why not would other people be expected to use those same ones.

Stereotyping and discrimination are more about keeping an inner circle in, than about keeping an outer circle out.

Very true, as far as I know. F’rinstance, I get the impression that anti-gay tirades are meant to get “street cred” with anti-gay groups much more often than they’re meant to have any effect on actual gay people–and to solidify the idea within the anti-gay that it has Real Enemies and such.

Motley is not advocating/advancing any desire on his part or intention to discriminate against you, Schala, as a transgendered woman.

Well, I’m glad someone gets it. I mean, I did say it, explicitly, quite a few times…

If I read his argument correctly, Motley is playing stand in for all those folks who have not come to peace with their inner gender ghosts and therefore cannot yet see what is (in an idealized world) an inherent truth that your humanity trumps their stereotypes.

Not precisely, but pretty close. The argument I was making (when I was making one) comes from a basic dislike for the “revenge-discrimination” –the common idea that the experience of having been discriminated against/having had your own experiences discounted gives you the right to do the same to everyone else. (It’s also one of my larger problems with modern feminism as a movement)

@Schala -

If I don’t force down doors and force people to face their demons with regards to their own gender insecurities, chances are they won’t ever do it of their own accord.

Oh, I know. Time and a place, though, my friend. I don’t think, though, that when someone asks “What is it that you mean by that term, and why,” is necessarily either of those.

Civil rights for people of color were achieved with both non-violent and ‘violent’ acts (in that I count violating white people’s ‘racial boundaries’ in restaurants and such).

Yeah, I’ve been thinking about that. It runs into problems, though, when you consider, well, my own existence.

See the problem?

I’m of the opinion that challenging people’s preconceived notions directly by ‘violating their gendered boundaries’ is the best course of action towards removing harmful stereotypes (such as the bathroom panic about trans women being rapists-in-disguise or gender identity ordinances allowing (male) rapists to enter the women’s bathroom).

Only with trans women using those bathrooms will people come to realize that this is nonsense.

Hmmm. I’m not sure I’ve run across that before. Out of curiosity, what’s the particular objection? I mean, are you saying that some rapist somewhere wouldn’t pretend to be a woman in order to get into the men’s room?

(Though it occurs to me: Why wouldn’t they be doing that already?)

The claim does sound consistent with certain patterns I’ve seen, though–the common belief that any improvement to women’s safety, no matter how slight, is worth any cost to others, no matter how great. I imagine this demographic overlaps pretty heavily with the “trans people can’t be women” demographic (I’d say the two are actually expressions of the same phenomenon). All speculation, though.

Schala February 26, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

Hmmm. I’m not sure I’ve run across that before. Out of curiosity, what’s the particular objection? I mean, are you saying that some rapist somewhere wouldn’t pretend to be a woman in order to get into the men’s room?

(Though it occurs to me: Why wouldn’t they be doing that already?)

The claim does sound consistent with certain patterns I’ve seen, though–the common belief that any improvement to women’s safety, no matter how slight, is worth any cost to others, no matter how great. I imagine this demographic overlaps pretty heavily with the “trans people can’t be women” demographic (I’d say the two are actually expressions of the same phenomenon). All speculation, though.

Well yeah its pretty stupid. Rapists don’t even need to ‘dress up’ or pretend to be trans to go in the women’s room.

People think that giving gender identity ordinances green light means that rapists would be able to enter the women’s room unquestioned (even if they look like ‘men in dress’) and rape with impunity.

And while many trans women look ‘rather obvious’ to some, rape is still a punishable offense, and notice that there are no law preventing usage or entry of men in the women’s room, or vice-versa. The laws about gender identity are to make it illegal to discriminate, throw out or otherwise make life difficult to trans people wanting to use bathrooms like everyone else.

But yeah the fear is also absed on people thinking that trans women are ‘really men’, and that men would rape automatically when allowed in the women’s bathroom (which I highly doubt).

Notice no similar concern exists for trans men using the men’s room.

Clarisse February 27, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

@Motley — Nope. When have I claimed that? (I certainly don’t recall doing so, and I have trouble imagining that I would).

I guess I read your previous comments about not caring what people think, etc. as assertions that you aren’t emotionally invested.

I understand that it’s tempting – and fun – to ascribe evil motives to people, but it’s not a very useful way of achieving any sort of goal.

How am I ascribing an evil motive to you?

Do I get to tell you what a woman is? Do I get to tell you who’s a woman and who isn’t?

Me? I don’t feel very threatened in my womanhood by other people asserting that they’re women, even if they’re very different from me, or sport characteristics that I wouldn’t normally think of as belonging to women. I’m not less of a woman just because other people are also women.

This is basically a shaming tactic used against people who commit the crime of thinking that you don’t get to dictate their identities to them.

It’s only a shaming tactic if you assume that I think being exclusive is bad; I never said that. Haven’t I spent significant chunks of text throughout my posts, and this thread, defending the idea of safe spaces? Which are, by definition, exclusive?

If you get to have your own identity, and to define it for yourself, then so do I.

So then what do we do if your identity definition directly conflicts with someone else’s? If a trans person’s self-definition means he gets to be a man, and your self-definition means you get to say trans men aren’t men, then … what do we do?

I had a few very weird situations in which I picked a “vulnerability” at random to attempt to express… and expressed it incorrectly, and apparently picked the wrong one. I don’t remember the particulars, but I remember it being pretty funny.

If you ever do remember the particulars, I’m interested.

makomk February 27, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

Schala: oh yes, and for some reason they’re more than happy to force trans women into the same bathroom as men that’d supposedly rape any woman they’re alone in a bathroom with. Curious that…

(Incidentally, I’ve also just been reminded by a site that’s already been mentioned enough in this thread of how a lot of the transphobic radfem crap shows – even depends on – a total failure to understand male socialization. Figures.)

It’s also worth noting that the site in question doesn’t just attack trans women – as always, it attacks feminists who respect and listen to them. That’s why it’s not a coincidence that most or all of the big-name feminists from the 80s and earlier are incredibly transphobic: it’s a systemic problem. These women – Mary Daly, Janyce Raymond, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, etc – actually benefited from their transphobia.

I wonder if the same would happen in any men’s movement. It seems plausible.

Motley February 27, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

@ Clarisse -

I guess I read your previous comments about not caring what people think, etc. as assertions that you aren’t emotionally invested.

Umm… huh? “Being unemotional” and “not caring about other people’s feelings” aren’t the same thing, I think. And “not being emotionally invested” in something seems to me to be something completely different from either of those two… I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.

How am I ascribing an evil motive to you?

The line in response to which I said that, which I quoted:

It’s really important to them that they be allowed — in fact, not just allowed, but specifically enabled and not viewed as assholes — to misgender trans people.

I was assuming that you disapprove, morally speaking, of misgendering trans people. Is this not the case?

Me? I don’t feel very threatened in my womanhood by other people asserting that they’re women, even if they’re very different from me, or sport characteristics that I wouldn’t normally think of as belonging to women. I’m not less of a woman just because other people are also women.

You are, still, acting as though you think I was objecting to the existence of trans people, or their claims about their identity, rather than to the claims you made about my identity. I explained this pretty explicitly before. Do you seriously still not understand?

I’ll try again: You acted as though you think that you get to tell me what is and is not a man. Nothing to do with trans people. Everything to do with you acting as though women (not trans-men, women, particularly the one named Clarisse Thorn) get to decide what a man is. I don’t get to declare what a Latino is, because I’m not one. I also don’t get to declare what a woman is, because I am not one. Clarisse Thorn does not get to declare what a man is, because she is not one (and because men have the same rights that other people have). I was objecting to the fact that you (not trans people) were dictating to me what a man is, when I am one and you are not. This bothers me, because I know you think that people should be allowed to define their own identities. But, for some reason, you seem to be operating under the assumption that cis men do not have this basic human right.

So then what do we do if your identity definition directly conflicts with someone else’s? If a trans person’s self-definition means he gets to be a man, and your self-definition means you get to say trans men aren’t men, then … what do we do?

Who’s “we?” In this circumstance, those parts of “we” who are female shouldn’t do anything, because it’s a disagreement about men’s identities, and you don’t get to dictate what’s what. I don’t get to tell you what your life is, you don’t get to tell me what mine is, because we’re both people, right?

In much the same way that I wouldn’t presume to tell a woman whether or not Schala is one (because I have no say whatsoever in the definition of what “womanhood” means).

@ makomk -

(Incidentally, I’ve also just been reminded by a site that’s already been mentioned enough in this thread of how a lot of the transphobic radfem crap shows – even depends on – a total failure to understand male socialization. Figures.)

Yeah. Victorian/radfem bullshit (they have really a lot more in common than I would’ve thought) both seem largely rooted in this bizarre “men are rape-machines, not people” idea. Weird.

I wonder if the same would happen in any men’s movement. It seems plausible.

I’m gonna guess “no,” at least with regards to trans men. I mean, “I was born with girl parts” would probably weird guys out (much like saying “I’m from Switzerland” or something – basically, the statement “I’m from a different background than the rest of you”), but I don’t think there’d be any of these accusations of being a monstrous rape-happy infiltrator. Trans women get a lot of contempt (and the occasional murder) in men’s circles, but I think that’s more a combination of situational disappointment and feeling tricked (and homophobia in the truest sense of the word) than whatever else.

These women – Mary Daly, Janyce Raymond, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, etc – actually

Search

Manliness and Feminism: the followup

1,396 Responses to “Manliness and Feminism: the followup”