I got an interesting email last week in response to this recent post on dating. A reader who asked not to be identified (I’ll call him "Malcolm") wrote a lengthy note on the subject of the dating in the college/graduate school world. With his permission, I’m quoting a paragraph from his note in which he discusses the interplay of his attraction to certain "types" with pro-feminist principles:
What I don’t like… is that I’ve become shallower in terms of who I go after - when other information is unavailable, appearance makes up the difference. Near the beginning of the year, I mentioned the physical type for which I had the greatest weakness, but mused that it had little or no predictive value for whom I might eventually pursue. Looking over the past year, every dark-skinned, dark-haired, and dark-eyed girl with whom I had reasonable contact in (Large Public University Town) became a "person of interest". Those of paler hue did not attract my interest at the same rate. I’m not sure if that is actually a problem, but it’s an effect I doubt most feminists would approve of.
Malcolm had many other good and interesting things to say, but I want to focus in a bit on this.
There’s a widespread and patently false assumption that a heterosexual man who embraces feminist principles ought not to have a "type" to which he is drawn. Indeed, one of the issues that I see coming up in men’s discussion groups over and over again is the problem of physical attraction. Can one really be a pro-feminist if one is attracted to women based upon their looks? If one is more attracted to thin women, or blondes, or Asians, or whatever, do these specific attractions vitiate one’s principles? Many young men I’ve worked with think that in order to be an authentic feminist, a man must be only interested in a woman’s mind, a woman’s heart, a woman’s spirit. According to this line of thinking, to be too attracted to a woman’s body, or to find one type of body more attractive than others, is evidence of an insufficiently evolved pro-feminist mentality!
Here’s where a simple-minded pro-feminism risks turning into gnosticism. The gnostics rejected the idea of the body as good, seeing it as a prison for the soul. Various gnostic heresies continue to abound, and I’ve met some folks on the fringes of the feminist world who still cling to it. They look at the sexual exploitation of women in our intensely visual culture, and they long for a world where women are seen separately from their flesh. Dating and mating decisions, they maintain, should be based on intellectual, emotional, political, and spiritual compatibility — not on physical desire. According to this small but passionate group, those who make choices even partly based on external appearance have failed to evolve sufficiently, and are victims of a corrupted, carnal culture. And unfortunately, more than a few men and women who are trying to live with feminist principles end up feeling a nagging sense of guilt about what they believe to be their own "superficial" and "shallow" attractions.
But authentic feminism is not hostile to the body, nor to human sexual responses to the body. Feminism does ask the hard questions about why our culture suggests only some kinds of bodies are worthy of being deemed attractive! Feminism is critical of the extraordinarily narrow range of women’s bodies depicted as beautiful and desirable in the culture. But there’s a difference between speaking out against the ways in which popular culture limits the definition of beauty and desire, and rejecting the idea of lust and physical attraction altogether.
Most of us — not all — have certain physical "types" to which we are often drawn. While I am not an arbiter of appropriate "pro-feminist behavior" (that would be a laugh!), I can’t say I’m troubled by the fact that Malcolm is attracted to dark-skinned young women. Now, if that attraction is linked to a belief that those with darker skin might be more submissive (and knowing Malcolm, I don’t think it is), then that would be a problem. A "type" does become a problem when certain physical attributes are presumptively linked to certain anti-feminist qualities (submissiveness, docility, and so forth). Most feminists are rightly troubled, for example, by white men who have an "Asian fetish" that is clearly linked to fantasies about submission and sexuality. But a man who simply prefers brunettes, without attaching any cultural baggage to his attraction, is not violating any vital feminist principle. We are allowed our individual quirks and our individual preferences, as long as those quirks and preferences are not linked to racist and sexist assumptions that certain types of women "know how to treat a man better."
Ultimately, we are embodied people. Both my faith and my feminism tell me that our bodies are good and worthy of pleasure and respect. My faith and my feminism also tell me that our fallen culture sends unhealthy and limited messages about what sort of bodies are most beautiful and worthy of desire. It is an important part of "growing up" to learn to separate our own unique wants from those that are imposed on us by our peers and society at large. (My philosophically-minded friends will question where it is that these "original desires" come from, if not from external influences. Pace, folks, that’s an issue better left to those more inclined to theoretical discussions of the nature of the self. I’m not qualified or even particularly interested.) The human family is naturally physically diverse in appearance, and I am convinced we are equally diverse — at our core — in terms of what appearances attract us. And that’s not a bad thing at all.
But a man who simply prefers brunettes, without attaching any cultural baggage to his attraction, is not violating any vital feminist principle.
Bravo Hugo! I couldn’t agree more. I’ve had to deal with this sort of thinking with regard to my fellow short men and the perceptions people have of us, especially women. I make it a point to condemn heightist exclusions and attacks of short men (e.g. “Short men are jerks, so I will never date one”), as compared to perfectly legitimate matters of preference (e.g. “I’m just not attacted to short men”). As a man who, at 5′5″, is in the fifth percentile for male height in America, I find myself trying to explain this to friends quite often. The problem is that many people seem to perceive any attempt to fight heightism as whining, and that by doing so I’m simply perpetuating unfair stereotypes of short men as trying to compensate for a lack of height.
I have a question for you, Hugo. As I stated in the post on cold medicine and lack of sleep, I rarely date. When I do try to meet women, I generally automatically exclude any women taller than me from the prospective-partner pool. It’s just my experience that a very small minority of women are willing to date men shorter than they are, so I really can’t see the reason for making the effort in the first place. I am naturally shy (avoidant, actually) and have a low anxiety threshold, so I have to mother my self-esteem, and I just can’t afford to court almost-certain rejection just for the small chance a woman will reciprocate my interest.
As an example, my last prospective partner was a former coworker. We gradually began hanging out together with our group of mutual friends, and I later tried to go on a traditional date. After dinner we were walking to a neighborhood bar for a nightcap when the subject of the height of our respective faimilies came up (God knows why, I avoid these topics like the plague). I joked and said I was pretty average for my family, and she said, forcefully, “Yes, and I’m 5′7.” I laughed and said she had just a bit on me then. She stopped dead in her tracks, came nose-to-nose with me, and repeated, more forcefully, “I know, I’m 5′7!” This is someone who I was already good friends with, had known for some time and established a rapport, who found me funny, and she couldn’t get over the fact she was barely taller than me. I related the story to some friends, all women, who agreed that she was basically saying that I was not up to her standards. I get this kind of thing a lot.
Do you think that my attitude is anti-feminist? I do appear to be attaching cultural baggage to my beliefs, since I am assuming that taller women, generally speaking, aren’t willing to date shorter men, but I just see it as pragmatism. If taller women are unlikely to go out with me, why bother even trying? Your thoughts?
I’m troubled by your aside that submissiveness and docility are “antifeminist” traits, which seems to contradict the idea that feminism is about accepting diversity of gender expression. Assuming a woman is naturally docile and likes looking up to her male partner in a traditional way - not because of cultural brainwashing as much as natural disposition, just as some guys are naturally more “macho” - is she “antifeminist”? Is it “antifeminist” for some guys to find that personality type a good fit with theirs? Some of us gals are more Hello Kitty than Catwoman. They need dates too!
I don’t think you and I mean the same thing by “docile” and “submissive”. I mean a woman who feels compelled to acquiesce to men because of cultural or social pressures, not a woman who, of her own free will, takes genuine pleasure in performing traditional roles and does so entirely of her own volition. Not my cup of tea, but hey, more power to those for whom it is.
I’m kinda doubtful that the “range of women’s bodies depicted as beautiful and desirable in the culture” is “extraordinarily narrow”. But I can’t really feel comfortable arguing with it unless I know what you mean.
Are you saying the women on the cover of Cosmo depict America’s ideal woman and to be that woman is insanely limiting? I think America is amore a tapestry of subcultures, which have their own different traits of physical attractiveness. Nerdy, emo, party-going, wholesome, exotic, athletic, goth, aristocratic, all are their own subcultures with their own bodytypes that are cherished. Within these subcultures they are pretty limiting, but none of these cultures dominate the landscape anymore and it’s pretty easy to fit into one. In fact, in so much as many physical attributes are used as ways to send cultural signals about who you are and find company, they are pretty good and diverse.
I would say thinness is almost universally preferred if not required (although how thin varies), and that is the most unfortunate aspect. But I wouldn’t call that “extraordinarily narrow” except in the most punning sense of the term.
glitch, my sister just married a guy who is a good few inches shorter than she (she’s 5′6″). i see where you’re coming from in terms of many people being shallow around issues of height, but for every girl who is narrow-minded about it, there’s another for whom it doesn’t matter at all.
so, hard as it might be, don’t dismiss all taller women out of hand! maybe one will surprise you.
Glitch, I don’t think your attitude is anti-feminist at all. You don’t think badly of tall women, you don’t seem to be looking for a docile and submissive mate the way “Asian fetishists” are, and you’ve presumably got limited amounts of time, energy, and resources to devote to dating.
And you’re right — women are often weird about dating men who are shorter than themselves. I’ve never understood this myself, but I’ve definitely observed it to be true. Many men also seem to be freaked out by the idea of dating women who are taller than they are.
It’s hard for me to avoid reading patriarchy into these bizarre height standards. Height tends to signal power in the animal kingdom, and I think a lot of men and women are invested in preserving the patriarchal status quo. I wouldn’t blame individual men or women for their dating choices, if all they’re trying to do is coordinate with others. But for people who put special effort into enforcing the rules, e.g., by looking askance at tall man/ short woman couples or by saying nasty things about potential partners of the wrong height, I have far less sympathy.
I guess I don’t have a problem with heterosexual women (men) who just out-and-out prefer taller (shorter) partners without having stereotypical beliefs about the personalities of those partners. Though like I’ve said, I have a hard time fathoming that set of desires myself.
But for people who put special effort into enforcing the rules, e.g., by looking askance at tall man/ short woman couples
This is going a bit off topic, but I’d like to ask Creeping Jenny to clarify this. I’m a short woman (5′1″) who has almost exclusively dated men in the 6′ range, although not by design. (All other traits being equal, I’d prefer a much shorter man because I like to be able to kiss standing up without having to stand on a stepstool. But I digress.) I’ve never heard of, nor been the target of, negative attitudes for dating taller men. Is this a common thing, or am I misunderstanding your post?
I’ve never heard of, nor been the target of, negative attitudes for dating taller men. Is this a common thing, or am I misunderstanding your post?
Ack, that was a ridiculous typo on my part. I meant “short man/ tall woman couples”, not the other way around. I’m 5′8″, I’ve historically ended up dating a lot of shorter men, and I have gotten some snarky comments (more from acquaintances than from strangers, though).
It made no sense the way I originally typed it; sorry about that.
kate d: Well, I still think your example is the exception and not the rule, but thanks for the support. It’s not necessarily a matter of not giving up on a given “class” of women, but more of a cost/benefit ratio that I’m trying to express. Sure, there are certainly taller women who don’t mind shorter men at all, but I tend to think they are uncommon, and I don’t have much capacity for rejection, so it’s best to focus on where I am more likely to have success.
Creeping Jenny:
I’ve historically ended up dating a lot of shorter men, and I have gotten some snarky comments (more from acquaintances than from strangers, though).
1. God bless you, and keep you.
2. If there one thing in this world that makes me angry (well, many things, but…) it’s this bizarre hang up people have about short men with taller partners. I have a good friend who got quite drunk in a fit of depression recently, went to a bar, saw a short man with a tall woman, and started in on him. He loudly asked what that guy was doing with that woman, and when the bartender told him to stuff it, his response was, “What, I can take him.” It is a revealing statment because it underlies the basic assumption many have about short men, that they’re physically inferior. Many women, perhaps unconsciously, feel that short men can’t protect or provide for them, and men think short men are simply relegated to the bottom of the status totem pole for the same reason. It all seems to relate to a decidedly mysoginistic belief that women must rely on men for protection or subsistence, and only a man who can provide these is worthy of being with her.
The fact that this guy considers himself deeply liberal is perhaps the greatest irony. I still love him as my friend, perhaps one of my best friends, but I really have trouble getting over things like this.
Anyway, don’t let it get to you. And thank you for your response.
You’re absolutely right, Hugo; I couldn’t agree with you more. The same, of course, goes for hetero women being attracted to certain male types as well. While one can meet a person who is right for them in every respect, if there isn’t an element of physical attraction (even to the point of that person’s gender and sexuality), then the sort of romantic or sex based relationship is far less likely to happen. Being heterosexual myself, I can say I’ve met a great deal of women who have jived completely with my mindset and interests– the only problem is that my “type” happens to be towards males. That right there puts it in perspective itself.
Tony Vila,
Being thin (for women) may be preferred currently in the United States, but a variety of other cultures and countries appreciate larger women as well as thinner women. Larger women are also depicted as beautiful in multiple art forms throughout the ages, including the works of the Master Painter’s of the Renaissance.
So, I would be careful calling a preference almost universal.
Interesting thread.
Each of us has our own “little” things to which we are more attracted. I have (almost) always been attracted to taller men, although a few times they were near my height. For me, it was partially due to the way my mom’s 2nd husband (who was slightly shorter than her) treated us as I was growing up.
He was in our lives from when I was 7yo until I was 15yo. Those years are vital in the formation of a person’s sense of self and of self-worth. People who bear reminders of my father or of my mother’s 2nd husband are people to whom I usually avoid becoming close.
I would hazard a guess that it is similar for each of us. We tend to avoid those who share similarities with the people who’ve hurt us the most. We tend to gravitate toward those with similarities to those with whom we were the closest. (Which would explain why my husband has many traits and habits that are similar to those of my maternal grandfather, who my husband never met and to whom I was extremely close.)
Glitch, your tendency to avoid relationships with taller women is totally understandable, to me. I agree that you must nurture yourself. Just don’t rule out the possibility that someone taller than you might one day surprise you. No matter how minute, it’s always a possibility.
Stacey: I think you missed what Tony was saying. He was clearly responding to Hugos comment on Modern American culture (so past standards of beauty don’t really apply) More importantly thinnnes was his exception; denying its universality only proves what Tony was actually saying if you read him carefully.
So do you or do you not agree with Hugo’s claim that beauty standards now are extraordinarily narrow?
Glitch, I’m a tall woman (72.5 inches), and 5 out of 7 of my pre-marriage boyfriends were shorter than I was, some significantly. It never bothered me at all, but other people seemed weirded out. Now, I did marry a guy who’s 6′3″, and while it’s nice to not get the rude comments from strangers anymore, his height (or lack thereof) wasn’t even on my radar screen as an important issue.
I personally would never have ruled a guy out simply because he was shorter than me, even *way* shorter. That dwarf actor who was in _The Station Agent_ (drawing a blank on his name right now) - he’s *hot*. I would *so* go out with him, were I single, and other people’s hangups can go, well, hang. :)
Caitriona, I understand what you’re saying about personal reactions, but it seems dangerous to justify avoiding people because they look like someone you had a bad experiences with in the past.
That kind of argument can be used to justify all kinds of prejudice - which is why Hugo emphasized physical preferences shouldn’t be based on assumptions that go beyond the facts to personality judgements.
Now, myself, I’ve always had a “type” for slim, hard-muscled Asian males. Just yummy. They track as “fast, intelligent, sarcastic” in my prejudice-cabinet, and this is all due to my cousin, a Korean adoptee. (He’s no longer either slim or hard-muscled, but face it: neither am I.) So: Bruce Lee, yum. Jackie Chan, yum. My head comes up and my lips curl in delight.
But the fact of the matter is that I am a lesbian in a permanent relationship with a large African-American woman, who knocked me over the moment I saw her, and still does, 17 years and 100 pounds later (on both our parts!).
In the Charge of the Goddess we are told “All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals,” and the pull of the body must be given its proper weight. Which is in conjunction with the pull of the mind. If the mind is paramount, what you have is friendship. If the body is paramount, what you have is a one-night-stand. And I would personally not denigrate either of those things, undertaken with respect for the inherent dignity and health of all concerned parties; sometimes a one-night-stand is just the kind of cure a broken spirit needs. (Like Turkish Delight, though, in small, small quantities so as not to get sick-and-tired.) Sometimes, a deep, cuddly, but non-passionate friendship is absolutely the thing. Again, so long as the dignity of all is preserved.
Lois McMaster Bujold writes a series of books in which the POV character is quite short (less than 5′), and slightly twisty of spine. He consistently goes for much taller, physically fit, and highly intelligent women. Some of whom respond, some of whom do not notice him, and some of whom are put entirely off by his hyperactivity.
You do not violate any principle of human dignity (read: feminism) so long as what you are seeking is an equal, a partner. You do not even violate feminist principles if you play sexual games of dominance and submission - so long as games is what they are, and with the full and delighted consent of all concerned, and not your expectation for how life should be.
And you do not violate any feminist principles as your head comes up and your lips curl in delight as long as you remember that the one you wind up with may not fit into that category at all.
Vacula, what I was trying to indicated was not someone *just* looking like a person with whom you’ve had bad experiences, but someone who reminds you strongly of a person with whom you’ve had exceedingly bad experiences. It’s hard to put into words. An example, maybe, will do better.
Mom’s 2nd husband was a cocky, red-headed, drucken, cowboy-wannabe who said that by getting more of an education, she was attempting to “raise herself above her raisin’.” (In actuality, she was improving herself so that she could do a better job of taking care of her family.) Now, I don’t avoid all redheads, but if a man happens to be red-headed *and* cocky, I tend to be a bit more careful around him. If he also drinks “a bit,” I’m even more cautious. If he has a tendency to get drunk and pull attitude, I tend to avoid him altogether. If he’s any sort of wannabe or poser, I’ve no use for him. And if he thinks that women shouldn’t get more education, we *sure* won’t get along.
Thank you, Wordwitch — well put indeed.
Rebecca,
I think the media portrays a very narrow standard of beauty that has an influence on men and women. There have been some recent improvements though.
I may have misread Tony, but by definition, “universal” extends past modern American culture, so that is what I was commenting on. Overall, I think the points on the various sub-cultures were very good.
I think there’s also something to how limiting your “type” becomes — i.e., if you’re so selectively attracted to brunettes that you can’t even pay attention to vibes from the blonde that you’re working on a project with. Most people have biases in their attractions to strangers, but also find that their preferences are totally swayed once they have personalities to pin to those pictures (whether it’s realizing that that total babe is a controlling monster or finding out that the average-looking guy down the hall is like the other half of yourself that you didn’t know was missing). As long as reality continues to affect you, you’re doing ok.
My simplistic two cents.