The comments below July 7’s post on biology and male accountability continue to be impassioned. I finished that post this way:
It would be absurd to deny that many young men are aroused by the sight of an attractive woman wearing revealing clothing. What pro-feminists deny is that women are somehow responsible for male arousal. A girl in a mini-skirt is no more responsible for her classmate’s lust than the barista at Starbucks is for my full bladder! I have as much control over where my eyes linger as I do over what I choose to drink; whatever physiological reactions I experience as the result of either activity (drinking coffee, ogling) are my responsibility and mine alone. While in other fora we can have long and interesting discussions about dress codes and "appropriateness", pro-feminist men ought to be adamant that whatever the imperious demands of our flesh, the human will is stronger still.
My emphatic final sentence has generated some satisfying discussion both here and elsewhere. It even ended up getting dragged into a discussion on same-sex marriage, not something I would have anticipated!
I’ve been thinking about why it is that so many folks, both men and women (see Jen’s comments below the post) are convinced that the male sexual drive is this extraordinary, uncontrollable force. In my women’s studies classes, we call it the "myth of male weakness." The "myth" part is the notion that men are less capable of self-control than women, and that the insatiable demands of the male libido will invariably trump the sound judgment of the average man. It’s a myth that both sexes frequently buy into, albeit for different reasons.
A belief in the "myth of male weakness" benefits men in an obvious way: it allows us to avoid being fully accountable for our actions. When we cheat, or when we get hooked on Internet porn, or when are distracted by an attractive woman during class or Mass, we construct a false victim narrative for ourselves. "I couldn’t help it", we say in the aftermath of still another exasperating or heartbreaking betrayal. Men often claim, wrongly, that they are victims in one of two ways, or both at once: we are victims of biological impulses that overwhelm our judgment, and we are victims of "loose women" who deliberately tempt us beyond the point of no return. Sadly, this is a satisfying narrative for many men — it allows us to avoid taking full responsibility,and forces women to be the "gatekeepers" who regulate our sexual activity.
Of course,some women are deeply attached to this false narrative as well. A woman who believes in the myth of male weakness may mistakenly believe that it offers her — and other women — a special kind of power. If you genuinely believe men are weak, you may believe that women have a right to use that weakness in order to get what they want and need. A woman who is an artful and manipulative gatekeeper may be able to get all sorts of things from men, and far too many young girls are raised and encouraged to be experts at taking advantage of the myth of male weakness. It actually offers little for women, of course. In a society where men are taught to see barely pubescent women as the most desirable, over the course of her lifetime a woman who relies on her sexual attractiveness for her status will see her power diminish with each passing year.
I note that for many of my women students, believing in the myth of male weakness is less about an opportunity to manipulate and more about self-protection. So many of my female students have been raised to believe that "men only want one thing" and that "you can’t trust a man" and "men are guilty until proven innocent". Many of them learned these lessons from both moms and dads, parents who were anxious to protect their daughters. After all, many parents reason that a cynical and suspicious girl is less vulnerable than a starry-eyed romantic who believes that most men of any age are capable of regulating their impulses!
If you’re raised to believe in the discourse of male weakness, it’s an enormous challenge to try and unlearn it. The evidence that it isn’t a myth at all, but a verifiable biological reality, seems overwhelming! The number of men who seem genuinely capable of living lives of integrity often seems so small, and it’s easy to believe that they are exceptions to the norm. (I run into this all the time: folks either assume I’m lying when I talk about my ability to exercise self-control, or that my libido must be unusually low. No "real man", particularly no real young man, could have a will strong enough to trump his desires — every time.) But the fact that it’s a challenge to unlearn this doesn’t mean it’s impossible. At its best the feminist project has always been about challenging both men and women to move beyond the familiar and to consider the possibility that we can transcend culturally imposed limitations.
I do believe that the power to control my eyes, actions, and even thoughts is a gift of grace. My story is clear: before I became a Christian, I didn’t exercise much in the way of self-restraint in any area of my life. To paraphrase the famous lines from the James Dean film, if someone asked me what I was addicted to in my youth, I would reply "Whaddya got?" When I was "born again" a number of years ago, I became aware for the first time that I had this God-given ability to make good choices. My urges and impulses did not vanish overnight, but the power — the wonder-working power — to regulate and restrict and redirect — was within my grasp.
I’m also a believer in what Christians call "common grace", the notion that to one degree or another all humans are given the strength to resist sin, even if they don’t share a faith in Christ. Heck, even Calvin (not known for his belief in the power of the unaided human will) acknowledged that "common grace" extended to all. Most of the modern understanding of common grace comes from the marvelous Dutch Calvinist Abraham Kuyper, whose work is nicely summarized (and expanded) in a delightful little book by my friend Richard Mouw. This is not a theology blog, of course. My point is this: the ability that we have to regulate our sexual desires is, I believe, a gift of that "common grace" that is given to all, not merely the "saving grace" that comes to the believers in Christ. Men in many cultures, of many religions or none at all, have shown the ability to control their sexual impulses. Though I did not learn to do so until I became a Christian, I am convinced that becoming a believer in Jesus is not a prerequisite for a man to develop and use his will to trump the demands of his body.
The battle against the "myth of male weakness" is perhaps the most important one that pro-feminist men can fight. We must lead by example, matching our public rhetoric and our private behavior. In ways big and small, we need to challenge other men to rethink their own accountability, and to take responsibility for what they do with their penises, their hands, their eyes, and even their thoughts. The goal is not to instill guilt or shame; the goal is to empower men to realize that they have a power and a control that they may never have realized that they had. And though taking responsibility is sometimes hard and painful, it can also be immensely liberating.
I must say–I’m surprised that you are surprised that your comments were dragged into a discussion of same-sex marriage. When I read, What I do question as a pro-feminist man is whether our “nature” is ever an excuse for poor behavior, the first thing I thought was, “That’s the classic Christian position on extra-marital sex (including, but not limited to, homosexual sex).”
Love the hat tip to Kuyper–”common grace” is such a helpful idea.
Well, I think most pro-SSM folks (of which I am one) would draw a distinction between compulsive lusting, infidelity, porn use, molestation on the one hand and the deep desire for a socially-sanctioned union with a same-sex partner. I can see why the words I chose were construed as they were,of course, now that I’ve read through the discussion.
Hugo,
I agree with you–there is a difference between SSM and promiscuity–except that it isn’t true for many SSM proponents I know.
In other words, I can easily see the argument that a (lesbian) couple that has been together for 50 years (I know one) cannot be reasonably distinguished from a married couple. (I disagree, as you know, but I can see the argument.) But none of the SSM proponents I know are advocates of traditional morals (chastity outside marriage and faithfulness in marriage) who want to redefine “marriage” to include same-sex couples.
If you are going to say, consistently, “our nature is never an excuse for poor behavior”, it seems to me that “poor behaviour” has to be defined without reference to our desires. (And it is entirely possible to define “poor behaviour” in ways: that allow pre-marital sex, but not unfaithfulness in marriage; that allow sex only within marriage but include same-sex couples in marriage; that allow porn, but not prostitution; etc.)
As I was reading this I was struck with the thought that libido is the only area in which men are allowed (or even expected) to show weakness. In all other aspects (emotional, physical, intellectual) weakness is a terrible thing that must be excised. Some probably see an uncontrolable lust as a strength, something to be encouraged.
I think your thoughts on this are tied strongly to your faith, mostly by the vocabulary you choose. Out of curiosity, do you attempt to extricate the faith from your lectures about this in class? As a student, I’d be annoyed to hear something like “men of integrity can avoid looking at women and being aroused” (paraphrase, not a direct quote). To me, it is about behavior after the fact. We ARE animals, we will be aroused by things we see around us, and that is not always unwelcome. But that is not an excuse to rape, to leer, etc.
Also. Porn use = molestation? Come on.
I believe that men are responsible for their thoughts and behavior, but I don’t think that we can deny the difficult situation that young men and boys face. I’m a teacher and I simply don’t believe that the average twelve year old boy is capable of resisting internet porn. It would be awesome if their parents could control the situation, but many kids don’t have parents (or often a single parent) up to the task of parenting. It’s not unusual to find that the parent has little control over her children at all.
Natural curiosity and hormones, combined with a ready supply of images on the internet and via TV can warp and damage a a pre-teen’s perspective on women. The unrestricted access to hardcore pornographic images by pre-teens is unprecedented in the history of the world. What should society do? I don’t know, but it is a whole lot easier to prevent addictions than to cure them.
One more thought- I think that uniforms are wonderful for primary and secondary schools. Economic class is not so readily apparent, gang symbols are less noticable, and everybody is covered up.
nobadges, I’m coming from a pretty much completely secular perspective, and I think this post is spot-on (also, John’s insightful observation about the construction of masculinity). Nothing about the context of the list of behaviors Hugo provided implies that they are necessarily equally problematic or wrong.
Thanks, DJW — I’m not saying porn use and molestation are equivalent, but they are both behaviors that folks sometimes excuse with the “myth of male weakness.”
Dave, how we go about helping adolescents negotiate and respond to the onslaught of internet porn is a fascinating question. I have no pat answer.
A brain study in Seed Magazine show that women process erotic images in exactly the same accelerated way as men (http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/07/hot_or_not.php). Why that leaves men with the “terrible burden” of overcoming thier sexual impulses while it just leaves women….women, is a curious questions.
Yesterday, I was asked to sum the western view of male sexuality - my reply; “My (males) needs must be satisfied.” From masturbation, where women who masturbates are (to other women) often seen as sluts, while men who masturbate are seen to other men as…normal (in fact a man who DOESN’T admit to “satisfying his urges” is view with distrust as an oddity). One of the common apropriations from men is the sexuality of women - in which a woman’s open sexuality is often seen by men as a sexual invitation. This is even true when the women are only having sex with women - men continue to see this as some sort of invitation (”Great, I’ll have sex with you”) - This and the societal idea of a sexual woman as a slut or “ready” for anyone, leaves the verbal and terrian of openness to sexuality solely to men.
If a woman posted repeated long blogs about overcoming her need or sexual desires - she would be left with several “offers” by guys who can “help her out” - Hugo on the other hand, gets to talk about it in length and repeated detail without scores of offers to give him a good lay.
I’ve posted about my high libido in my blog and haven’t had any offers from my male readers to help me out: they know I’m in a committed relationship.
I think there’s another factor in the myth of male weakness, Hugo, and perhaps the most insidious one. If someone says “no”, or “stop”, or “ouch”, and sex continues - or if someone says “I’m not interested” and gets raped by a partner, or parent, or friend - they may have to believe very hard that men CANNOT stop themselves in order to assimilate why someone who they love and who loves them might treat them that way. Or, if a woman is uncomfortable with prostitution, or porn, or sex-tours of Thailand, and her partner or father or brother or friend is engaging in those activities, again she may have to set up the cognitive dissonance necessary to believe it’s inevitable. The old “blue balls” argument is still out there.
I have had a number of partners - very few sexual partners, but a number of different fooling around partners - and have never had an experience of a man unable to hear me say no. On the other hand, as a child I was targetted a number of times: so I am both aware of predatory men and men who are in fact men, and not little boys who choose not to take responsibility for their actions.
I have no problem saying that men will get aroused at whatever they’ll get aroused at, and that that’s not in their control. I used to get a little het up in my morning Physics class, and I never figured out why that class; I couldn’t stop it, and it was a little distracting. Oooh, conservation of energy. Who knows. ANYWAY: an *adult* understands that their arousal is no one else’s problem, just as an adult knows that if they are hungry, they cannot grab a random person and demand that person cook them dinner.
People whose view of men is limited to the child-things that demand a vagina to have an orgasm when feeling lust make me really sad, because there are so many adult men out there.
Many of whom are (shockingly) turned on by their partner’s arousal and enjoyment, and don’t have much fun otherwise.
Sorry, I should have said: I’ve had a number of sexual partners, but very few with whom I’ve had intercourse.
I married a 38 year old virgin, and I had been celibate 15 years when we married. When my husband gets done laughing at the myth of male weakness, he finds the whole idea to be insulting. There is no rational reason why men can control other bodily aspects and not their sexual urges. BTW I love the comparison between libido and bladder. Great analogy.
Hugo said: “In ways big and small, we need to challenge other men to rethink their own accountability, and to take responsibility for what they do with their penises, their hands, their eyes, and even their thoughts.”
Oh great, you’re now advocating controlling men’s thoughts - bring on the pro-feminist Thought Police! How beautifully Orwellian of you.
A person’s thoughts, lust, and other emotions are (or at least should be) their own. In a similar vein to the Second Wavers, I say ‘my mind, my choice.’ Only acting out on thoughts and emotions should be sanctioned, and then only when they inflict verifiable harm on another based on a ‘reasonable person standard’ (e.g., staring is not an actionable form of acting-out, while molestation and rape are).
BTW, the “myth of male weakness” is nothing compared to the Myth of Male Power. You should read it sometime.
Oh great, you’re now advocating controlling men’s thoughts
Actually, it appeared to me that Hugo was advocating people taking responsibility for their own thoughts. Not having outside forces “controlling” anything.
I believe that our emotions are largely unbidden; but I know from my own experience that we can change the way we think about those emotions. I’ve used cognitive techniques quite successfully in helping me find confidence and become genuine to myself and to others.
I didn’t know you were in a relationship, Arwen, but I gave up “offering to help out” the highly charged in such fashion, oh, I dunno, maybe when I got promoted from dishwasher to busboy. And as it happens, Elizabeth, I can completely believe that all my close male friends masturbate frequently. There is zero dissonance between the two.
Douglas, of course you’re right. It’s not merely that my male readers know that I’m in a relationship, but also that they’re normal, self- and other- respecting people.
BTW I love the comparison between libido and bladder. Great analogy.
Bladder control is really just muscle control - there’s nothing hormonal or mental about it; you can lose not a jot of intelligence but catch a nasty disease that prevents you from controlling these muscles. The sex drive is hormonally driven. Men can wake up with erections for no reason; it’s hormones. The skill is to control your mental reactions to these hormones. That is self-control.
Bladder control and control of your sexual urges are very different things.
Tell that to someone who’s had to pee for at least an hour that you don’t lose any intelligence (or at least begin to be single-mindedly focused).
I think you might mean one begins to lose loquacity, Antigone.
Arwen said: “Actually, it appeared to me that Hugo was advocating people taking responsibility for their own thoughts. Not having outside forces “controlling” anything.”
No Arwen, Hugo is advocating that men - and only men - take responsibility for their own thoughts. If he really were advocating for people to take responsibility for their own thoughts, he would, e.g., encourage women to question their ’special way of knowing’ that men are lusting after them when they look at them for any period of time longer than 0.5 seconds, despite the fact that it is quite probable that those men are not staring with lust on their minds, but rather, staring in disbelief that anybody could be so blatantly tasteless as to dress in such a ridiculous fashion, e.g., chicks in “sausage suits.”
No Arwen, Hugo is only advocating that men take responsibility for their thoughts, actions, etc. As is usual with feminists and “pro-feminist” men, women get a pass on personal responsibility.
No Arwen, Hugo is only advocating that men take responsibility for their thoughts, actions, etc. As is usual with feminists and “pro-feminist” men, women get a pass on personal responsibility.
Perhaps this is because Hugo’s objective is to reach out to men? I don’t think it’s that women get a pass. It’s that they’re not the subject of this post.
evil fizz, you don’t think that women get a pass? Ok, then show me where Hugo has taken them to task?
It’s my opinion that by focusing on men’s contribution to dynamics that involve both men and women, and ignoring women’s role in those dynamics when it might portray them in a less than flattering light, is tantamount to holding men to a higher standard than women and in all liklihood giving women a pass. Obviously YMMV.
Mr. Bad: Hugo is a man, talking about what men can do. There are lots of people with lots of advice about what women can do to stop being harrassed or raped or abused. Lots. I’ve had those talks myself, at times. Hugo is doing something rare among feminists - he’s discussing what men can do to help. There are a lot of feminist men who have no idea. You obviously do not want to be one of those men: so why do you CARE what Hugo says about how you think?
If you were ingrouped with Hugo, and thought he was coolest person in the world, I could understand you caring about what he thinks of what you think: but you don’t seem to like him or anyone here much. We’re people not like you who have ideas that we share with people not like you; none of us have a whit of greater societal power; and you don’t seem to want to actually engage, and ignore the places where we *do* have commonalities and could build bridges and seek understanding. So don’t give me the echo chamber argument, because you’re not dispelling that. You’re *ADDING* to it by assuming the worst of all of us of a feminist mindframe. I’ve several times tried to speak with you about points where we might come to some agreement, or at least understanding, and I have often been rudely rebuffed by you.
I happen to have a difference of opinion with Hugo on the lust thing. I like me a little lust, and also don’t think a little random fantasy is harmful. On the other hand, Hugo’s got his own experience, (and he is a *man*) and so I’m interested in what he has to say. I’m not going to start teaching my boys that fantasy is a bad thing; I am going to teach them that in sex, like in every interaction with other people, empathy and willingness to explore the other person’s point of view is the most important thing in loving, learning about, and enjoying these wonderful people we share the planet with. And I would teach girls (if I had any), the exact same thing. Our needs are our own to satisfy.
Hmm, Hugo, have you ever considered a teaching/preaching ministry? We need more people with balanced insight/annointing from the Holy Spirit like yours.
Mr. Bad, Hugo never claimed to be the New York Times. He’s always been upfront about his interest in what men can do to combat sexism. That’s not quite the same thing as holding men to a higher standard, although it can look that way at times. I say this as someone who doesn’t think that every glance a man makes at a nubile woman is some sort of lustdenken and says further, “so what if it is?”. Advocacy is what the blogosphere’s all about, Bad. It’s the perfect market in propaganda and I say, jolly good. You’re welcome to go to Michael Cappanzi at Masculiste if you want women taken to task. That’s where I go and I don’t expect Cappanzi to offer up the other side of the story any more than I do our Hugo.
Teaching girls about the risks of rape is teaching girls “the myth of male weakness”?
Go fly a fuckin’ kite. What the hell are you thinking Hugo? You don’t have the first inkling about how male sexuality is used to socialize women. Not a clue.
Weakness my ass.
Q Grrl: I’m confused as to where Hugo said that teaching girls about the risks of rape has anything to do with the myth of male weakness.
I will teach my kids about rape *AND* that men aren’t weak willed things ruled by their hormonal lusts in such a way that they can’t “help” themselves and so WOMEN are responsible for their behaviour. Duh. Anyone who has a passion - lust, rage, greed - and hurts someone else to satisfy that passion is outside the bounds of my moral understanding, regardless of their gender. It’s buying into the myth of male weakness to think that rape has anything to do with the way male sexuality is inherently.
In fact, I agree with you that there’s a big socialization that happens through rape: but I think the Myth Of Male Weakness, that somehow *women* are responsible for male lust, is part of that socialization, and that Hugo was dealing with just that small part of the greater picture.
So I’m confused as to where there’s conflict.
Hugo’s words:
“I note that for many of my women students, believing in the myth of male weakness is less about an opportunity to manipulate and more about self-protection. So many of my female students have been raised to believe that “men only want one thing” and that “you can’t trust a man” and “men are guilty until proven innocent”. Many of them learned these lessons from both moms and dads, parents who were anxious to protect their daughters. After all, many parents reason that a cynical and suspicious girl is less vulnerable than a starry-eyed romantic who believes that most men of any age are capable of regulating their impulses! ”
The lesson taught is not about romantic interests; it’s about rape. And Hugo seems worried that these women are **harmed** by this lesson.
Go figure.
More precisely, he misses that point that the majority of rapists are men who are raping women, and he mistakes a lesson of warning to be one that preaches “men have weaknessess”. The lesson isn’t that men are “weak”. Only men think their sexual proclivities make them weak. The lesson is that men will and do rape women, no matter what.
Like I said. Weakness my ass.
Q Grrl, there is a colossal difference between these two statements:
1. All men only want one thing
2. There are some men out there who are dangerous. You need to be prepared to take care of yourself and to proceed with caution; trust your intuition and the instincts of those around you. Not everyone is perfectly safe.
Parents can teach the second without teaching the first, my words above were about rejecting the lie of the first, not the sad reality of the second.
Day late, dollar short – story of my life. Ah well.
I agree with Hugo - we have a choice about how to respond to our sexual urges and attractions. But, I think food is a more apt analogy - I also like the parallel ideas of hunger being about food and sexuality. A full bladder cannot be ignored for long. By contrast, a craving for french fries can be ignored, overcome, understood and managed. Sexual desire can be ignored, overcome, understood and managed.
I believe that seeing a person to whom you are physically attracted is kind of like smelling the french fries when you drive by Crown Burger (a Utah institution). Just because I can smell the fries doesn’t mean I have to order them. Seeing a person to whom I am physically attracted doesn’t mean I have to do anything about it. It can absolutely cause a physical reaction - increased respiration, sweating, what not - but just because I’m breathing faster doesn’t imply I have to take any action at all - especially if that action infringes on the other individual.
To push my analogy even further, as you practice more self control in your eating life, it becomes easier, and vice versa. When I am a careless eater, I have a tendency to grow more and more careless – an unhealthy snack becomes and unhealthy dinner, and so forth. When I maintain good eating habits, they also reinforce themselves. As an example, when I follow a more structured, vegetarian diet, being aware of healthy food combinations and avoiding fried foods and things with cream sauces and lots of cheese, I find those foods are less and less appealing and flavorful. When I go without cheese for several weeks, then suddenly have cheese on something, all I can taste is the fat in the cheese. I also find that healthier foods are more fulfilling and better for both body and soul. This doesn’t mean ignoring cravings, it means acknowledging them for what they are – passing, momentary physical urges that need not be followed. In essence, “Wow, those fries smell great but I’d rather have a healthy meal that will fuel my body as it needs fueled than some quick calories and lots of fat and salt.”
By the same token, when I successfully manage my sexual hunger, it becomes easier. I discover I am better able to indulge my sexual hunger in a more fulfilling way. By exercising healthy restraint, by acknowledging, for instance, “Wow, that latin guy is totally hot but I’d rather maintain healthy sexual behaviors and maybe I will get to know him and we may even date, but I’d rather know him as a person than objectify him.”
It’s also a matter of balance – I could eat nothing but apples and oranges, they’re healthy, but I’d get sick because my body isn’t getting everything it needs. A healthy diet includes apples and oranges and nuts and spinach and whole grains and protein – the whole mix to get all the necessary nutrients. Sexuality is like that – if I get distracted by every hot latin man I meet I’d get nothing done and piss off my boyfriend; on the other hand I should get hot and bothered by the bf to have a good relationship. That doesn’t mean I don’t notice the HTM, I just choose to respond in a way that is in accord with my core values and goals.
Hugo: I don’t see the colossal difference. Men, throughout my lifetime, have proven that both are true. It’s easy for you to see a differnce because it reflects on your sexuality and you don’t want to fall into the camp of the rapists and predators. Thing is, there’s a woman out there that found you predatory. Chances are that you were socialized to be a sexual predator. It becomes apparent when *you* see a colossal difference between the two statements and when you hypothetically refer to male predation as “male weakness”. That’s what Mary Daly would refer to as a reversal. Calling something that harms women a “weakness” when displayed by men. Parental warnings to young girls about male sexuality are *not* about how assholish *some* guys are; they’re warnings that women/girls have to be responsible for both their own sexuality and the sexuality of the majority of the men that they will come into contact with in their lives. And if they don’t take on that responsibility, there’s considerable risk that men, any men, will take advantage of them.
Coloring it as some weakness on the part of men is nauseating.
Again, if we really, really, really thought it was a weakness, uncontrollable and biological, we’d be castrating adolescent males.
Men can fly to the moon, but they can’t control their dicks? Weakness my ass.
Q Grrl, I spend an extraordinary time working on rape prevention and talking about dating and boundaries with young men. With all the respect I can muster, I’m doing a hell of a lot more to combat the “myth of male weakness” among adolescents than most folks I know. What would you like me to tell a room full of hormonal fifteen year-olds? I affirm their very real desires, and I explore their beliefs about sexuality. Always, I push them towards accountability and responsibility, something I believe that they can grasp even in the midst of the tempest of puberty.
I reach young men day in and day out, imperfectly no question, but I work with them and I believe the results are real.
Hugo, we all respect your rape prevention work and its benefits to the community in fostering responsibility and accountability. We stand behind those beliefs.
What do your good deeds have to do with the erroneous way in which you presented lessons that are taught to young women about male sexuality? Kudos for you and the work you do.
You say this:
“I note that for many of my women students, believing in the myth of male weakness is less about an opportunity to manipulate and more about self-protection.”
What frustrates me is the giant step you took in your mind to write this sentence. You don’t even see the glaring fucked-upedness of it. The majority of women would never even think of “the myth of male weakness”; it’s a term derived by men, for men, usually in an attempt to restore some sense of religious atonement for the shitty way they treat women.
You’re the one here who is repeatedly using the word “weakness” to describe sexual harrassment and rape. Yes, you precurse it with “myth”, but you’re the one promoting the idea, plumping it up, and giving it life. And you seem to think it is a great disservice to men everywhere that parents teach their daughters that men, even though they don’t have to, will harrass, grope, rape, and otherwise dump the responsibility for their male sexuality onto the shoulders of women.
Q Grrl, I think that the disservice lies not in warning young women to take precautions but in teaching them that male nature isn’t malleable. The “myth” is not that men rape — they do — the myth is that men don’t have complete control of their actions.
Hugo, I see what Q Grrl is getting at. The basic thing is that rape, groping, and harassment aren’t the result of weakness. They require self-control to commit: nobody finds himself cornering and groping a woman by accident! You seem to be concentrating on telling men that they aren’t weak, that they can be strong enough to resist their impulses. But se in the mentally competent is always the result of a deliberate decision, and it can involve prior planning. It’s a deliberate step, not a momentary lapse. Nothing is more threatening to women and girls than the suggestion that
The goal is not to instill guilt or shame; the goal is to empower men to realize that they have a power and a control that they may never have realized that they had.
I think you might be making a big mistake by confusing the rhetorical for the real. This “myth of male weakness” is a huge rhetorical trope in society, you’re right about that. But when you look at men who abuse, grope, harass, and sexually assault women, they don’t act like they think they’re weak. They don’t even always talk that way. They act and talk like they’re thoroughly enjoying a power and a control that they do realize they have, and that they like having. More empowerment is not a solution to entitlement.
Obviously, the kind of men you’re trying to reach will be a lot more receptive to fighting a “myth of male weakness” than a “myth of male entitlement.” The thing is, the latter is a lot more real. Cossetting and petting male egos by telling them, no sir, you’re not weak, you’re strong! Super-strong! might work, because it’s flattering, so I’m not saying you should necessarily stop, but it buys right into the real male myth. The one that says men must have “power and control” at all costs.
But se in the mentally competent is always the result of a deliberate decision, and it can involve prior planning. It’s a deliberate step, not a momentary lapse. Nothing is more threatening to women and girls than the suggestion that
Crap, sorry, bad editing. I meant to write:
But rape in the mentally competent is always the result of a deliberate decision, and it can involve prior planning. It’s a deliberate step, not a momentary lapse. Nothing is more threatening to women and girls than the suggestion that rape is the result of a lapse in control, and it’s not true, besides.
That should make more sense.
“Q Grrl, I think that the disservice lies not in warning young women to take precautions but in teaching them that male nature isn’t malleable”
But male nature isn’t malleable for the woman’s standpoint, nor should she have to even worry about whether it is or isn’t. Malleability only serves the interests of men who either do or do not want to accept personal responsibility for their own sexuality. From the outside looking in, the malleability of male nature looks dismal: because men don’t wish to change.
From the outside looking in, the malleability of male nature looks dismal: because men don’t wish to change.
We agree, Q Grrl. But they can be challenged to want to change, and sometimes, they do. Feminism can’t hang its hat on male transformation, but male feminists can play a special role in facilitating that kind of change.
Oh, for crying out loud. A very, very tiny, infinitesimal minority of men rape women. To characterize it any other way is delusional. Most men are not broken - especially in this manner, so we don’t need fixing, thankyouverymuch.
Probably as many women kill their children as there are men who rape women. Shall we start characterizing and stereotyping women as child-murderers?