Jessica Valenti’s second book is out: He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know. Much like her first book, the much-celebrated Full Frontal Feminism, He’s a Stud is deceptively light and quick reading. Jessica’s easy, colloqial style disguises some sharp and much-welcome social analysis of some 50 famously frustrating double standards.
Talk to any group of young women for a while, and you’ll hear laments about the various double standards that privilege men and punish women. Besides the obvious sexual double standard that gives Valenti’s book its title, separate and cruel paradigms about everything from body size to singleness abound, with one unifying characteristic: men, in virtually all respects, have it easier.
One of my least favorite double standards is one I’ve seen often in the vegan and animal rights world, what Valenti labels “He’s an Activist, She’s a Pain in the Ass”. She writes:
While men who work for change are revered and admired, women who do the same are often scoffed at, dismissed, or outright hated.
This is a theme that Jessica returns to several times; while men are allowed both a vibrant sexuality and the privilege of righteous anger, women are regularly excoriated both for their libidinousness and for “shrill”, “shrewish” activism. Heck, I run into this double standard all the time as a man teaching women’s studies. Time and again, I hear from my students that they appreciate both my passion and my “objectivity”. A typical evaluation I will receive: “I like taking women’s studies from a man because I think men are more fair than women.”
I’m almost 41 and I have no children. I asked my students earlier this semester whether they would think differently of me as their professor if I was a childless woman in her forties. Many of them openly admitted that they would think that I was “bitter” or “frustrated” or “unnatural.” No matter how much I try and renounce it, I get the benefit of this particular double standard every day. I’m one of five profs on this campus who teaches women’s studies intro courses; mine are always the first to fill. Some of that may be due to my popularity, but a considerable amount of my popularity is due to my sex rather than my style. From a different perspective, I know exactly what Jessica Valenti is talking about here.
He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut is not a feminist primer in the way that Full Frontal Feminism was. But this book has wonderful, important, subversive potential. Because it doesn’t market itself as explicitly feminist, it will be much more likely to be picked up by those folks (especially young women) who are hostile (for any number of usually bad reasons) towards organized feminism. Each of the mini-chapters that exposes another double standard — and offers sensible, attainable solutions — makes a case for feminism. But that case is made with a subtlety not always associated with Jessica Valenti’s writing. The end result of these 50 brief essays is a clear and compelling case for both personal transformation and collective feminist action — but it may take the reader a while to realize that feminism is the solution to each of these exasperatingly persistent double standards.
If I have one minor quibble, it’s with the title: “49 other double standards every woman should know.” It’s vital that men recognize these double standards as well, and I am confident that that is Jessica’s intention. Part of destroying the double standard once and for all lies in helping men recognize the privilege to which they are all too often quite blind. So many of us have brothers and boyfriends and buddies who are “good guys”, well-intentioned but frequently clueless about the dynamics that give them, time and again, a pass that is not given to women. Helping these lads become aware is not the entire solution; feminist action is never, of course, about remaining dependent upon male transformation. But challenging men to renounce their privilege is at least a part of feminist work, and it’s important to acknowledge that in the titles of books. But indeed, it’s a minor quibble.
An excellent book to give to the young man or woman in your life who says “I’m not a feminist, but…” or “The woman’s movement isn’t needed anymore.” Highly recommended.
“I get the benefit of this particular double standard every day”
And last week you blogged about how hard it is for you to deal with all the prejudices that male students/scholars of “gender studies” have to deal with (compared to their female colleagues)…
You don’t mention it explicitly, but you say that she write “men, in *virtually* all respects, have it easier”. That sounds like she mentions at least a couple of double standards that favour women and make it harder for men. Does she? If so, which ones?
She doesn’t deal with that in this book, Sam, because she’s not writing a book about men’s studies. But there are such double standards, such as the one that permits women to cry more easily and express genuine emotion without being excoriated.
I get privilege as a teacher for my maleness; that can easily co-exist with prejudice against a man teaching gender studies. Stereotypes and privileges work in a complex matrix, as we all know.
“But there are such double standards, such as the one that permits women to cry more easily and express genuine emotion without being excoriated.”
Interesting that you mention those two. Because I’ve never felt that crying would make me less of a man. I even admit freely and have done on a couple of occasions, to men and women, to have cried when the old lady threw the diamond in the water ;). How much “girlier” can it get ;) And strangely, I get the impression that, with the exception of just a couple of good female friends and girlfriend(s), the men I know tend to be much more genuine in the emotions they express than the women I know. I don’t know, I’m really getting the impression that a lot of the things we seem to disagree about hinge on what I’d interpret as very different perceptions of masculinity.
Just wondering - has anyone ever thought about compiling a list of “female privilege”? May even be an interesting exercise for you - would definitely be interested in the list you’d compile (and yes, it can certainly be shorter than the list of male ‘privileges’ ;))
“Stereotypes and privileges work in a complex matrix, as we all know.”
Very true. Alas, that’s a point rarely made on feminist blogs, in my impression (certainly compared to the claims that “men have it “easier” on virtually all accounts). I guess that’s to be expected. But still, it’s a realisation I’d like to read more often.
SamSeaborn: Female Privilege Checklist
Anna, thanks, interesting list, although I suppose it’s been written tongue-in-cheek, I’m stunned by the apparent need to dissect even the faintest allusion that (c.p. of course, controlling for al other possible ‘privilege’-endowing social, economic, and genetic circumstances) women could have some ‘privilege’ compared to men… And I find it particularly interesting that Hugo’s assertion that women may benefit from the double standard that they are allowed to externalize emotions without being judged for it is turned into the opposite in the author’s reply to #6 - “If I show a strong emotional response, it is likely to be written off as a result of my gender rather than a valid reaction.” Well, then, men apparently aren’t allowed to show emotions because they’re men, and women apparently aren’t legitimately emotional because they’re women… it so sucks to be us ;)
Aah, I just found this - http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.co/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/ - when women benefit from double standards, it’s not called “female privilege”, it’s apparently called “benevolent sexism”, because for some reason there seems to be a need to morally differentiate “patriarchical gifts” given to men and women…
Interesting….So much of our emotional lives is dictated by cultural rules and patterns–called mores by sociologists. The mores for any society evolve over time and experience and are passed from one generation to the next through cultural institutions…peer modeling, educational systems, religions, the media and most importantly FAMILY. I believe in our culture people have been given the clear message that being emotional is something that should somehow be limited to certain, well-defined circumstances. A lot of self-help books cover the territory of addiction and suppressing of emotions….Supposedly, women are given more of a pass to cry, but I know if I did that at work, I know my credibility would slide quite rapidly at work. I also know that when I do cry in personal situaitons I’m dismissed as manipulative or “too sensitive.” The result of these constraints is that under severe emotional stress, I try to manage by exercising and if that doesn’t work, I am prone to binging on pint of ice cream or over-eating. The point is that I don’t feel that I’m allowed much in the way of externalizing emotions without being judged.
SamSeaborn, I just want to point out that privilege is not only about the behaviors themselves, but about the social meanings of those behaviors. And those social meanings can be different for different genders and sexualities. In this way, for example, that it is socially unacceptable for men to express emotion and that women are permitted/expected to can BOTH be damaging gender constructs.
But don’t forget, men’s rational and emotionally strong “nature” is construed as a positive social value and women’s irrationality/emotional “nature” is seen as an undesirable trait, and that’s in part where the idea of “privilege” comes in. So while women have the “privilege” of being able to be emotional (in keeping with the example), the social meaning of women’s being emotional does not really afford them any social privilege and actually contributes to women’s oppression.
Heck, if you’re a woman running for President in the US and you choke up at a question, you get headlines like “It Cries!”. If you’re a man running for president and artful tears run down your face, it’s… bravery? I never did quite figure out why one was bad but the other was good.
Yeah, there’s something going on there.
Lindabeth,
“But don’t forget, men’s rational and emotionally strong “nature” is construed as a positive social value and women’s irrationality/emotional “nature” is seen as an undesirable trait”
Well, I never felt that way, but as I said above in my first reply to Hugo, I think the men I know, both hetero- and homosexual, are more emotional than the women, both hetero- and homosexual, I know. Maybe we’re all overcompensating our respective privileges (resp. in the women’s case, the “benevolent sexism”), or maybe the world is simply not as dichotomous…
Time and again, I hear from my students that they appreciate both my passion and my “objectivity”.
This one is very, very strong. When I teach gender/race stuff (as a white guy) I always get this, no matter how I approach the issue. Back in Grad school when we had the same material taught by different TAs, my female colleagues would get a very different reception for teaching it with a much less radical slant than I.
It’s natural, in all cases, that we believe people more when they say things that aren’t in their interest. It’s not just true with ‘privilege’ - if a woman’s ex-boyfriend points out flaws in her current one, she’s not going to give that the same weight as if they’re pointed out by the friend who introduced them. A woman saying that women deserve better treatment, or a black person saying that black people deserve better treatment, sends up warning flags about their objectivity in just the same way.
SamSeaborn, I took a quick stab at a feminine privilege list a long time ago here.
In what world does having a greater capacity to form intimate and emotionally expressive friendships not an enormous social privilege, lindabeth?
I’d reject the notion that women have a greater capacity for intimacy, bg; I do think that women are socialized to do better relationship maintenance in this culture.
lindabeth- while it is changing in younger men, many generations of men have been taught to stuff , suppress and hide their emotions. even such things as love and physical affection were(and still aren’t for some) considered manly. that has had terrible tole on the emotional lives of men. aside from the emotional constipation that leads to inadvertently hurting the ones they love this has also led to less fulfilling relationships in general. it is common for men in AA or other addiction treatments groups to have to fight to learn how to express fear, pain, love,etc. and not being able to express those feelings always contributed to their addiction.( I don’t’ know if you have seen that Hugo, but have many times and read about it a lot of addiction treatment literature.
i usually don’t use personal anecdotes since they usually seem ( or actually are) simple projections of our own experience onto the world. the plural of anecdote is not information.
however my dad was of the ww2 generation. while a loving , caring man, he told me he loved me once. that was only a few weeks before he died and in response to me telling him i loved him for the first time in years. we did not have a bad relationship , he was a good man. but he was completely hamstrung, and i was certainly held back, by the oppressive message that men should not show emotions.
sometimes it does suck to be a guy and harmful cultural norms are bad for everybody.
Well put, grek in ak. Your father’s story isn’t at all uncommon.
hugo, your response is emblematic of the enormouse blind spot mainstream feminism has when it comes to the existence of feminine privilege/male disprivilege. The relative paucity of intimate male relationships is NOT the result of men ‘failing to work as hard as women’ as you imply; it is directly connected to the way boys are given extremely powerful negative messages when they evince vulnerability.
Wow, almost all of the comments in here are diametrically opposed to the topic of Jessica’s book.
I only wanted to ask if this book contains as much profanity as her first book.
Ballgame, I’ve written probably two dozen times in empathy with men who struggle to articulate emotion. I’d also note that most of them learned to shut down as a result of being tormented and teased by other men.
Privilege is not a guarantor of happiness or contentment, a reality which almost invariably leaves those who possess privilege in a state of denial about it, as they make the false assumption that if they were privileged, they’d feel far better off.
Well a lot of women are shut down emotionally too and also struggle to articulate emotion as well and they are hardly empathetic to others when it comes to acknowledging emotional responses, which make them uncomfortable and which they’ve learned to judge harshly. I’ve met some men who demonstrate greater empathy and compassion than women, in specific cirmcumstances and that is key to either gender. That is of course my personal observations. I find it interesting that statistically women suffer depression (or report it) double the number of men, however alcoholism is reported in twice the numbers of men than women.
karen- it is very true and often ignored in these debates that there is greater variety within in each gender then there are between the genders. far to often, even perceptive people, use far to sweeping generalizations about gender. i think that holds back the entire discussion. my general feelings is that any essay that starts with “woman /men are this…” is headed for 12 kinds of stupid. so i agree with you.
it is generally socially unacceptable for men to show depression, it comes off as a sign or weakness so many men are either to emotionally stuffed up to understand they are depressed or can’t accept it. you see much the same dynamic in the military and with PTSD. same stupid, different day. alcoholism is common mask and , at least in some subcultures, an acceptable self-medication for depression, ptsd, etc.
greg in ak,
I agree that it tends to hold back entire discussions and that people tend to use sweeping generalizations far too often. We all suffer for cultural attitudes towards expressing emotion. I’ve suffered bouts of clinical depression and I do know that unfortunately it is generally socially unacceptable for men to show depression. Yet people have treated me like I’m weak and this response has come from women too. Yet at the same time they have no problem burdening me their emotional problems too, as they discern that I’m a “sensitive, nurturing person”. I think in some relationships when a woman experiences depression it allows a man to experience sadness through her. This comes at a terrible price for both the man and woman. I also know about the self-medication and alcoholism too…My father was older when I was born and, he too, was of the WWII generation…the price families pay for war reverberates through generations and society….the toll is huge
Re: The subtitle. Seal Press’s motto is “By Women For Women”, so I think that philosophy permeates everything they do, including writing subtitles that seem to exclude men. I agree with you, by the way, that this is a good time to strike out for more male readers of feminist works.
I acknowledge that there are times when you articulately describe males’ struggles with gender.
No disagreement there. However, that is not a rebuttal to the notion that females in this case are (comparatively) privileged. The dynamics of gender oppression are vastly more complex than the simplistic notions of ‘men privileged/women oppressed’ that are routinely bandied about by many mainstream feminists.
I find this remark a bit ironic, since I’m not the party in this exchange who’s denying the existence of privilege. I will point out that it holds true for both genders.
Seems spot on to me. I don’t think feminism ignores the emotional stunting of men–I’ve often seen it referred to as “patriarchy hurts men too.” And yes, there is some anti-emotion aspect to our society that applies to all genders. Emotion is weakness and we’re supposed to hide our weakness because we are surrounded by competitors.
That’s depressing. And it shows that people who go to college are just as stupid as those who don’t.
Oh and re:
I’d say that in a “Dog eats dog” world like ours, caring about fellow human beings is the wrong way to go if one wants to be “socially successful”, ie: run a big corporation and make tons of money. I’d go so far as to say that those people who care the MOST are also punished the MOST.
MaryTracy9,
“I’d go so far as to say that those people who care the MOST are also punished the MOST.”
sure, but only if you think that personal wealth is an appropriate indicator of a) true social and b) true individual success. Money doesn’t make people happy. The capacity to connect with people may be worth a lot more. Still, going with the money as indicator concept, some British happiness researcher valued the marginal happiness contributed a happy marriage with the equivalent of the marginal happiness contributed by 140,000 GBP income per annum. I’m sure the methodology was questionable from a lot of angles, but I suppose it shows that the capacity to emote and care can be a great privilege.
Echoing SamSeaborn: you’re confusing “privilege” with “status”, Mary Tracy9.
ballgame:
you’re confusing “privilege” with “status”, Mary Tracy9.
“privilege” enables you to accrue “status”. People who have “status” are rewarded by society with recognition and money.
And don’t you try “money doesn’t mater.” Sure it does. Love don’t pay the bills.
And if you say “well, what about love and appreciation and praise for supporting your fellow man,” let me remind you that social workers not only struggle to pay the abovementioned bills, but beyond specific “publicity” cases are seldom applauded by anyone other then the people they help. Sometimes not even that. CEOs, actors, and various cutthroat entrepreneurs are applauded by convention-loads of peers, award-givers, and the admiring public.
We like our firepeople, nurses, cops, teachers, and inspiring disabled persons on TV. When they’re overly-pretty and overly-paid actors. We as a society don’t implement any policies that actually enables these people to live with the dignity and appreciation they’re hard work earns.
Why? no “status.” And most of the caring and service-oriented professions are populated by teenagers, women, POCs, and other underprivileged groups.
Note, btw, that some of those professions (cops, firefighters) are male-dominated. That’s because The Patriarchy is complex, privileges intersect, and The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too.
Not always, tefnut. I do not have higher status as a result of ‘complete strangers not walking up to me on the street and telling me to smile,’ for example. (One might argue that “status” here enables the accrual of “privilege”, but that’s a very different assertion and undercuts your point.)
People with “status” do not always reap lucrative paychecks … university professors, for example. Plus, there is macrosocial status (esteem among colleagues), and microsocial status (esteem within the family). Women appear to have more of the latter than men. (How many “If Dad’s not happy, nobody’s happy” t-shirts have you seen?)
Of course it matters. But it most emphatically is NOT the ONLY thing that matters.
Your last couple of paragraphs hopelessly confuse issues of race and class with that of gender, tefnut. I am focused on the relative privileges that men have vs. those that women have. The other issues are red herrings; I consider the notion that ‘whites are privileged vs. POC’ to be beyond dispute, and the vast majority of both men and women struggle with ‘oppression by class’.
I must admit that I find using the word privilege in the context of forming social bonds odd. People can form social bonds, yet they lack intimacy and don’t allow for emotional expression. A lot of people focus on activities and bond through activities. Focusing on activities is fun, but it is often used as a way to avoid emotion. Also many bonds can be quite emotionally constrictive. One may know that they can have some “friends” whom they can hike with, but not talk about deeper issues and emotions with. Some people may be very emotionally expressive, yet they may not be appreciated and worse yet, their emotions dismissed or belittled. For instance if you have a “friend” or family member who always calls you when they need you and the conversation is always about them and their issues, but is not a two-way street. Just because some people may get together doesn’t at all mean that their relationships will be intimate for both of them, or emotionally expressive. I suppose this is why I have a hard time seeing how the capacity to emote and care can be a great privilege. Actually at times, I think it a huge burden. Many people go through their lives emotionally stunted and oblivious to the emotions of others. (I include women.) I think the idea of privilege more situational–people’s experiences are very situational and individual.
I would have to agree with most of the double standards that are presented but it seems that some are being overlooked. Where does is talk about women and their ability to manipulate men in anyway they deem neccessary. In my experience, women have had the advantage in social environments where they basically have any and every man wrapped around their finger and can get them to do whatever they want. The best example that I can think of is one time I was at a bar and one of my friends was especially infatuated with a certain girl or biscuit as I respectfully refer to beautiful girls as, and she seemed to get him to buy her and all her friends drinks at the snap of a finger. I would say that females have a disadvantage at times, but in this situation, sex seems to have all the power in the world. What is to stop this biscuit from treating my friend and other saps like a credit card? Perhaps it is up to males to understand the power that biscuits hold and have restraint in certain situations to ensure that they do not get taken advantage of. In addition, if females feel they are being treated unfairly only because they are female, then they should redirect their tactics and atire in certain situaitons, so that males dont have this perception of the so called “slut.” She may not be a slut, but she sure is wearing a slut’s uniform.
What is to stop this biscuit from treating my friend and other saps like a credit card?
Uh, your friend could not offer or agree to pay. Men aren’t powerless, and you only get used as far as you allow people to use you. There are plenty of non-manipulative women out there, as well as plenty of manipulative men (I’ve dated them). Let’s not let this discussion of double standards swing into generalizations (which can be hard, because these double standards ARE generalizations, but I think this conversation is about breaking through them, not perpetuating them).
Not even commenting on this “biscuit” business. Would you be pleased if these “biscuits” were calling you and your friends “man meat” or some other ridiculous name?
“In my experience, women have had the advantage in social environments where they basically have any and every man wrapped around their finger and can get them to do whatever they want.”
It’s an illusion pure and simple that a woman can ever make a man do whatever they want whenever they want. That reality doesn’t exist.
“In addition, if females feel they are being treated unfairly only because they are female, then they should redirect their tactics and atire in certain situaitons, so that males dont have this perception of the so called “slut.” She may not be a slut, but she sure is wearing a slut’s uniform.”
What exactly is a “slut”? And what exactly is a “slut’s uniform”? Give us females a definition so that we know.
Newsflash, Ted: Using the word slut to describe a female is always, ALWAYS sexist. Females have the right to dress in any fashion of their choice and still be treated with basic respect. This is a simple basic fact, yet one that so few men seem to grasp.
And what on Earth is a “biscuit”??
I feel like I am being berated unfairly as a sexist, when I was merely making a reference to the book “of sluts and studs…” As well as when I expressed the word “biscuit” when I clearly stated in my reponse that I use this term respectfully in reference to beautiful girls. As far as the term “slut” I didn’t think I needed to provide a definition for the word because everybody knows what it means in regard to our social and cultural standards.
No, it is not an illusion that women can manipulate men in certain social situations because I have seen it first hand. Women have a huge weapon in their arsenal and that weapon is sex appeal. I dont want to spark a huge ordeal about sexist remarks because I am in no way a sexist. I have treated every female I know with extreme respect, brought upon by my upbringing and general moral views. I have backed up women against men in many situations and dont feel as if i could or would ever would disrepect a female.
Saying that it is an illusion that “women can manipulate men how they like” is probably pure denial of the abilities of a beautiful woman. As much as I dislike the media, I feel as if I must make reference to it. Take a look at advertisements and movies, does sex not sell? How often is it that you see a male posing in a bikini for a certain product or service? Not very often. Advertisements are mostly accompanied by a gorgeous woman or “biscuit” because men see that sex appeal and jump right on it. No pun intended. How about the advertisements for AXE or TAG cologne for men? How does that not drive a man to go out and buy a product that doesn’t even smell all that good, when he is being surounded by good looking females.
He is being hooked in by the adoration of the opposite sex and to say that it is untrue is going against all instincts that we were given at birth.
“As far as the term “slut” I didn’t think I needed to provide a definition for the word because everybody knows what it means in regard to our social and cultural standards.”
I asked you to give a definition for one simple reason: there is no real definition of the word slut. Sluts, in fact, do not exist. If you ask 500 different people for a definition of the word slut, you will get 500 different answers.
“No, it is not an illusion that women can manipulate men in certain social situations because I have seen it first hand. Women have a huge weapon in their arsenal and that weapon is sex appeal. I dont want to spark a huge ordeal about sexist remarks because I am in no way a sexist.”
Yes, to a certain degree, attractive women can manipulate men. But that ability is limited…it is also an extremely double-edged sword. Your statement that women can make men do anything is just absurd. If women could truly make men do anything, they would be the dominant gender and there would be no need for feminism.
“Take a look at advertisements and movies, does sex not sell? How often is it that you see a male posing in a bikini for a certain product or service? Not very often.”
No, you don’t often see men posing in ads. This, however, is not due to women having a natural advantage over men. A great many people consider the fact that half-naked women are used to sell products to in fact be an indication of rampant sexism in society.
“Advertisements are mostly accompanied by a gorgeous woman or “biscuit” because men see that sex appeal and jump right on it. No pun intended.”
Gah…really, Ted, referring to women as “biscuits” is not a compliment. If you called me a “biscuit” in real life, I’d likely cuss you for all you were worth. I would not feel complimented.
“I dont want to spark a huge ordeal about sexist remarks because I am in no way a sexist. ”
You feel completely entitled to call women sluts and biscuits, but you think you aren’t sexist? Sorry, Ted, but any man who refers to any woman as a slut or a “biscuit” (sheesh…biscuit…) is a sexist to some degree or another.
Don’t get too upset, Faith, because along with his obvious disrespect of women, he’s also insulting men by falling into that myth of male weakness Hugo is so fond of talking about. He obviously thinks his own gender is so pathetic that we can make them do whatever we want.
Ted, I’m going to call you an idiot, but I mean it respectfully. Really. It’s not an insult because I’m saying that I mean it respectfully.
I’ll bet my qualifying it like that doesn’t make it seem any less rude, right?
Look, Ted, you need to have an attitude adjustment about humans in general. Give your fellow men more credit. You make all your own decisions. If a pretty lady winks at you in a bar, you don’t have to buy her a drink. You can exercise your own judgement and decide whether you want to spend the money on her or not. When a television commercial for Axe comes on and shows women throwing themselves at men who are wearing it, you can be smart enough to understand that it’s an ad meant to attract you to a product, and that you’re not under any compulsion to buy it. Men have brains. They can think, reason, and judge, just like women. Stop insulting them by suggesting they don’t.
You know, there are a lot of women who could easily “get” men to buy us drinks, but you know what? The guys that want to buy you and your friends drinks are usually morons. Seriously. And I don’t date or sleep with or entertain morons unless forced to do so, occasionally, via my employment.
And biscuit, that’s just damned insulting. Come on. But of course you only call “beautiful” girls that. Out of “respect.” Please.
If a man is stupid enough to acquiesce to the girl who insists that he buy her and her friends drinks as a condition of being in her space, that is his own fault, not this so-called “power” women have over men. Ted, your friends are idiots and you should tell them so. And stop calling women weird food names while you are at it. It is lame.
I fail to see how it is an advantage that I can’t go to a bar by myself for ten minutes before some dude comes up to me and attempts to buy me a beer because I couldn’t possibly be there alone on purpose to have a drink and unwind after work or just because I don’t feel like having a glass of wine at home. No, I’m looking for you to invade my personal space and ply me with alcohol.
And can we talk about that? I mean, guys, you’re not buying the girl drink to offer her sustenance, anyway, are you? While I of course realize that not every guy who has ever offered me a beer is trying to “get me drunk,” there are surely enough who are hoping they can “be that mistake.”
Well, I thought that I was merely bringing in a perspective that hasn’t been present on Hugo’s blog and assumed that maybe we could spark some stimulating conversations. Whether that perspective is “sexist” to the readers of the blog then I apologize for that. Instead of scolding me and calling me an idiot, I thought that we could all learn a little more about the different attitudes and opinions that we all have and expand on them. It seems that you ladies all have a stong opinion and I respect that, but how are we to make this world a better place if we dont look at it from all angles.
You know Hugo has been a friend of mine for a long time as well as someone I truly admire and look up to. Not to mention he is also my cousin and I had never been to his blog until recently. It seems that no matter what I say I am going to be automatically labeled as a sexist, which is probably true to a small extent, but dont you think that there is a little sexist in all men, whether they express it or not. This is of course excluding Hugo, because I dont think there is a sexist thought in his head. Anyways I thought I would try and incorporate myself in something that he enjoys doing, but it seems that I am not wanted in any sort of way. In that respect, Hugo I apologize for evidently being rude and sexist and I’ll try and work on it in the future, maybe you can give me some pointers this summer at ranch.
Ted, well the biscuit thing? If that’s lingo for a beautiful girl in conversations among your friends that’s fine with me. We all have metaphors for all kinds of stuff, including sexually attractive women and men. Some metaphors are better, some worse. Is “hottie” better than “biscuit”? If we agree that we need a word for a concept (in this case “beautiful woman”), and neither the concept “beautiful woman” nor a verbal reference to the concept is inherently sexist, then any term will be fine (and non-sexist) for everyone initiated. But I’d limit the use to the locker room, as it may be sexist for the uninitiated.
Still, am I sensing more double standards here?
Nav,
“No, I’m looking for you to invade my personal space and ply me with alcohol.
Well, there are locations where a single woman sitting at a bar drinking can legitimately be construed to mean “I would not mind being talked to.” Women usually expect men to take the risk of initiating interactions based on mixed, vague, or indirect signals (sitting alone at a bar drinking a glass of red wine, possibly dangling a shoe, playing with her hair while reading, for example), thus they usually bear the risk of being misread. Initiating a conversation logically means “invading” someone’s personal space - although there are obviously more appropriate ways and less appropriate ways to do so. Still, calibrating that is a social skill we may admire and prefer but it’s certainly not something to expect, just as it would be inappropriate to expect that women who don’t want to be talked to never play with their hair out of boredom because playing with hair is also signalling interest.
We don’t speak the other gender’s language, much less each other person’s language to the extent that it can be reasonably expected to avoid miscommunication. Waiting (or not waiting) for someone to initiate means running the risk of being exposed to someone misreading the intention. Do it more often yourself and you’ll misread people more often (or not, because women usually are better at this empathy thing than men, for one reason or another - wait, does that mean men should get a break for being less skilled in this area? Or would that be a double standard again? When are double standards appropriate?).
“And can we talk about that? I mean, guys, you’re not buying the girl drink to offer her sustenance, anyway, are you? While I of course realize that not every guy who has ever offered me a beer is trying to “get me drunk,” there are surely enough who are hoping they can “be that mistake.””
I’m sorry, but that’s just the kind of double standard we should avoid: You expect guys to use their brain and ignore the dopamine spikes in their brains when they are showered by female attention trying to manipulate them, but you’re not responsible for using your brain when it comes to avoiding to make “that mistake” (possibly, because the alcohol has increased the testosterone in your system and you’re starting to think like him)?
Talking about double standards…
Ted,
“Wearing a slut’s uniform.” Do you mean dressing provocatively and calling attention to her body? A friend recently told me of how he observed both young and middle-aged women dressing provocatively while he was dining at a restaurant. I don’t recall the entire conversation, but I think he was registering his disapproval in general of how people call attention to themselves and women in particular and how some men may respond because they feel they are receiving mixed messages. I responded and told him that I thought women dressing like this was more about fashion and wanting attention, rather than it being about sexual invitation. More than a few writers’ have commented about how the porn star look has become fashionable. Using the term slut is offensive and derogatory. As far as manipulation goes….well manipulation is effectively used by both men and women. A man I know recently told me that I could manipulate him and my response was why would I want too. I don’t feel manipulation is a productive interpersonal skill. I know of few people who like being manipulated and if I could manipulate a man, I would not respect him. Even people who get manipulated by very good sales people, wind up feeling angry.
Also, I never considered sex appeal as a weapon women use in their arsenal. Then I’m not manipulative either and would not consider using a man as a credit card, unless he absolutely begged me too. Even then, I doubt I’d be willing to accept such an offer. That is not to say there are not manipulative women…I concur with B’s conclusions that some men are intelligent (I know there are rare exceptions). They have brains! They make their own decisions, exercise their own judgments…they can think, reason and judge, just like women…Sex doesn’t make one powerless, but the desire for it has been known to well, how shall I say this…people can make very stupid decisions.
yes, thank you Karen for taking my point into consideration as merely a perspective of certain situations and not a total generalization. I agree that it is probably a fashion thing and a act of personal expression. As far as sex as a weapon in women’s arsenal was perhaps a little strong and I think it could be reworded. I can’t really think of anything right now, but I’ll come up with something.
“But I’d limit the use to the locker room, as it may be sexist for the uninitiated.”
General rule of thumb: If you can’t say something to someone’s face, you probably shouldn’t say it at all. The idea that some things should be confined “to the locker room” is one of many ways that men get away with being sexists because there isn’t any woman around to call them out on their sexism.
“Women usually expect men to take the risk of initiating interactions”
I keep hearing men say this, but I’ve yet to see any real evidence of this so-called phenomenon were women just don’t, or usually don’t, initiate interaction with members of the opposite sex. I know many women who are quite upfront and perfectly fine with initiating a conversation - or even a sexual encounter - with men. Myself included. I’ve never been one to wait for a man to make a move. If I see a man I’m attracted to, I let him know…and I let him know in a way which he can’t be confused about my expectations. I’m not at all shy about telling men what I want and when….even if they quite often do not listen.
“You expect guys to use their brain and ignore the dopamine spikes in their brains when they are showered by female attention trying to manipulate them, but you’re not responsible for using your brain when it comes to avoiding to make “that mistake” (possibly, because the alcohol has increased the testosterone in your system and you’re starting to think like him)?”
I think you misunderstood what she was trying to say. A lot of men do quite often take advantage of drunk females in order to get them to have sex with them. We could debate how much responsibility a woman has in such a situation. However, it is absolutely reprehensible, and sexist, for a man to intentionally take advantage of a woman when her defenses are lowered. Some would, and do, call such behavior rape. I myself call such behavior rape if the women in question is so drunk she’s barely conscious when a man decides to have sex with her. If a woman won’t consent to having sex with you while sober, you have no business having sex with her when she’s drunk.
Ted Butler,
You have been bringing in a perspective that is rare on this blog and I have enjoyed your opinions as much as Hugo’s. You just need to be thick skinned because there is a lot of ad hominin attacks on this blog if you say anything that in the slightest may be misconscrued as sexist. However, there is also a lot of interesting and intellegent discussion here. I hope you continue to post on the blog.
Karen,
manipulation vs seduction would be an interesting subject to discuss.
“sex as a weapon in women’s arsenal”
Sex is a weapon in every sexually desired person’s arsenal (it’s a simple supply/demand thing). They may not want to use it, but it sure is there. We probably won’t agree about whether/the extent to which women are more in control of their immediate sexual expressions (there’s ample evidence that they are able to use body language in a much more controlled and intentional way than men) than men and whether/to which extent they can use this weapon more effectively. Let’s just agree to disagree. But there’s a certainly at least a grain of behavioral truth in old stereotypes like “the weapons of women”.
Faith,
“General rule of thumb: If you can’t say something to someone’s face, you probably shouldn’t say it at all.”
I disagree. Language is coded information, and groups have all kinds of internal lingo that cannot be used outside that group. If I were to use “atwo” to denote “attractive woman” I don’t think anyone would object. The problem here is that a) biscuit has a general definition of something sweet and edible and b) internal definitions cannot be used outside a group without misunderstandings caused by the general definition. I don’t think that anyone using “biscuit” has been thinking about anything but denoting “yummy”. Sure there’s a sexual connotation, but as long as we agree that admiring someone’s sexual attractivity isn’t sexist we should limit the language policing to areas where it seems necessary to avoid misunderstandings. The locker rooms aren’t one of those.
“I keep hearing men say this, but I’ve yet to see any real evidence of this so-called phenomenon were women just don’t, or usually don’t, initiate interaction with members of the opposite sex.”
Well, let me know where you’re going out then. We seem to live in different worlds, apparently - most women may signal interest with what appears as vague signals, but they hardly ever approach and take the risk (… although I should say that I owe my first kiss to a woman taking the plunge while I was overly hesitant and would have never taken the risk). I still stand by the rule though - most women don’t take overt risks when approaching, they are waiting for the man to do so. It’s a rule with exceptions, obviously. I met a girl at a club last year who told me at some point that she liked some guy at the bar and he just wouldn’t get her signals to come talk to her, and she just wouldn’t want to take the risk to walk over herself. I told her to suck it up and do it. She did and walked out of the club with him 30 minutes later. Maybe she’ll do it again… Well, maybe this is a part of the key to the misunderstanding: “and I let him know in a way which he can’t be confused about my expectations. I’m not at all shy about telling men what I want and when….even if they quite often do not listen.” According to a number of studies including this - Perper, T. (1985), Sex Signals, The Biology of Love, Philadelphia, ISI Press - men almost never get what women believe they have communicated in no unclear manner. So maybe both are initiating, because men almost never understood that the woman was making a pass at them.
“I myself call such behavior rape if the women in question is so drunk she’s barely conscious when a man decides to have sex with her. If a woman won’t consent to having sex with you while sober, you have no business having sex with her when she’s drunk.”
I’m sure that’s what she wanted to say - if one person is drunk and almost unconscious and the other is sober/relatively sober, I don’t think anyone questions that. Problem is, these things usually happen when both parties are using alcohol in similar amounts - thus the question becomes relevant how much responsibility one drunk person has for the other - and given that people not rarely use alcohol to grease their gaba receptors with the express intent of lowering their inhibitions, this is a very complex question. If even “enthusiasic participation” cannot be construed as consent because people have been drinking a couple of beer…? I think we should keep “drunk mistake” to denote this kind of thing.
“Sure there’s a sexual connotation, but as long as we agree that admiring someone’s sexual attractivity isn’t sexist we should limit the language policing to areas where it seems necessary to avoid misunderstandings. The locker rooms aren’t one of those.”
There isn’t anything wrong with admiring someone’s sexual attractiveness. There is something wrong with objectifying someone’s sexual attractiveness. And I stand by my statement, if you can’t say something to someone’s face, you probably shouldn’t say it at all. I personally wouldn’t want to have anything to do with a man whom I suspect would say something behind my back that he wouldn’t say to my face. Such behavior is cowardly and adolescent.
“Well, let me know where you’re going out then. We seem to live in different worlds, apparently ”
Hm…well, I go out in some places in Virginia, some places in D.C., and some places in New York, and I’ve even gone out to some places in North Carolina and South Carolina. I could probably tell you of at least one incident on each of those visits to various bars or clubs (or even at places not commonly associated with sexual pickups) in which I witnessed women coming on to men. No offense, but I wonder when men say this if it perhaps isn’t something that has to do with the individual man rather than the typical behavior of women.
Faith,
“There isn’t anything wrong with admiring someone’s sexual attractiveness. There is something wrong with objectifying someone’s sexual attractiveness.”
How would I admire someone’s sexual attractiveness without objectifying it? I don’t think that’s logically possible.
“No offense, but I wonder when men say this if it perhaps isn’t something that has to do with the individual man rather than the typical behavior of women.”
None taken. It’s a logical assumption, particularly in conjunction with what I’ve written in the other thread. As said above, if women had not come on to me in particular phase in my life, I’d still be unkissed and given the remnants of my feminist-attributed phobia to touch girls, I’m still trying to work around having to initiate intimate contact myself and let her do it - the question I hear most often later is a version of “I really don’t understand why you didn’t try to kiss me the night before, did I have bad breath?”. So as someone who is using what’s often considered “female tactics” to get around the remnants of my “feminist guilt complex”, I’m the last person to deny women do come on to men - but I do maintain that it’s (statistically) not particularly common as opposed to the other way around.
Sam,
“manipulation vs seduction would be an interesting subject to discuss”
AGREED. Manipulation could probably be a part of seduction. Generally speaking manipulation holds a very negative connotation to me. Seduction does too, but perhaps that is due to personal experiences.
“Sex as a weapon in women’s arsenal”.
The language sounds so war like to me and due to that I feel an aversion to it.
“Sex is a weapon in every sexually desired person’s arsenal (it’s a simple supply/demand thing). They may not want to use it, but it sure is there.”
I’ve never looked at it this way, although being desired is a two-way street. I’m certain there are men who are objects of desire by women who they are not interested in. When I was in grade school there was a guy that I would smile at. I think we were around 10 or 11. Because I smiled at him and I suppose he didn’t like it, although I do not know he sent me a note and passed it in class. On the note he had written “fuck you” all over it. I can’t even begin to tell you what that felt like. What that did to a 10 year-old girl and other kids read the note that he passed. Very cruel response…I find it odd that people, more men than women, will come up to me and tell me (command me) to smile.
“We probably won’t agree about whether/the extent to which women are more in control of their immediate sexual expressions (there’s ample evidence that they are able to use body language in a much more controlled and intentional way than men) than men and whether/to which extent they can use this weapon more effectively.”
I haven’t been exposed to ample evidence to support your claim. From personal experience men would take a smile as a sexual come-on or interest in them, when I thought I was just being friendly. I can think of all kinds of innocent gestures on my part that have been miscontrued. It was not intentional on my part. What is true is that when someone is attentive it is flattering and that is genuine, but if it turns quickly to their misinterpreting responsiveness and being friendly to sexual interest it gets distressing. I’ve been accused of flirting, but more so by women and their observations of me when I’m around men. Flirting has always implied awareness and duplicity to me–how it’s stated reveals this. I’ve never set out to scheme and intentionally flirt with someone. I think it just a nartural response to some situations. Attention (respectful) is flattering.
“General rule of thumb: If you can’t say something to someone’s face, you probably shouldn’t say it at all.”
Actually, there’s quite a few comments I’d like to make to many people, but simply don’t as I find it adviseable under certain circumstances not too. If a man was paying attention to me and I thought he was boring I wouldn’t want to hurt him, so I’d probably try to find a way to curtail the conversation, so that he could walk away with dignity, rather than blirt out that he is boring. The same holds true for some women I know…I would try my best to extricate myself from a conversation with someone who tries to dominate it about her personal problems, rather than tell her she’s a self-absorbed loser.
Karen,
sorry to hear about your horribly experience in school. Kids are cruel sometimes. Smiling is an important element in body language. It’s a sign for “non-threatening” (but sure, knowing that you can turn it into a trojan horse).
“I haven’t been exposed to ample evidence to support your claim.”
Here’s study, “Perper, T. (1985), Sex Signals, The Biology of Love, Philadelphia, ISI Press”, but just look for papers about human mating decisions and body language and you’ll find tons.
“Flirting has always implied awareness and duplicity to me–how it’s stated reveals this. I’ve never set out to scheme and intentionally flirt with someone.”
Flirting isn’t necessarily sexual, in my book. It can be the precursor to a sexualised interaction. But flirting itself means to me adding an interesting additional level to a conversation, an allusion to possibilities. It’s fun way to of every day escapism, as I see it.
“How would I admire someone’s sexual attractiveness without objectifying it? I don’t think that’s logically possible.”
Sam,
Sure, it’s possible. Saying, “hey, she’s really beautiful!!” is not objectifying - it’s appreciating. Saying, “hey, she’s one fine biscuit!” is objectifying. In the first instance, you are in commenting on a trait which the woman possesses. In the second instance, you are reducing her to an object.
“Actually, there’s quite a few comments I’d like to make to many people, but simply don’t as I find it adviseable under certain circumstances not too.”
Karen,
Which proves my point exactly. If you want to say something, but you don’t think it’s advisable to say it to their face, you probably shouldn’t say it at all. Given what you just said, it seems that you actually agree with me.
Karen,
I just reread your statement. I’m actually now not really sure if you were intending to disagree or agree with me. If you were in fact agreeing with me, I’m sorry for misunderstanding.
Faith, fair enough - on that level - sure.
“In the second instance, you are reducing her to an object.”
Actually, that’s not quite correct if we agree that the person saying so doesn’t ACTUALLY think the woman IS a cookie but is COMPARING the trait he thinks she possesses to the characteristics of an object with what he believes are pleasant characteristics. Where do you draw the line for metaphors here? Is saying “she’s a dream come true” objectifying in your understanding, “she smells like a rose” or “she’s a real treasure”? And what about pet-names lovers invent for each other? Is “honeybunny” sexist because it compares the person to a fluffy animal? In the end objectification isn’t the criterion you can object to because it’s such a common way for humans to conceptualize, and if you’re saying biscuit is sexist because it’s a “demeaning objectification”, then it’s back to matters of taste and linguistic coding and why it should only be used in a context where there’s no risk of it to be misunderstood.
SamSeaborn
“Flirting isn’t necessarily sexual, in my book.”
Well I’ve never met any men who view it as you do. In my experience they sexualize immediately. In your case, you sound like you’d be fun to flirt with.
“Kids are cruel sometimes. Smiling is an important element in body language. It’s a sign for “non-threatening” (but sure, knowing that you can turn it into a trojan horse).”
Negative experiences like that added to others, can make women leary of rejection as well and afraid to make the first move.
I know smiling indicates approachable, but I think it deceptive, along with charm. I’m not saying that all people who smile are being deceptive here–it’s more complicated than that. People who are adept at manipulation and using others are adept at both and reading the emotional responses of others. I know these are qualities that one can find in both sexes.
As for pet names of lovers…these are intimate and generally not shared with others or yelled out of vehicles. I see your point, but I also agree with faith. I probably wouldn’t feel flattered to hear someone yell out, “Hey..nice set of biscuits.” I would feel demeaned and would want to cuss and swear, along with appropriate “sign language”. And yes, a good southern biscuit has very pleasant characteristics–for a food source. I woudn’t even dare retort with “Hey,…man meat,” because I know, at least with the men I know that it would result in their puffing up their chests…and I’m certain they would take it as a indication of sexual interest.
“How would I admire someone’s sexual attractiveness without objectifying it? I don’t think that’s logically possible.”
This subject came up with a man friend the other night. I do think it’s possible to appreciate a woman’s innate sensuality without sexualizing and objectifying her and I agree with the points Faith has been trying to make. Some men do get this and still others pose a much harder case….
Faith,
I’m not disagreeing….no misunderstanding. I was just offering personal experience.
Karen,
“Well I’ve never met any men who view it as you do. In my experience they sexualize immediately. In your case, you sound like you’d be fun to flirt with.”
I hope I am ;), and I also hope you’ll find someone who’s fun to flirt with.
“Negative experiences like that added to others, can make women leary of rejection as well and afraid to make the first move.”
I doubt that’s limited to women. Confidence busting experiences will make everyone afraid of risking rejection again. Although I still think that’s more of a problem for men, as it’s easier for women than for men to use vague signals that offer plausible public deniability in the case of rejection - to oneself because the signal may not have been understood, and publicly, because the signal can easily be discounted as “no signal”.
“People who are adept at manipulation and using others are adept at both and reading the emotional responses of others.”
Reading someone else’s emotional responses can also be used in a positive way… of course, with great power cometh great responsibility, and not everyone knows that and/or behaves that way.
“these are intimate and generally not shared with others or yelled out of vehicles.”
I don’t really see how that contradicts my suggestion to “keep the biscuits” to the locker room where people understand what’s meant. And yelling from a car doesn’t much more acceptable by using “I think you’re hot” instead of “hey biscuit!”, or does it?
““How would I admire someone’s sexual attractiveness without objectifying it? I don’t think that’s logically possible.”
This subject came up with a man friend the other night. I do think it’s possible to appreciate a woman’s innate sensuality without sexualizing and objectifying her and I agree with the points Faith has been trying to make. Some men do get this and still others pose a much harder case….”
Well, sure on the level Faith seemed to argue on that is possible. But not on the one I was thinking about: If I sit in a coffeeshop and a long-legged beauty marches in and waits in the line, I admire her beauty (in a socially appropriate, non-threatening way - no staring and salivating ;)) like I would admire a beautiful painting, unless, of course, I would like to begin an interaction). That she is a women makes admiring beauty partly sexualised, of course. And she will logically be an object of my admiration as long as we don’t interact (or are living in a quantum-sized world where the Heisenberg rule has some impact ;))- if we do she will become a subject in our interaction. I’m never sure what feminists actually mean when they object to ‘objectification’ as ‘objectification’ is a logical way of dealing with everything that’s not a ’subject’ in our individual world. So objection to “objectification” must, as I see it, have something to do with what is considered the appropriate amount of consideration/empathy given the person for admiring, say, long legs - whether/to which extent it’s considered ok to just admire the long-legged beauty’s long legs for their (if sexualised) esthetic sake without at the same time considering long-legs-owner’s feelings?
Sam,
I doubt that’s limited to women. Confidence busting experiences will make everyone afraid of risking rejection again.
True and that, of course, would have to do with how often a person is jejected and how they are rejected. People often get mixed messages and experience inconsistent behaviors. I’ve had a lot of people react strongly towards me, but I’ve found it very confusing. I’ve learned that most comments people make are about themselves, even when it feels it’s about me. It’s no fun being projected on.
Although I still think that’s more of a problem for men, as it’s easier for women than for men to use vague signals that offer plausible public deniability in the case of rejection - to oneself because the signal may not have been understood, and publicly, because the signal can easily be discounted as “no signal”.
Vague signals? Do you mean subtle or did you intend to use vague? I think there is a world of difference between the two. Plausible public deniability? I’m not quite following you here. What do you mean. I can’t think of instances in my life how this with work as I think I’m a very clear communicator. I also know that I’m a very subtle person (this characteristic) has been observed by others, who I feel offer credible observations. A person who is subtle is often viewed as shy, although that is another generalization. A subtle person is not appreciated in an in-your-face, aggressive culture like ours. More often, it’s seen as a character flaw and weakness.
No, I would not like a man yelling from a car anything. I don’t like being stared at either–it borders on creepy and can be unnerving, although intimidation evokes anger. I think most men know this and author, Gavin de Becker wrote about it in his book, The Gift of Fear. I can think of only one time when a man stared at me and it did not cause discomfort, because I knew he was appreciating me. I don’t much care for the locker room as I find it kind of demeaning. I’ll leave it at that.
There’s nothing wrong with admiring a woman’s physical beauty or attractiveness as long as one is appropriate and non-threatening. I would agree with that. The trouble is that I find that many men are not very good at subtlety and I think are more concerned with impressing other males and gaining their approval and using a woman’s looks to do so, rather than truly appreciating a woman and valuing her for who she is. Empathy is a very important component of human interaction, which I think a lot of people miss. Of course, they want it demonstrated towards themselves, but do not reciprocate. One has to always remember that a woman with beautiful legs is a person with feelings and that is where the focus should be, except in more intimate private moments. I can think of times when a man stared at me and apologized for starting…I recall what he said and how he said it and I was flattered. He said he hoped that it didn’t upset me…Well, I was flattered, but yes I was concerned and troubled, but that is partly due to my own experiences too. Women fear men, and for good reason. That is not to say that all men are rapists (please don’t hear that)…Men need to earn their trust.
SamSeaborn,
Reading someone else’s emotional responses can also be used in a positive way… of course, with great power cometh great responsibility, and not everyone knows that and/or behaves that way.
I agree,although strictly confining it in terms of manipulation (it’s very destructive). Generally speaking those people who are able to read emotional responses are often termed “sensitive” and I mean this in a positive way as in awareness. Those people will often behave responsible, if they are empathetic. Unfortunately, I’ve met few people who conduct themselves in an emotionally responsible way towards others. Manipulators, can also read emotions and they exploit emotions and situations to win or to gain power over someone or situations. I’m thinking of two books on the subject, In Sheep’s Clothing, by George K. Simon, Jr. and Emotional Blackmail, (When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You, by Susan Forward…Both are great for different reasons, yet I think the first deals more with covert (veiled) aggression which is often the vehicle used for interpersonal manipulation. I don’t believe responsible “sensitive” individuals are valued in our culture.
SamSeaborn, objectification means that’s what you think the woman is for, and in a broader sense, that’s what women are for. Admiring the attractive beauty at the coffeeshop doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It occurs in a cultural context where women’s first priority is supposed to be appearing attractive to men; where there are only very narrow avenues for refusing male attention; and where women are seen as female (with their attractiveness reflecting their value) first and as human beings second.
Contrast mainstream heterosexual culture with gay male culture. Gay men are expected to look at one another. But there’s a very open protocol for it. There’s no obligation to take another man’s attention as flattering, or as an opening for further social contact whether or not you want it, or as a setup where he is supposed to judge your appearance but not vice versa. The object of the attention is free to refuse it–in fact, immediate and clear refusal is considered appropriate, and the admirer is supposed to take the rejection clearly.
Which is not to say that gay men are saints. But they don’t live in a culture where one group of people is expect to be the ‘attract-ee’ and to respond warmly and positively to any social interaction that is not explicitly a threat, and where continued social contact escalates the investment. (To put that latter into English, it means that if a man flirts with me, and it doesn’t end up where he wants it to go, he feels that I have been a ‘tease’ and a bitch.)
Karen,
“Vague signals? Do you mean subtle or did you intend to use vague? I think there is a world of difference between the two.”
Yes, I agree, but subtle signals are often affected by a problematic signal to noise ratio, so what may have been subtle with intention will come across as vague.
“Plausible public deniability? I’m not quite following you here. What do you mean.”
I mean that opening up entails risks and that using vague signals offers the opportunity to withdraw if the intended person did not pick it up but someone else did. “Did you just wink at the guy at bar? No, I just tried to decipher how much the wine is…” (that kind of thing).
“There’s nothing wrong with admiring a woman’s physical beauty or attractiveness as long as one is appropriate and non-threatening. I would agree with that.”
Then we have no disagreement :)
“Empathy is a very important component of human interaction, which I think a lot of people miss. Of course, they want it demonstrated towards themselves, but do not reciprocate.”
That’s a very true and wise observation. Still, it’s best not to loose hope…
“Women fear men, and for good reason. That is not to say that all men are rapists (please don’t hear that)…Men need to earn their trust.”
There is a fine line somewhere in that statement. There is a statistical reality, and it would be bad to deny that. But this is the kind of thing that made me think of my sexuality as a bad thing - this statement is true, of course, but it would be infinitely more powerful if it did usually end there - “men need to earn their trust” - but if it elaborated a bit about *how* that can be done *while* being sexual and not threatened by oneself - that’s basically what the discussion with JW above was about.
“I don’t believe responsible “sensitive” individuals are valued in our culture.”
No they aren’t. We have to deal with that, I suppose…
Mythago,
“SamSeaborn, objectification means that’s what you think the woman is for, and in a broader sense, that’s what women are for. Admiring the attractive beauty at the coffeeshop doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It occurs in a cultural context where women’s first priority is supposed to be appearing attractive to men; where there are only very narrow avenues for refusing male attention; and where women are seen as female (with their attractiveness reflecting their value) first and as human beings second.”
Of course it occurs in a context. But the context I experience is not ‘objectification’ in the way you seem to define it. Yes, the context is sexual - if I weren’t sexually interested in women I suppose the amount of women I’d admire for purely esthetic reasons would be lower. No doubt. But to me that doesn’t define anything about “what women are for”. I don’t see that there’s a cultural context in which a woman has more of an obligation to appeal to a women than I have to appeal to women. Narrow avenues for refusing “male attention”? Well, I would agree as far as observation is concerned, with respect to interactions those avenues are pretty wide, in my opinion, much like you described it with respect to the male gay interactions.
“and where women are seen as female (with their attractiveness reflecting their value) first and as human beings second.”
Well, humans come in two main versions - females and males. When I see a human being, in most circumstances I will identify the gender at the same time. The thing is, Mythago, women are beautiful AS human beings - not prior, not after.
“But they don’t live in a culture where one group of people is expect to be the ‘attract-ee’ and to respond warmly and positively to any social interaction that is not explicitly a threat, and where continued social contact escalates the investment. (To put that latter into English, it means that if a man flirts with me, and it doesn’t end up where he wants it to go, he feels that I have been a ‘tease’ and a bitch.)”
Wow, we really do live in different worlds. Have a look at the place I came from. It’s called “approach anxiety” (see above if you are wondering what feminism had to do with it). There are so many guys who are so damn afraid of just talking to women, let alone expect them to respond warmly…
http://approachanxiety.com/?p=223
(just one example I randomly picked)