I am a few weeks late to this, but that doesn't take away the gag factor one bit. It is amazing to me as I have done research for my book, which is a feminist intervention on dating, how many of the terrible books that support antiquated ideas of how women should behave in pursuit of their romantic lives, are supported BY women. The newest in line by another woman that clearly hates women, Jordan Christy, is a book about how women can find love. How to Be a Hepburn in a Hilton World, is a nice dive into history when women were slut shamed for being sexual and chastised for their wanton lust for men. There is an excerpt from her book on MSNBC and I have picked two paragraphs here that give a little context to the "type" of woman she is talking about.
It's no secret that we girls start fantasizing about a fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever-after love story around the same time we start teething (I still have a wedding book that I compiled at age six!). Relationships are a big deal to us. We want to hear all about our roommate's new boyfriend, have to get every detail of our coworker's upcoming nuptials, and lament right along with Jennifer Aniston over Brad Pitt as if he cheated on us. We love to watch TLC's A Wedding Story, feverishly scan Us Weekly for the latest blossoming celebrity romance, and sob every time we see Sleepless in Seattle. We spend hours prepping ourselves for a date and even more time obsessing about what our potential children will look like and whether or not our initials mesh nicely. Conclusion: girls love love.So why would you subconsciously sabotage all those efforts through your modern-day attempts at ?nding true love? This question baffles me daily. I'd like to think that it's out of sheer naiveté -- most girls don't appear to be in a lucid mental state when they're throwing themselves at some circus clown off the street and clearly aren't aware that they are actually driving that poor boy further away. But luckily, you will no longer have to be the victim of such careless ways in love, because we're going to start doing things the right way -- the old-fashioned way! And it starts by not messing with nature.
That is right ladies, not only is dreaming about perfect weddings natural, so is patriarchy and male dominance over your feelings, love life and dating choices. And if you act on how you feel, you are ruining your own chances at finding love (idiot!!!). It makes you wonder who is really being naive.
As I have talked to people about my project, I have come across the shame that women feel for wanting to ask men out, but feel like they can't because of myths such as those portrayed in the book above that make them feel stifled. And men, time and time again say, they like it when women ask them out. Now, I suppose any empirical evidence Christy or myself have collected is subjective since clearly she hangs around girls (not women incidentally as she continually refers to women as "girls,") that dream about weddings when they are "teething" (huh?) and I hang around people that have highly politicized and/or queer weddings, even if they may still be somewhat traditional. So naturally our evidence will be skewed by this subjectivity. That is the thing with love and dating, everyone has a different idea of what works for them, whether it is along or against the grain or somewhere in-between.
I guess what baffles me is not so much that many women feel pressured to follow these restrictive rules that ultimately make them unhappy. It is that we live in a culture that rewards this type of behavior. On some level they are right, there are some men that may prefer to ask women out because they want all the control--but is that the type of men we want to be with? Cultural norms around dating change with us and if we want egalitarian partnerships, our only hope is to do as we please with little regard to what we "should" do.
Similar to sentiments voiced in He's Just Not that Into You, and Why Men Love Bitches, many of these dating books only make sense if you believe that women are inferior to men. I am sure the authors of all of these books would say I am kidding myself, after all, I am 31 and unmarried, but I would much rather hold out for someone that recognizes me as a fully realized human being, rather than a possession that must play inferior and passive to get someone to like me and be with me. Just saying.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "To Snap A Man, Let Him Do the Chasing," And Other Myths from Women That Heart the Patriarchy..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15773
I'd like to think that it's out of sheer naiveté -- most girls don't appear to be in a lucid mental state when they're throwing themselves at some circus clown off the street and clearly aren't aware that they are actually driving that poor boy further away.
I'm grasping for clarity here - circus clown off the street? Is she referring to a street performance artist or turning her nose up at the sort of man these "naieve girls" are dating? And if it's the latter, why does she refer to them as "poor boys" in the next breath? Is this man good enough for her or not?
Dreaming about fairy tale weddings and happily ever after wouldn't happen to be something conditioned in us after being plopped down in front of countless Disney movies, would it?
All those things she mentions that "we girls" do are completely alien to me - and yet, gasp, I think I "love love" too. I just don't connect it to strange things like what hypothetical kids will look like (what if I'm infertile?) or badly made movies or having a difficult time figuring out what to wear when hanging out with the date.
Naieve? Jesus, I can't spell. Sorry.
I think dating a street/circus performer could be interesting. So IDK what her problem is. :)
wtf? Who *are* these people?! Fantasizing about marriage when they're teething? SQUICK! I am so, so grateful for the queer/trans post-genderish radical anarchist bubble that I live and love in.
Oh for fuck's sake. I know it's been said a million times but I never dreamt about this crap. How do these people think that is nature??
Seriously, if you've always pined for your wedding... well I think it's an unfortunately thing to fixate on (as it's usually described in popular culture, not to say a woman can't long to get married without desperation) but that's fine for you.
You are my hero, Sammy. You really are.
"It's no secret that we girls start fantasizing about a fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever-after love story around the same time we start teething . . . "
Huh? What do you mean WE? I daydreamed about dragons and unicorns and Thundercats when I was a little kid, not fairy tale weddings. Sorry, but I just can't relate here.
"We spend hours prepping ourselves for a date and even more time obsessing about what our potential children will look like and whether or not our initials mesh nicely."
Uh, no. I don't spend hours prepping for a date -- I put on some fresh clothes, comb my hair, and go out the door. Also, I don't obsess about what my potential children will look like, which would be a pretty silly thing to do now that I've gotten my tubes tied. Where is Jordan Christy getting these ridiculous stereotypes?
"Conclusion: girls love love."
The author is not referring to love, which is about trust, commitment, and common ground. She's referring to INFATUATION, which is a completely different concept.
Christy is being absurd. Many women devote their energy to careers, hobbies, activism, friends, and family, not necessarily to shallow, outdated courtship rituals. Real-life women seek all sorts of relationships -- including mature, profound ones -- rather than the girlie fluff she's describing. In my opinion, Jordan Christy needs to get out of the house more.
I'm pretty sure I spent more of my early childhood masturbating than I did dreaming of weddings. I did have this one three-month phase where I was obsessed with drawing wedding dresses, but then I got bored and started drawing cats instead. I'm still in love with cats, though. Maybe I was meant to be a cat lady (or better yet, a cat) instead of a bride!
What I resent the most about this sort of crap (in addition to the claim that societal gender roles are natural...I won't even address that lunacy) is that it sets up this dichotomy between "good girls" who have no/repress their sexual subjectivity, never get drunk, don't swear and land a husband and "bad girls" who act like normal human beings instead of 1950s-style fembots. I spent a good ten years sleeping with/pursuing whom I felt like (committed relationship or not), indulging in alcohol and studying feminist theory (among other things), then later on met a great guy, got married in a white dress and had two babies in less than two years. Yes, women are people...sometimes "complex" people....we are not one or the other of these feminine tropes that have been created to scare us. Personally, I would not want to get involved with any man who was turned off by the fact I behaved exactly the same way as he did! How intelligent can someone with that sort of unexamined double-standard be?
Ugh I saw this "article" a few weeks ago and was disgusted. I'm always amazed that women write a lot of this crap. It seems I've seen a lot of these types of articles on news sites lately. I boggles the mind how many people still think this way. Anyway, here is my comment I left on the article.
"What a load of crap. I hate stereotypical drivel like this. Men are not all the same and women are not all the same. Do what works for you and the person you like. I absolutely love how the author insists that while all girls spent their time "politely ?xing tea and cupcakes for our dolls," the "rowdy neighbor boys were in hot pursuit of the bad guy, playing cops and robbers." Ugh. People are not simple stereotypes and don't fit into neat little catagories.
As one of the girls who played football and war with the other (male and female) kids in the neiborhood, waiting to be persued is not my thing. And guess what? I've been in a relatioship with a wonderful man for over nine years. I found someone who I could be me with, not someone who wanted me to fit into the stereoypical image of a woman. I'm not going to dumb myself down in order to make a man feel secure with me, and as a result I found someone who is secure in himself and likes me for who I am. If I had done what the author insists is natural for women, I would not be as happy as I am now.
And don't get me started on the insinuation that I must have spent my time "fantasizing about a fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever-after love story around the same time [I] start[ed] teething. Yes, I want to get married. No, it is not the main goal of my life. Ugh. Pure and utter crap."
When I read your comment about women writing most of the crappy dating advice I couldn't help but wonder whether it is to mislead other straight women so that they can "snag" the most eligible men instead.
Oddly enough, I've just started a draft for a short book with gender neutral dating and love advice.
I swear you are right about this. And not just with books but in real life sometimes too.
You're going to let us know when it's done, right? Right?! I have social anxiety and I need all the help I can get (excluding Ms. Christy's brand of "help" that is).
I got married because I finally met a man who loved me for EXACTLY who I was, not for the 1950s Stepford Wife that he wanted me to become after we got married (this is the attitude that my ex-boyfriend had).
I had sex with my husband on our first date and we have been happily humping ever since!
There's a tremendous amount of ignorance out there in all corners, which baffles me, too. Today I was thinking about how my own point of view as someone who thinks deeply and is unsatisfied with unnecessarily cut and dried answers has influenced how I view the world.
I honestly don't think most women who are pressured to follow restrictive rules have ever been encouraged to think a different way. For example, when I taught American History classes online, I noticed the kind of underdeveloped attitudes and opinions each of my students brought with them, and I also knew if I could take a historical concept, put a modern day spin on it, and state it in such a way that it resonated powerfully with each of them, that I could almost see the lightbulb going off when they made the connection. It was a fantastic thing to observe and it really enriched the interest of my students and made them willing to learn more.
Some men want all the control. From my own life, I find men who date women that are much younger than they are susceptible to that. That was never what I wanted in my own life, though. I really did want egalitarianism, particular because I observed my mother spouting off all of these strong woman, inspiring, feminist ideas, but then running to my father for strength when she felt vulnerable or afraid. That was its own sort of mixed message for me and I do acknowledge it has influenced the sort of woman I've wanted to date in my own life. I never wanted to be with a woman who was that degree of needy and that degree of reliant upon me for everything. My mistake, early on, was confusing selfishness for strength in the women I dated, but I fully acknowledge that was my own fault.
It's no secret that we girls start fantasizing about a fairy-tale wedding and happily-ever-after love story around the same time we start teething
I never dreamed of what my wedding would be like until a year into my engagement. And... ::checks:: yup! I'm a woman!
Relationships are a big deal to us.
They're a big deal to people.
We want to hear all about our roommate's new boyfriend,
Men want to know about their roommate's new girlfriend too.
have to get every detail of our coworker's upcoming nuptials,and lament right along with Jennifer Aniston over Brad Pitt as if he cheated on us.
Ug, no we don't.
We love to watch TLC's A Wedding Story,
...dunno what that is. I don't have cable.
feverishly scan Us Weekly for the latest blossoming celebrity romance,
I always turn around the exploitive gossip rags to face backwards as well as any magazine that tells women that they need to lose weight.
and sob every time we see Sleepless in Seattle.
I do actually tear up every time Tom Hanks talks to his dead wife. I doubt that's what the author meant, though.
We spend hours prepping ourselves for a date
I never did, did anyone else? Oh! I did once spend an hour curling my hair to go to the opera.
and even more time obsessing about what our potential children will look like and whether or not our initials mesh nicely.
This only came up with my husband when he and I were about to get married, and we were discussing what names to take, and whether or not we wanted children.
Conclusion: girls love love.
We all love love. Whether we're women (not girls) or men, or even if we don't associate to either gender.
My husband asked me out on our first date. I suppose then that he was the peruser at that part of our relationship. But then again I asked him to marry me. (he said yes). Seemed to work out just fine.
almost all of these dating books say the same thing. if passivity works THAT WELL why do they need to publish so many of the same book each year?
I am so looking forward to reading your book, Samhita. Im sure it will be a breath of fresh air.
Well, the author's right about one thing: as a GIRL, sure, I bought into the whole culture of weddings and patriarchy. Then, around adolescence, I realized I wanted a helluva lot more than an uncomfortable, expensive marriage. Making things happen, in love or in work, beats sitting around in some plastic-stone tower any day. Ms. Christy is basically suggesting that I act the way I did at 10. I think I'll pass.
I think I just fell in love with Samhita. THANK YOU. I have hated the premises of these books ever since I heard tale of them. Keep up the awesome work!
Samitha,
not having read any of those books it's a bit difficult to comment on them, so let me just say that I completely identify with your sentiment.
That said, I think you got two things wrong - these strategies don't work from the assumption that women are inferior, but that they are (and definitely *need to be*) superior to men - this is explaining life on the pedestal including the acceptance that there is indeed power in being on the pedestal. Of course, that doesn't make sense for women who don't want to be on the pedestal. But the assumption is superiority not inferiority. If you were inferior, if there was no power in female sexuality that can be leveraged from the pedestal such a strategy would not be popular, but there clearly is. Of course, different things work for different people and that's great - but the pedestal strategy is not one assuming female inferiority in the mating game, quite the opposite, while it may or may not assume female inferiority in other dimensions (which, I suppose, is what you are more concerned with).
The other thing I'd like to comment on is this -
"there are some men that may prefer to ask women out because they want all the control--"
to be honest, I don't really see how asking someone out is giving someone control. It *may* give you a bit more control about who you approach than if you're waiting to be approached (which, for a shy guy, isn't a viable strategy at all, unfortunately), but how that would translate into control in a potential relationship isn't clear to me. What do you mean?
In my opinion, only very few men enjoy the benefits of being able to actually approach all the women they would like to get to know. Most men are mostly scared of the prospect of having to approach someone they don't know. And they usually have to deal with an amount of rejection that women are unable to understand (just as we don't understand the extent to which women may not like the sexual attention they get as we are usually craving it).
So, more power to female "pickup artists" ;)
One huge issue I had with that except (the longer one linked to), which addresses part of your controlling thing is how she seems to endore stalking on the male part to the point that he is only into you if he stalks you/stalking is necessary for marriage!!!
This verges way too close on endorsing violence/creepy behavior/abuse because he cares bullshit.
Mrs. Christy goes on about how the best relationships started after the woman had repeatedly turned down the guy and he stalked her (!). Men who can't handle no are scary, full of entitlement, and often controlling. Having a woman write a book stating this behavior is natural and necessary is incredibly scary.
On a side note, this author seems stuck in very black and white thinking (well, duh) as she seems to define woman taking charge as texting for hours and stalking (again, stalking good for men, bad for women).
This shit makes me sick to my stomach. Endorsing creepy, controlling, stalking behavior = slippering slope for emotional manipulation and violence.
typo- excerpt.
and by "this" I meant her book.
I think the idea that women should wait for a guy to ask her out perputates the notion that if guys AREN'T asking her out, she is somehow inferior and not worthy.
Also, being expected to choose someone is a bit similar to choosing people for a team game---of course in this game, the other person can decline the invitation.
I can completely understand how asking someone out can feel powerless (especially if you get rejected most of the time)....but like I said, the concept of guys asking girls out rests on the idea that if he's not asking her out, he's not interested. And there lies the power.
Also, and I'm not sure if I'm correct on this, but it seems to me that in asking someone out, the person who is doing the asking already has an idea of what they want from that person....so when the tables are turned, guys don't feel comfortable with not knowing what the woman wants. (or, maybe, again, since they haven't made a move on her yet, they've already made the decision that they're not interested for whatever reason).
I need to go read some gay dating advice books or something. Maybe they have a better perspective on this.
Athenia,
I think the main problem women don't understand is how men do not have any kind of inherent sexual confidence and how that translates to female power in the mating process. I think this has to do with how men and women are differently assigning value to men and women. Woman are much more likely to be awarded value for being while men are more likely to be awarded value for doing. And that informs our interactions and desires - men usually *love* to get value for being, because they aren't used to this, while women usually appreciate being awarded value for doing.
"but like I said, the concept of guys asking girls out rests on the idea that if he's not asking her out, he's not interested. And there lies the power."
I don't really understand what kind of power you are talking about here?
"or, maybe, again, since they haven't made a move on her yet, they've already made the decision that they're not interested for whatever reason)."
Again, this is assuming that men are approaching all women they are interested in. That's just not possible. On any given day, in the subway, I'm seeing more women I am sexually interested in than I could actually talk to in a week even if I were actually able to muster the courage to say hello. That's an assumption that's assigning far too much confidence to men that just doesn't exist. Why else would women see it as a sign of confidence and attractivity in a guy if he actually approaches her.
"I need to go read some gay dating advice books or something. Maybe they have a better perspective on this."
They're more likely to have a more relaxed way of talking about sexual interest, which makes sexualised interactions easier. That's something heterosexuals have immense problems with. Gay people seem to find it far easier to get physical with each other than heterosexuals.
I think this has to do with how men and women are differently assigning value to men and women. Woman are much more likely to be awarded value for being while men are more likely to be awarded value for doing.
I addressed this below; I guess our comments crossed paths :).
But this is a great point that I think needs to be explored more. I think this is at the root of the problem and at the heart of a lot of miscommunication.
I think there is a misperception about the nature of being valued for, as you say, *being*. While I can understand this perception from a man's point of view, I think it's problematic on a grander scale. For example our whole economic system is set up to award value for doing. Our culture and values are based on doing. Also people ignore the fact that when you are valued for *being* it becomes almost abstract, intangible.
In fact, the whole idea of democracy goes against assigning value for *being*. We've amended laws and constitutions based on quandaries over *being*, i.e., is it ALL people? is it only men? 3/5 compromise for votes?
The only other time we assign value for *being* is with children and fetuses---which further points to the position of assigning adult women value for simply being, to be problematic.
I think the thing about these books is that they presume that women have so little to offer, and that men have so little genuine reason to be interested in a woman besides sexual access and ego-stroking. This book, specifically, doesn't seem to be as much about sexual leveraging as maintaining a general air of mystery. If you read the excerpt (which I wouldn't recommend, that's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back) the author basically says "be coy because if the guy you like actually knows what's on your mind he won't be attracted to you anymore." It presumes that the sole interest women hold for men is the puzzle of figuring out how to get sex or returned attention from them and you've got to put off that moment until he's already well infatuated with you or you will be thrown aside like a video game he's finished playing through.
Dating books in this genre all seem to be premised on the idea that there is inherently nothing in women to engage men and that they need to rely on gimmicks - like restricting sexual access or playing coy games - to keep men from realizing how boring they truly are and running away. To put it another way, they send the message that if you, a woman, are interested in a man, and you say, "Here I am, person to person, I am sexually and romantically attracted to you and I'd like to have a relationship," you will be rejected. Because why would a man truly want a woman for who she is, presented in an honest way? That's the inferiority.
It's a view that's demeaning to both genders, but at least gives men a little benefit of the doubt. Sure, they're so shallow they'll apparently turn down a woman they'd otherwise be interested in if she texts them a few times, but at least they're not thin plasters of personality over black holes consisting of nothing but neediness and wedding fantasies...
Jennifer,
"Here I am, person to person, I am sexually and romantically attracted to you and I'd like to have a relationship"
well, it's basically saying that male and female underlying strategies are incompatible and we all need code to work it out. Because the assumed male version of the above - "Here I am, I find you very attractive, would you go to bed with me" - wouldn't work either.
That said, I think you got two things wrong - these strategies don't work from the assumption that women are inferior, but that they are (and definitely *need to be*) superior to men - this is explaining life on the pedestal including the acceptance that there is indeed power in being on the pedestal.
Couple of things. If we talk about the pedestal I think there needs to be a little bit of reflection on which women are on a pedestal and how they got to be there.
Think about women who are placed on pedestals in our society. Then think about which men are placed on pedestals.
One of these groups is more likely to have been placed on a pedestal for actually accomplishing something; whereas the other group is simply of a certain age range and lucky enough to be born in conformance to a rather narrow (and annoyingly stubborn) definition of beauty.
How much true power is there when one is placed on a pedestal for something that she had little to no control over?
The traditional line goes that a woman's power supposedly lies in her ability to attract a man with power. I must say that this is a pretty flimsy definition of power and it becomes increasingly weaker as our culture evolves.
Spike,
if only merited power is considered true power, how do you square this with feminist assumptions about male privilege? Is that suddenly *not* *real* power?
"Think about women who are placed on pedestals in our society. Then think about which men are placed on pedestals."
I have. That's what's in my reply to Athenia - women are on the pedestal for being, men for doing. Which is why we tend to want the other thing. Men want to be accepted and valued for being (sexy, themselves), they want to be *wanted* rather than *needed*, but they fear they will never be truly wanted, because they assign value to men based on *doing*, not being.
Easiest way to pick up a man is accepting him and his desires, "objectifying" him, valuing in him what he likely values in women. Making him feel sexy rather than accomplished. For a lot of women it's the opposite, they will react more favorably to someone who's admiring (honestly, of course) their accomplishments rather than only their beauty. In fact, without the former, they are much more likely to dismiss the latter.
Easiest way to pick up a man is accepting him and his desires, "objectifying" him, valuing in him what he likely values in women.
This illustrates my point exactly. "Easy" is exactly what the woman will be considered who approaches a man in the way you described. That is not exactly a position of power to be in (for most women) in our society. Maybe we'll get there one day. But we aren't there yet. This is the kind of nuance that often get missed.
Your scenario also doesn't take it to the next level though. If women truly valued what men valued, the male pedestal gets turned upside down. Would the average man really want to be judged by his physical strength, athleticism and age above all else?
Would the man in your scenario be equally willing to live on the other end of the spectrum of being sexually objectified, which is being the target of unpredictable and sometimes threatening harassment---a position that many women time and time again describe as disempowering?
if only merited power is considered true power, how do you square this with feminist assumptions about male privilege? Is that suddenly *not* *real* power?
It depends on who makes the rules. I mean, royal families and religious leaders have unearned power and still manage to control wealth and resources because they made the rules and continue to go largely unchallenged.
But the thing is that we've built a society and a culture based on *doing*. Women therefore have been the outlier position in this regard in terms of raw sexual objectification.
And male privilege is indeed disempowering in a lot of ways actually. I think feminism squares perfectly with this: the expectation for only men to be in combat is a good example. Also classism and racism cut through male privilege on many levels, and this has been examined critically through the eyes of feminists, especially bloggers of color.
But a good way to understand privilege and power is to look at the direction of mobility in a society from one role to the other.
If each role was equally privileged and powerful you would expect a reasonable level of fluidity between roles and groups. Yet when comparing say, traditional masculinity (including sexual desire) and traditional femininity, for the most part we see mobility into only one of these roles.
The group in flux is trying to get more power within the current framework of values, while also struggling to change the framework. It just so happens though that often changing the framework takes a lot longer than opening roles to others; this is the basis for affirmative action for example.
I think it also hurts women to be considered to be more "sexually flexible" of the sexes. To the extent that this is biological vs societal, again the onus is on women to be the gatekeeper; and in this day and age, this is a risk not worth the benefits or perceived benefits, however miniscule.
Spike,
"Your scenario also doesn't take it to the next level though."
True, in a way. The grass is always greener on the other side, so yeah, what's being valued may change with being on the other side. I was describing what I perceive today, not what could be the case at some point.
"Would the average man really want to be judged by his physical strength, athleticism and age above all else?
Well, let's see. Depends. I suppose the one condition men would put on this would be - "will women then react to us in the way we react to female "seductive prowess" today?" If yes, sure, the grass IS greener on the other side - at least in our perception.
"Would the man in your scenario be equally willing to live on the other end of the spectrum of being sexually objectified, which is being the target of unpredictable and sometimes threatening harassment---a position that many women time and time again describe as disempowering?"
Again - my point is we don't know what this feels like. We want to be objectified because we don't get this as much as women. It's like drinking water. It's great when you're thirsty, it stops being fun when you're being waterboarded. After waterboarding you may look at a glass of water in a different way. That's what I'm saying.
"But the thing is that we've built a society and a culture based on *doing*. Women therefore have been the outlier position in this regard in terms of raw sexual objectification."
That's not true. We can have a discussion about the history of citizenship, inclusion and exclusion, but there are a lot of areas in which democracy relies, depends and assigns rights (human rights) based on being rather than doing. In simplified terms, doing is the currency of the market, politically, things look (righly) different.
"If each role was equally privileged and powerful you would expect a reasonable level of fluidity between roles and groups."
If those are the only intervening variables, which, to be frank, I doubt, particularly in an area like sexuality. Biology can not be entirely taken out of the picture here - there are differences in sexuality that likely have a basis in different relative scarcity of the reproductive function.
"Yet when comparing say, traditional masculinity (including sexual desire) and traditional femininity, for the most part we see mobility into only one of these roles."
Yeah, because men are scared shitless and don't know what to do, *because* they don't believe they will be *wanted* if they are no longer *needed*. That's the point I'm making. If men believed that they don't have to rely on doing in order to satisfy their immediate sexual (and emotional) needs, they'd be much more willing to leave that position. It's just that actual evidence of this happening is almost completely invisible. It's like someone's saying - look, jump, you'll be even better off in the future. But there's no actual evidence of that future happening anywhere but in those projections. So it makes more than good sense for men to not trust those projections and keep on *doing*.
"and in this day and age, this is a risk not worth the benefits or perceived benefits, however miniscule."
Again, that probably looks different from a male perspective.
I feel like I just got smacked in the head with a backlash-by-four.
Thank you. That verbalizes my feelings quite nicely.
...Ugh. :\
You know, the whole time I was reading that first excerpted paragraph, I was thinking of my youngest sister. She fits a lot of what Christy mentions there - loving the gossip mags, TLC's wedding shows, product, etc. - and yet she simultaneously manages to be one of the most kick-ass feminists I know.
Why do people like Christy continue to spout this BS that "girls" (ugh) are, or should be, one-dimensional and consumed with landing a guy? You nailed it, Samhita - they truly hate and fear multi-faceted women who may couple up because we want to, not because we need to.
And they seem to think that gay women don't even exist.
wedding book at 6?
That is NOT normal. If I had a kid that did that I would put them on a soccer team or in an art class stat.
Good lord! There are so many things wrong with just those 2 paragraphs.
1. The title alone tells me a lot about what this book is going to be like. We have the weird idea that the 50's were such a more innocent time compared to how slutty we all are. I've got news for you, people in the 50's lamented the lost innocence of earlier times just as much as we do now.
2. I did not fantasize about getting married when I was a child. Judging by the other comments, I am not alone in this. I'll admit that as an adult, I've put a little thought into my hypothetical future wedding, mainly because I've been involved in the wedding planning process for 2 family members and 3 friends. My wedding planning thoughts have been limited to things like 'oh, that's a cool idea' and 'I don't think I'd want to do that'.
3. You made a wedding book when you were 6!? I guess it's no worse than playing house, but still, it strikes me as over the top. I kind of want to see the wedding planning book a 6 year old came up with. Also, it's striking that the premise is that girl's fantasize about a wedding, as oppposed to a marriage.
4. I don't give a rat's ptootie about Brad, Angelina, or Jennifer. I'm not big into celebrity gossip.
5. I'll talk about weddings with co-workers, friends, and acquaintances when they bring it up. They're either looking for an opinion or really excited about something. I find that I'm easily excited for other people. I don't need to live vicariously through them.
6. I would want to know about a friend's new boyfriend/girlfriend. This has less to do with obsessing about love and more to do with taking an interest in my friend's life.
7. I don't usually watch wedding shows. I did watch a couple a few times with my now sister-in-law when she and my brother were planning their wedding. The shows are really bizarre. One was about a bride trying to loose weight to fit into a dress. The promo went something like 'Susan needs to loose 20 pounds or she won't be able to get married' (I have no idea what the actual name was). I was all like, really? Her future husband doesn't know what her weight is now? She couldn't just get a bigger dress or have a panel sewn in or something?
8. I thought Sleepless in Seatle was dreadfully boring.
9. I have never even given a thought to what my hypothetical future children would look like. It just never occurred to me. I think first I would need to know what my hypothetical future husband looks like. Although, if I ever do have kids, I hope they don't get my crappy eyesight.
10. I have never even thought about what my married initials would look like. This would assume that I do get married, and then change my name, 2 things that may or may not happen. I have also never written out my name with a crush's last name obsessively my notebook. Or drawn little hearts with our initials in them. I always found that silly.
11. I don't throw myself at any random dude I happen to see walking down the street. I had a conversation about someone a while ago about this. I'm pretty sure I could laid if I went downtown and hit the bars, but I'd much rather date someone I know and like first.
12. I'm so glad I don't have to worry about driving boys away with my crazy ways anymore! Please, your insights have been so spot on, tell me what I'm doing wrong.
On a related note, I signed up for eHarmony a little while ago (I know, I know). Every time I logged off, I would get these horrible ads for weight loss pills or plans, wrinkle cream, and dating advice. The pay to view advice site was called "Catch Him & Keep Him". Isn't that a weird sentiment when you think about it? I don't want to trap or catch a guy. I'd much prefer if he came willingly.
What really pisses me off about these sorts of books (and the culture that spawns them) is they effect my relationships.
I do not buy into this stuff. I never dreamed of the "perfect" wedding. My parents eloped and were married by a justice of the peace. There was no white dress, bridesmaids, flowers, etc, etc. Inmates and orange jumpsuits acted as the witnesses. This is the idea of romance that I grew up with; doing things on your own terms and not turning your love into a spectacle.
So why is it that the smart, funny, feminist and non-judgmental men that I date assume that I want to get married ASAP? It's because they're constantly surrounded by this crap and it colors their views about the way women are "supposed" to act in a relationship.
So go fuck yourself Jordan Christy. And keep your jaded, patriarchal claws out of my relationships.
I did not get that negative message from Why men Love Bitches at all. I liked the message that women shouldn't fall all over themselves trying to impress a man or treat him like a king, at least not until he has earned that kind of effort by virtue of his demonstrated character. I liked the message that women, like all people, should attempt to be polite and courtesous but that we should not be obsessed with being 'nice' and always trying to people please (or man please). There was a strong emphasis on having your own interests and not dropping them when a man comes along and not making your life all about him and his interests. It was about treating yourself like you are worthy of someone trying to impress you instead of killing yourself trying to win some man over. I don't recall any messages about giving away the milk for free or other such nonsense (maybe it was there but i just don't remember). Anyway, I just found the book to be more woman centered than most other date books and like how it didn't favorably depict the kind of men who would want passive, desperate women in the first place.
Yes, little girls do a lot of imaginative play about being grown up, and pretending to fit into the roles they see as appropriate for adult women. DUH. (This is exactly as natural and inborn as the tendency for little boys to imagine they are doing the kinds of things they think grown men do.)
Are fairy-princess stories about love? Not exactly. They are about finding a place in society and within a family, winning a place as an adult woman. I've watched little girls play "wedding" with dolls, and the groom is usually ignored (they don't bother assigning a doll for the part, or they forget about it as soon as they start playing.) Adolescent fantasies like "A Wedding Story," or daydreaming about what one's future children might look like, or being emotionally invested in celebrity romances...People say those fantasies are about romantic love, but they are really much more about how a woman finds her place in society. If it were about love, even if it were about friendship, we'd care about bride and groom and how they connected to each other. But these fantasies are about how the bride follows the rules and looks right in the pictures.
It feeds into the same natural, inborn, desire of little girls to offer them a wider variety of ways they can fit into society as happy, successful (even triumphant) adult women. Yeah, Barbie has lots of icky problems with commercialism and body image...but it's some help that they have Astronaut Barbie, Vet Barbie, and Musician Barbie as well as Fashion Model Barbie and Wedding Barbie.
Another one you'll love to hate: Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man by Steve Harvey. I've seen so many women gobbling this stuff down that it makes my eye twitch. Is the book as bad as the title? YES. One of the things this guy says is that we shouldn't keep our maiden names because men want a woman to have his name. seriously, he says something like "if you like your maiden name that much, marry your daddies" or something REALLY insulting like that. I urge you to check it out simply because I shouldn't have to suffer alone.
I unfortunately read the excerpt. I have a bad taste in my mouth and I can't stop frowning. A wedding book you made when you were six? I'm pretty sure I thought about weddings at that age, but it had nothing to do with marriage. It had to do with going to a big party and being the center of attention.
A few of my personal favortites:
>>I hate to say it, but you’re never going to get the guy until you simply let him be the guy. And what do guys want to do? Chase things! >>
First off, you clearly don't "hate to say it." Stop being disingenuous. And secondly, if I throw a tennis ball in the yard, my SO is not the one who will chase it. The dog, however, will.
>>Don’t believe me? If you’re still of the I’ll-get-the-check-not-him mentality, all stubborn and adamant that we just go out and snag a man, I challenge you to take a gander at the responses to the question I posed to ten delightful, successful, happily married men: Did she pursue you, or did you pursue her?>>
Yes, your sample of 10 married guys is clearly a representative cross-section of today's society. Also, one of your subjects has been married 78 years and talked about asking his wife's parents' permission to date her. Lovely that they are still together, but not exactly culturally relevant. Furthermore, your examples displayed some truly creeptastic behavior. Asking girls/women out repeatedly to "wear them down," annoying them, pestering them, and ignoring signals that they are not interested is called harassment.
I think this is where I get really pissed instead of just disgusted. If part of combating rape culture is about teaching people how to clearly assert their own boundaries while respecting the boundaries others are asserting, honest communication about sexual/romantic interest is essential. Repeated rejections should not mean "try harder," they should mean "leave that person alone."
No does not equal maybe or yes, whether it's a date or sexual activity. We have to get away from this if we're going to end the victim-blaming associated with acquaintance and intimate partner rape. And this book perpetuates those cultural norms.
In fact, I think I'm going to write Ms. Christy a letter to that effect.
God, this book makes The Rules sound modern. If I threw a ball, my dog (God rest her soul) would look at me like "WTF did you do that for? Now look. The ball it out there. If you didn't want the ball out there, you shouldn't have thrown it out there. Now you go get it." And I would!!!
My boyfriend, on the other hand, would engineer an elaborate fetch-and-throw program to make sure that he, personally, would never have to be bothered playing such silly games.
Here is a little weak relationship advice from me. For one thing be careful whom you take relationship advice from in the first place. If it's a woman does she even have a man? If a guy does he treated the woman in his life the way you'd like to be treated? If you are a pretty girl guess what, you're going to have to ask guys out or make them comfortable with asking you out guys always think a pretty girl is booked up. Or they're intimidated. I would say men are weak-minded but that would sexist of me ...
It sounds like you're on your way to writing another book just like this one. It's the quick path to riches, I suppose.
Huh? That whole excerpt is ridiculous! Even when I was single I didn't dream about this stuff! Kids? Marriage? Seriously, huh?
Plus, being single must be so awesome. No arguments over dishes, no concerns over anyone seeing your gross blood covered period undies, getting to watch whatever you want on TV, no one pushing you over to one side of the bed or waking you up with their alarm clock at 6 am, being able to invite over a friend who you would never ever date because it would be embarrassing for emotionless sex...
I need the un-dating book.
Spike,
"Your scenario also doesn't take it to the next level though."
True, in a way. The grass is always greener on the other side, so yeah, what's being valued may change with being on the other side. I was describing what I perceive today, not what could be the case at some point.
"Would the average man really want to be judged by his physical strength, athleticism and age above all else?
Well, let's see. Depends. I suppose the one condition men would put on this would be - "will women then react to us in the way we react to female "seductive prowess" today?" If yes, sure, the grass IS greener on the other side - at least in our perception.
"Would the man in your scenario be equally willing to live on the other end of the spectrum of being sexually objectified, which is being the target of unpredictable and sometimes threatening harassment---a position that many women time and time again describe as disempowering?"
Again - my point is we don't know what this feels like. We want to be objectified because we don't get this as much as women. It's like drinking water. It's great when you're thirsty, it stops being fun when you're being waterboarded. After waterboarding you may look at a glass of water in a different way. That's what I'm saying.
"But the thing is that we've built a society and a culture based on *doing*. Women therefore have been the outlier position in this regard in terms of raw sexual objectification."
That's not true. We can have a discussion about the history of citizenship, inclusion and exclusion, but there are a lot of areas in which democracy relies, depends and assigns rights (human rights) based on being rather than doing. In simplified terms, doing is the currency of the market, politically, things look (righly) different.
"If each role was equally privileged and powerful you would expect a reasonable level of fluidity between roles and groups."
If those are the only intervening variables, which, to be frank, I doubt, particularly in an area like sexuality. Biology can not be entirely taken out of the picture here - there are differences in sexuality that likely have a basis in different relative scarcity of the reproductive function.
"Yet when comparing say, traditional masculinity (including sexual desire) and traditional femininity, for the most part we see mobility into only one of these roles."
Yeah, because men are scared shitless and don't know what to do, *because* they don't believe they will be *wanted* if they are no longer *needed*. That's the point I'm making. If men believed that they don't have to rely on doing in order to satisfy their immediate sexual (and emotional) needs, they'd be much more willing to leave that position. It's just that actual evidence of this happening is almost completely invisible. It's like someone's saying - look, jump, you'll be even better off in the future. But there's no actual evidence of that future happening anywhere but in those projections. So it makes more than good sense for men to not trust those projections and keep on *doing*.
"and in this day and age, this is a risk not worth the benefits or perceived benefits, however miniscule."
Again, that probably looks different from a male perspective.
jayjay,
That's not true. We can have a discussion about the history of citizenship, inclusion and exclusion, but there are a lot of areas in which democracy relies, depends and assigns rights (human rights) based on being rather than doing. In simplified terms, doing is the currency of the market, politically, things look (rightly) different.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. For the last 200 years our concept of democracy has shifted from valuing *being* to valuing *doing*. And that trend is continuing.
By contemplating and then affording all citizens basic human rights, for example, we are trying to level the playing field so that people can be judged on the content of their character and their accomplishments. We are in effect saying *being* shouldn't matter because we are all people. Then what are you left with? *Doing*.
I'm not saying that we are there 100% at all. But that is the trend.
Yeah, because men are scared shitless and don't know what to do, *because* they don't believe they will be *wanted* if they are no longer *needed*.
This is understandable.
Biology can not be entirely taken out of the picture here - there are differences in sexuality that likely have a basis in different relative scarcity of the reproductive function
True. But genetic analysis of human population indicates that reproductive scarcity was much worse in the past. This suggests that scarcity is largely social and environmental. I'm not saying that biology doesn't have a role, but the dramatic reproductive imbalances of the past are not what we have today. Google Y chromosome patterns in Central Asia for a window to the past.
To put it into perspective:
The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.
Taken from here: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/
Versus today:
U.S. Percentage of adults ages 45 and older who have ever had a biological
child (2000)
Males: 84%
Females: 86%
source:
http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/charting02/introduction.htm#Who
My point in all this, is that we share the exact same biology as our ancestors, but our environment is dramatically different and thus our sexual behaviors are different.
So it makes more than good sense for men to not trust those projections and keep on *doing*.
Sure. I understand this. But I do remain optimistic that over time things will eventually become more fluid in both directions. Hell, I already see it in people 15 years my junior. I witnessed just the other day at work for example, a younger gal asking out a guy.
Another thing to consider though is that when women do start initiating in greater numbers, it's a mistake to imagine that it will look anything like how men have traditionally done things. Just some food for thought.
Spike,
"Then what are you left with? *Doing*."
True, but specifically in the democratic realm of the social structure that doesn't matter. Because there is no point in differentiating. Markets differentiate based on doing, but for citizenship rights and duties are assigned irrespective of doing. So, yeah, DOING differentiates people, but NOT in the realm of their fundamental/citizenship rights.
Thanks for the statistics - and for appreciating the relative scarcity argument. It's not something I expect to happen on a feminist blog :).
"My point in all this, is that we share the exact same biology as our ancestors, but our environment is dramatically different and thus our sexual behaviors are different."
I don't see how the change in environment requires sexual behaviour to change. In fact, I'd argue that we're seeing the effects of different speeds in adjustment of cultural and biological elements of human mating. The faster social changes, the more difficult to rationally incorporte them into individual strategies, and the less important they will be as a result relative to the biological elements (of course, I don't claim to know the relative importance of one or the other).
"Sure. I understand this. But I do remain optimistic that over time things will eventually become more fluid in both directions."
To the extent biology allows - hopefully it will. In a way, I'm a good example. I'd probably still be unkissed if it hadn't been for a girl to took initiative. And while I am actually great at initiating interactions, I do usually rely on women to take them to a sexual level.
"Another thing to consider though is that when women do start initiating in greater numbers, it's a mistake to imagine that it will look anything like how men have traditionally done things. Just some food for thought."
No more dinner and movie? Cool with me ;) But seriously, not trying to kill imagination here, but really - in the end this is about people who like to hang out and are sexually attracted to the extent that they want to exchange bodily fluids. How could initiating be radically different from what it looks like today? I mean - one person will always have to say hello. But please, let me know your speculation in this respect if you have any.
"Yeah, because men are scared shitless and don't know what to do, *because* they don't believe they will be *wanted* if they are no longer *needed*.
"This is understandable."
Then, please, help me understand why this isn't an aspect addressed more explicitly by feminists?
How could initiating be radically different from what it looks like today
Not radically different, just different. This will no doubt be a source of frustration because typically women have had to emulate male behaviors in other areas to make gains; but I think that trend is declining. That was just the faster way to change, not necessarily the best way.
I don't see how the change in environment requires sexual behaviour to change. In fact, I'd argue that we're seeing the effects of different speeds in adjustment of cultural and biological elements of human mating. The faster social changes, the more difficult to rationally incorporte them into individual strategies, and the less important they will be as a result relative to the biological elements (of course, I don't claim to know the relative importance of one or the other).
Behavior is behavior is behavior including sex. And I don't know what you mean by "difficulty rationally incorporating" these changes. Other than a lot of complaining, people are oddly adept at making rational decisions based on their current mating situation. Many people wrongly assume that someone is acting irrationally or that he or she is "confused" because they simply don't comprehend that person's situation and the choices available to him or her.
For example, Italy's and Japan's culturally suicidal birthrates have almost little to do with biology and a lot to do with a perfectly rational adaptive responses to their cultures. They took, what, two generations for their birth rates to nose dive? Compared to biology, that's like the blink of an eye.
Then, please, help me understand why this isn't an aspect addressed more explicitly by feminists?
Likely because feminists are focused on problems that they see to be more pressing; and I'm of the camp that if we deal with those issues, it will create a better climate overall across sexes, genders, preferences, orientations, etc:
Firstly, as long as women are assigned a gatekeeper role, issues surrounding consent, accountability and safety remain paramount.
Secondly, the ability for women to even make certain choices are tied to access to a reproductive health services and rather basic information, the merit of which are constantly being debated and which seem never to be out of the cross-hairs.
Thirdly, a lot of women, in general, are struggling to understand the nature of authentic desire. That's all I'll say on that matter because I don't want to speak for others. But I do see this voiced a lot and it's the subject of a lot of arguments and pain within the feminist community.
There are other sorts of logistical barriers, such as the stubborn tendency for traditionally masculine roles and definitions to be the benchmark by which all else is measured. The community posting on 'dating rejection' illustrates this point.
Spike,
"Not radically different, just different. This will no doubt be a source of frustration because typically women have had to emulate male behaviors in other areas to make gains; but I think that trend is declining. That was just the faster way to change, not necessarily the best way."
hmm, I'd really like to hear more about your ideas in this respect. Most of the women I know who are "aggressive" initiators are much more physical in their approaches than any guy would ever risk being, with guys, and - as most of them are bisexual - especially with girls. A couple of months ago I was dancing with a female friend who was approached by another woman. I thought the two knew each other, as the approacher had her hand in my friends crotch at the end of the song. But my friend said, while she liked it, she had no idea who that was until then. No guy in his right mind would do that. So I'm wondering: emulation of male strategy? Or is this what a genuinely female strategy could look like?
"Other than a lot of complaining, people are oddly adept at making rational decisions based on their current mating situation."
Well, in the end it will be impossible to assign rationality to outcomes without understanding the underlying criteria. What I meant was that people need time to incorporate social changes - deep socialisation is a rather slow process, not a fast one, as opposed to fashion waves - so while people may be influenced by fashion, "rational" incorporation of cultural variables will be harder if the environment isn't fundamentally stable - at which point the fallback would seem to have to be whatever biological "rationality" there is to guide the mating process.
"Likely because feminists are focused on problems that they see to be more pressing; and I'm of the camp that if we deal with those issues, it will create a better climate overall across sexes, genders, preferences, orientations, etc:"
Interesting. Because in my perception that's what I think my suggestion would do and what the usually normative and moralistic treatment of the issues you mention - at least in my perception - doesn't do. The feminist discourse itself is - in my opinion - antagonizing, not conciliatory. It demands things of men, it doesn't (openly, at least) benefits to men - at least not those men are likely to care most about. Why is there (still) the impression that feminism has made female sexuality *less* available when it's (I think) quite obvious that the opposite is the case? Male fears aren't addressed by feminism. Again, you're probably right that feminism doesn't see this as sufficiently pressing compared to other issues, but I'd say it would be a useful strategic way to accelerate the willingness to accept change. Taking away fear of change is the cornerstone of all change management. Someone here linked to a study about "how to incorporate men" in organisational changes that help women. Nothing in that study ever addressed the fears and benefits for men beyond abstract justice. Not that that's not important, but it's usually not as much of a catalyst for change as the prospect of an improved situation for oneself.
Men have so little sexual confidence that they don't believe they can risk let women more of the doing, even if they would like to do less.
"Thirdly, a lot of women, in general, are struggling to understand the nature of authentic desire. That's all I'll say on that matter because I don't want to speak for others. But I do see this voiced a lot and it's the subject of a lot of arguments and pain within the feminist community."
Yeah, I can see that.
"masculine roles and definitions to be the benchmark"
Again, my perception is that for both women and men, the grass seems to be greener on the other side.
Jayjay,
So I'm wondering: emulation of male strategy? Or is this what a genuinely female strategy could look like?
Your guess is as good as mine! I have no idea, lol. Interesting story though. Personally I like to think of my own feminine strategy as a female lion, ha ha. (Of course male lions have it rough so I'm only channeling the lioness).
Well, in the end it will be impossible to assign rationality to outcomes without understanding the underlying criteria
It's not impossible at all actually. That's because behavior is behavior is behavior. We already have social and economic models that are accurately predictive of behavior. Sometimes we get it wrong because we make false assumptions, but most of the time the models apply.
For example, higher rates of STIs and single motherhood in lower income communities are likely related to the the relative shortage of reproductive aged men due to incarceration and higher homicide rates. Faced with a choice of no partner in these communities, many women will instead share partners.
The same model predicts higher marriage rates and lower STD rates when there is a relative shortage of women.
So the biology is in there somewhere, but the behavior that we see depends on the environment in which the person is making choices.
Taking away fear of change is the cornerstone of all change management.
Well both men and women have legitimate fears. For example there is pretty vocal mainstream doctrine that consider women to be no more than masturbatory vessels who should praise the heavens should they be lucky to be able to tie a man down.
And I really don't see women's fears about this being assuaged. In fact in most cases when I've tried to engage men on this, I'm told that this is "their authentic and true nature" and that women need to accept this.
In the Lil' Wayne thread, someone posted a link to an interview by rocker Gene Simmons on a talk show called Shrink Wrap, I believe. You should check it out. The men I've shown it to seem to agree with everything he says about how MEN DO NOT NEED AN INDIVIDUAL WOMAN. Simmons claims that if a man chooses a particular woman, it's because he WANTS to be with her, not because he NEEDS her.
See, men needing sex is NOT the same as men needing women. People seem to conflate the two as a result of the kind of objectification that takes place in our society.
So from where I sit both men and women have something to be worried about.
Again, my perception is that for both women and men, the grass seems to be greener on the other side.
It's more than the grass is greener. It's more like a complete 'othering' of women's perspective: People telling you that your chest or ass is inherently obscene or sexual. People telling you that harassment was really a compliment. People telling you that your rejection doesn't count...
Jayjay,
"We already have social and economic models that are accurately predictive of behavior."
That sounds a bit like Gary Becker. Which is fine, but of course, it only works with assumed, not real cost categories. There's no way to actually identify the real, likely hidden, unrevealed categories and preferences. I'm not saying it's not predictive, I'm saying we don't know why. So, I'd say that's externally "assumed" rather than "actual" rationality.
"Well both men and women have legitimate fears. For example there is pretty vocal mainstream doctrine that consider women to be no more than masturbatory vessels who should praise the heavens should they be lucky to be able to tie a man down."
I don't know. I hear all these things about the alleged mainstream, and they just don't exist in my perception, certainly not to the extent to which they are said to be culturally dominant. I just can't see it. While I may be more attuned to see and understand male fears. So what you say is not my perception. And, I mean, according to the theory, education- and status-wise (though, alas, not monetarily) I'm supposed to be a prime example of hegemonic masculinity.
"Simmons claims that if a man chooses a particular woman, it's because he WANTS to be with her, not because he NEEDS her."
Yeah, but that's in line with what I said, isn't it? Men are afraid of not being WANTED when they're no longer NEEDED. Being wanted relies on the fact that our biology or relevant cultural circuits will adjust and allow people who are self-reliant to come together for mutual gain. The thing is, men have been ?brainwashed?/ convinced into believing they don't really have anything to offer AS A MAN to an independent woman. When we think we know what we are, we judge ourselves with the eyes of 30 years of feminist discourse, and we don't like ourselves. Wanting requires love, love is a shaky thing, and above all requires you love yourself. Men don't love themselves (anymore, if they ever have). But without that love for themselves, without actually, and not just defensively, owning their self and their desires (as would be my guess reading what you write about that clip) we will never believe that "wanting" is an option.
Using the lion example from your reply, it seems a bit like a switch from the lion biting the lionesses neck to hold her down during a painful copulation to a strategy of conducting less painful intercourse and hoping that the lioness may realize how cool sex is and come back for more.
From the lion's point of view, the second idea may sound fantastic, but he may just not really believe it's possible and thus do what's always been done.
Of course, as cultural beings we can both act on and create incentives by communicating. But I just don't see this happening.
"See, men needing sex is NOT the same as men needing women. People seem to conflate the two as a result of the kind of objectification that takes place in our society."
I agree with the statement, but I don't think it has anything to do with feminist concepts of objectification. I think it's mostly a consequence of bourgeois (and feminist) ideas about sexuality being the only thing on the planet that can only be traded for love. If love weren't de facto considered a necessary condition for sex we'd all be much freer to communicate our desires and much more able to look at wanting each other independent of the desire to have sex. And yes, that would likely include a much more relaxed attitude to sex work. Feminism's role in *this* debate has been confused at best for the last 30 years.
"So from where I sit both men and women have something to be worried about."
Yeah. It probably depends on where you sit ;)
"People telling you that your chest or ass is inherently obscene or sexual. People telling you that harassment was really a compliment. People telling you that your rejection doesn't count..."
Yet when it comes to male sexuality, this is what happens all the time on feminist blogs, don't you think? It's been 15 years since Naomi Wolf, yet even on blogs like this, progressive, third wave, largely sex-positive blogs, male sexuality is usually dealt with in terms of violence, not pleasure. In the wider social realm, porn is tolerated as a way to take the steam off what's considered male sexual sociopathy, not because it's considered actually valuable or enjoyable. There's a lot of anti-pleasure notion in the social set up of all this that isn't in any way feminism's responsibility. But 2nd wave feminism has bought a lot of the assumptions about men that are highly questionable and highly problematic when it comes to actually get an egalitarian discourse going, particularly when it comes to the kind of supposedly fun and mutually enjoyable "battle of the sexes" ;) we're talking about here.
I don't know. I hear all these things about the alleged mainstream, and they just don't exist in my perception...
OK then, moving along.
male sexuality is usually dealt with in terms of violence, not pleasure
Maybe that is because male sexuality and male perpetrated violence have been intertwined throughout human history and many fear that this is still true to some degree today. To put this into perspective, this relationship between sex and violence has been cited as the principal reason that we are descended from fewer male ancestors than female ones.
Re: Simmons:
Yeah, but that's in line with what I said, isn't it? Men are afraid of not being WANTED when they're no longer NEEDED
But you've missed part of it. Simmons is saying that MEN as a group neither want nor need WOMEN as a group.
When he talks about a man wanting a woman, he is talking about individual exceptions. He is saying that man A found something special about woman B, and this man then convinces himself to go against his sexual nature and settle down. This is not even a compromise based on mutual respect for the other person.
In the wider social realm, porn is tolerated as a way to take the steam off what's considered male sexual sociopathy, not because it's considered actually valuable or enjoyable.
But what if sociopathy (probably too strong a word here) is indeed an element of male sexuality? At minimum we might be talking about a profound lack of empathy under certain conditions. At worst, there is data that suggests that that access to porn reduces the incidence of rape; this is a pretty strong implication about male sexuality if the theory is true.
If love weren't de facto considered a necessary condition for sex we'd all be much freer to communicate our desires and much more able to look at wanting each other independent of the desire to have sex. And yes, that would likely include a much more relaxed attitude to sex work. Feminism's role in *this* debate has been confused at best for the last 30 years.
If you have problems with current framework of heterosexuality---including even the double standards surrounding sex work---then you should be examining the implications of biological paternity. I in no way mean to diminish father's rights here. But paternity still plays a pretty big role in shaping diverging desires and expectations in men vs women.
Spike,
"But you've missed part of it. Simmons is saying that MEN as a group neither want nor need WOMEN as a group.
When he talks about a man wanting a woman, he is talking about individual exceptions."
Hmm, maybe I missed this because I don't understand what it's supposed to mean. Men and women need each other *as a group* for reproduction. How can I as an individual *want* an entire group of people.
"He is saying that man A found something special about woman B, and this man then convinces himself to go against his sexual nature and settle down. This is not even a compromise based on mutual respect for the other person."
I don't know. I think men and women decided to settle down and invented agriculture (with all the problematic consequences for gender relations) not because it was against their nature, but because it was a convenience. So while I think that humans aren't entirely monogamous, and while I think that we haven't yet found a way to square some of our physiological with our psychological wants (and needs) I don't think that a man wanting a woman is going against his nature. It is *part* of his nature and there's unfortunately no free lunch. We have to make decisions.
"But what if sociopathy (probably too strong a word here) is indeed an element of male sexuality?"
Well, I think a part of the original human social contract was a deal that was protection for regular sexual access/increased chances of reproduction with one female/lower search costs vs. reduced genetic variety. What then happened was the evolution of cerebral circuits for love and attachment that changed the enire equation quite a bit. So all this is still in us, which, of course, means that male sexual violence is still in us as well.
"this is a pretty strong implication about male sexuality if the theory is true."
Well, this has been the basic assumption for much of the written history. What's changed since the feminist discourse has become the dominant voice in this respect is that the tacit assumption of "essential" male sexual sociopathy has been been turned into a cultural argument (rape-*culture*) in order to be able to argue that it's not how men ARE but what they TURN OUT TO BE. The main reason, of course, being that if male sexual sociopathy were an essential trait of manhood, a consequence of the way human reproduction was/is organized, it would be far more difficult to argue that responsibility for controlling and policing should only be the responsibility of men.
That's my main problem with the feminist discourse in this respect. It doesn't seem particularly honest. If there weren't the assumption that men *ARE* like that then I'd expect much more new sexuality discouse (too bad you didn't pick up the my "new lion" example" above) in feminism. But there isn't.
"But paternity still plays a pretty big role in shaping diverging desires and expectations in men vs women."
I completely agree. Will be interesting to see how DNA-testing will change this in the long run. For the first time in human history there will not be uncertainty of fatherhood. That's a pretty big thing. Wonder how that will change the setup.