This is topic MRA/PUAhate/"incel" "nice guy" combats "misandry" by shooting up a sorority in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
“On the day of retribution, I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blond slut I see inside there,” he announces. “All those girls that I’ve desired so much.”
“I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you,” he says later. “You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true alpha male.”
The man in the video then pauses for a horrifying laugh.
[ May 28, 2014, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Apparently his dad is the second unit director for The Hunger Games.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
His laugh is really disturbing. It's like a parody of bad villain acting. He does seem like a dude from PUAHate, doesn't he?
Compared with the Virginia Tech guy, he certainly feels a lot less like an isolated psycho and a lot more like a product of cultural forces.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Now they have found three more bodies in his apartment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Now they have found three more bodies in his apartment.
Yikes!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think there's some interesting points of discussion in all this.
He's actually not a bad looking kid, which makes me think his problems and frustrations have a lot more to do with his personality than anything. That might seem like a "duh" statement, but if we work from the premise that this is something that took a long time to build to, then there was a time when he was, if not normal, certainly not homicidal. But that speaks to what youth culture looks like now, where extreme social ostracism can literally drive kids crazy.
I think the core of his problem is a subset of a larger problem that besets adolescent males. They're bombarded with too many competing images and ideas of what they are supposed to be. He lays out pretty specifically what his interpretation of male life for his age group is supposed to be. His inability to achieve that illusion created an inferiority complex he sought to correct (overcorrect) through pretty barbaric methods. I think by that point he was pretty clearly divorced from social norms that defined his demographic.
Ultimately it's his own fault, we can't foist off blame on women who didn't like him or violent video games and music or whatever the popular scapegoat is. But I think it's worth discussing our society at large and how adolescent males are doing. I think it's a conversation we have for five minutes after these shootings (rarely substantively), and then forget until the next one comes around, but it's worth the same sustained conversations we tend to have about women. Boys and young men are dealing with just as much crap as girls and young women, but no one seems to want to talk about it until the boys and young men act out.
I also think it might help the conversation to shift our view of them, to a degree, from aggressors to victims. Or at least see both those things in parallel. The rape crisis on campuses right now is just starting to turn in a direction that asks why young men are doing this and what we can do to stop it before it happens, but for a long time the conversation was only about identifying the perpetrators and prosecuting.
There's a crisis in America's youth, a violent one in America's male youth. The conversation needs to last longer than five minutes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Given the sexual power white men have imbued minorities with, particularly black men, as a subject of interracial sexual taboo, and given his sexual inferiority complex, I'd be shocked if he didn't have hangups when it comes to interracial dating.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Wait, how exactly did white men imbue minorities with sexual power? Were we all like "yeah, we have too much already, why don't you have some"? Because I don't remember this happening.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Married to a Native American, and let me just say to all you white men out there...
...thank you. Very much.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Tom, if you read to the bottom of the article, you get:
quote:Update: A commenter has stated that the postings on Wizardchan were not the work of Elliot Rodger. The videos were posted by another board member who saw himself in Elliot Rodger. The videos, however, are authentic and were posted yesterday.
Honestly, I think it's pretty disingenuous of Jezebel not to put that disclaimer at the top of the article, since pretty much the entire thing is inaccurate. I realize Jezebel isn't meant to be a shining beacon of journalistic integrity, but still...
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
While I'm in this thread, I wanted to reply a little bit as far as the shooter's motives, mindset, etc. Lyrhawn, you can see this as something of a reply to your post, but I'm going to go a lot of places you didn't cover, so don't think I'm putting words in your mouth if I do. It's not my intention.
I think perhaps the leading cause of all violent, abhorrent or unjustified behavior in the world is the concept of victimization. I don't mean identifying who is at fault and who is the victim (which is important for legal and moral reasons), I mean using one's status as a victim to justify avoiding responsibility for one's actions.
As an example, my wife and I have had the painful experience of watching a (now mostly former) friend start down this dark path. She had something very bad happen to her several years ago. And since then (especially in the recent months) her behavior and outbursts have become increasingly more outrageous. If a friend disagrees with her on anything, or even (like we did) suggests she needs to get help, they're "stabbing her in the back" and that justifies an angry blowup and threats of violence. When we confronted her about her unacceptable behavior she said "what? It's all *my* fault again, right? Why is it always *my* fault? *They* are the ones who stabbed me in the back!"
Basically, she doesn't see herself responsible for any of her outbursts, because she's the victim. So anything she does is justified. And she places herself as the victim in more and more scenarios. A guy shows interest in her. "He's trying to take advantage of me!" Outburst. A guy she likes doesn't like her. Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, and many rants about how "there are no good guys out there, they're all a bunch of scumbags." She can't hold down a job, can't stay in any place for too long, can't maintain any friends, because she's constantly making herself the victim of perceived insults, or overreacting to minor insults.
And you see this sort of behavior played out in many historical conflicts. Al-Qaeda sees itself as being oppressed by the western world, the U.S. in particular. (Which is not an unjustified sentiment, IMO) So Al-Qaeda kills 3,000 civilians. And inversely, look at all the military aggression and atrocities justified by "9/11".
You'll note with my example, it started out with a legitimately horrible thing happening to a person, and I think that's probably true in this case too. Maybe the guy in question was bullied, and the (actual or perceived) motive for the bullying was his lack of sexual prowess. Or maybe it started small. One time, he tried to pick up a girl, and she turned him down a little harshly, and he decided she was being cruel and he was the victim. It doesn't matter. What matters is the guy decided that since the blame lied outside of himself, so did the responsibility.
And that belief - the belief that since he wasn't to blame, he wasn't responsible - festered and grew until he could justify doing whatever he wanted to the "sluts" who had hurt him so much.
So no, I don't think it's necessarily a cultural thing, I think it's something endemic to all of mankind. I think the one crucial point of becoming an adult is accepting that you are responsible for everything you do, and that you are in control of everything you do, whether or not someone else is to blame or someone else gave you the orders, etc. You can still choose to be reactive or proactive. Any therapist helping someone get past a traumatic experience will, as soon as it's possible, try help the person go from a mindset where someone else is in control of the them to a mindset where they are once again in control of their own lives. And that's where I think this guy went wrong - he let himself think that these women were in control of him instead of himself, so anything he did to lash out was justified.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Wait, how exactly did white men imbue minorities with sexual power? Were we all like "yeah, we have too much already, why don't you have some"? Because I don't remember this happening.
We spent 200 years treating black men as scary sexual boogeymen. We went to extreme lengths to keep black men away from white women because we said black men were crazy oversexed animals with huge penises that would ruin our white women. We passed laws to make sure they couldn't have children, couldn't get married, and created social taboos so they couldn't even speak to each other in passing on the street.
Over time, black men especially, but some other minority groups as well, developed a sexual power from being taboo. Women were told they were off limits because their sexuality was just too overwhelming. How do you think that kind of warning works in practice when you reach the 60s and experimentation takes on a new place in society? When taboo breaking became the cultural norm of the 60s and 70s, black men, white women and sex was possibly the greatest taboo of all, but it was one we created from scratch to prevent mixing of the races.
As such, black men still carry some of the power from that taboo, and interracial dating is still not completely accepted, and still a little rebellious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
As to your other post, a couple things.
I never said victimization was an excuse for his actions. But I also think you might have been missing the point with why I think the victim classification is important.
When he's the aggressor and the criminal, we don't spend any time talking about how he got to where he was when he did what he did. The officer at the scene, the first one to talk to he media, said he's obviously crazy. Well, if he's crazy we can just chalk it up to another mentally disturbed person and move on. But what the shooter said in at least one of his videos is very much derived from culture at large. He sees in movies, TV and music a life he is SUPPOSED to be living, and when reality doesn't match the archetype, he slowly withdraws from society and develops a revenge complex. He didn't invent the archetype in his head, he described pretty clearly in his video the same point of view that millions of college students have about what college life is supposed to be like.
But this speaks to a larger problem about young men in our society and the discussion on who is a victim. We have a rape crisis on college campuses. Why are young men raping young women in such huge numbers? I think we have to consider that we are doing something wrong with young men and as a result of our negligence, many of them are victims who aren't getting the proper care they need, and when they don't get that care, they do very bad things to others.
To reiterate, the important point of the "victim" label isn't to excuse their behavior. It's to try to identify the source of their behavior. Writing everyone off who does something bad as crazy suggests there was never a way to prevent what happened. But often these people suffered some sort of trauma that pushed them in that direction.
Young men have fewer resources available to them when it comes to dealing with mental health issues. We don't even really know how many young men suffer from various issues because they seldom report their problems or seek help, and they tend to spiral out of control and become more violent than women when their issues escalate and manifest. In the same way police officers need training to better deal with female rape victims, many mental health care and law enforcement officials need training to take male problems more seriously as well. And we as a society need to have a discussion about what is wrong with young men in our society, particularly young white men. Because all is not well.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, I understand your point and I don't think you were trying to justify his actions. I just worry that a big part of the dark side of MRA/nice guy culture involves trying to pass the blame for sexual rejection off on women, which leads to that victim complex you mention. Which is why I'm hesitate to use the word "victim" here. I do agree there is a pretty huge cultural problem with expectations vs. reality when it comes to sexuality.
In TV shows, even the nerdy guys can expect to have sex with a woman roughly 30 seconds after starting to date her, and they typically have more success than almost anyone in r/l. The fact that a man would feel ashamed of his virginity to the point where places like Wizardchan need to exist is pretty sad, IMO. Ostracizing or belittling someone for how much or how little sex they have is unacceptable, and for a lot of college-aged men (18-22 or so) it's a very real thing.
I think the best way to go about fixing the problem would be to send a clear message that your self-worth isn't defined by your ability to get women to sleep with you, or that "sexual conquest" shouldn't be seen primarily as an empowering and affirming act. And honestly, these are lessons that most men do seem to learn later in life, it's mostly young men that are struggling the most with this. So maybe an emphasis on mentorship and education would be best. I certainly know if I have a son, he and I are going to talk about these sorts of things quite a bit when he's a teenager.
But I think most rape and sexual crimes in general stem from a handful of things:
1) A mindset that devalues or dehumanizes women. 2) A lack of confidence or self-worth. 3) The belief that masculinity, self-worth, and the respect of peers comes from "sexual conquest." 4) A belief that you deserve sex, and have been victimized by a woman/women in general who have turned you down.
any combination of 1,2, and 3, or 2, 3, and 4, or all of the above are pretty dangerous IMO. (which is why I was very uncomfortable with some of the things Sa'eed used to say here) That being said, they are somewhat inter-related - i.e, it's hard to have 3 without having 1, if not impossible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I just worry that a big part of the dark side of MRA/nice guy culture involves trying to pass the blame for sexual rejection off on women, which leads to that victim complex you mention
substitute 'big part of the dark side of' with 'this is pretty much all of'
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
The poster Simprimary who created this thread seems to have an axe to grind against MRAs. There are various men's groups online who all seem to complain about feminism in one form or another, but to conflate them entirely is intellectually dishonest. For instance, this fellow who went on the shooting rampage was a member of "PUAhate" website which was populated by men who were angry that the miracles pick-up artist gurus promised didn't pan out for them.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Wait, how exactly did white men imbue minorities with sexual power? Were we all like "yeah, we have too much already, why don't you have some"? Because I don't remember this happening.
We spent 200 years treating black men as scary sexual boogeymen. We went to extreme lengths to keep black men away from white women because we said black men were crazy oversexed animals with huge penises that would ruin our white women. We passed laws to make sure they couldn't have children, couldn't get married, and created social taboos so they couldn't even speak to each other in passing on the street.
Over time, black men especially, but some other minority groups as well, developed a sexual power from being taboo. Women were told they were off limits because their sexuality was just too overwhelming. How do you think that kind of warning works in practice when you reach the 60s and experimentation takes on a new place in society? When taboo breaking became the cultural norm of the 60s and 70s, black men, white women and sex was possibly the greatest taboo of all, but it was one we created from scratch to prevent mixing of the races.
As such, black men still carry some of the power from that taboo, and interracial dating is still not completely accepted, and still a little rebellious.
Unless we're using very different definitions of word "power" here, I highly, highly doubt being oppressed and discriminated against is an empowering experience.
Case in point, a good friend of mine (not Jamaican, regrettably) has been stationed in Virginia for the past 3 years, and he talks to me pretty frequently about his dating life. One of the biggest irritations he faces is being told "sorry, I don't date black men" by white, latina, and sometimes even black women. I somehow doubt that, as a statistical whole, black men are more likely to date white women than white men are. The fact that you do, occasionally, see black men with white girlfriends is due to the fact that there are about 5 white women for every black man in the US. If black men were more than 5 times more likely to date a white woman than a black woman, than you'd have an argument here. As it stands, I doubt it's even a 1 to 1 ratio.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote: We have a rape crisis on college campuses. Why are young men raping young women in such huge numbers? I think we have to consider that we are doing something wrong with young men and as a result of our negligence, many of them are victims who aren't getting the proper care they need, and when they don't get that care, they do very bad things to others.
There is no "rape crisis." There are girls making bad decisions and regretting it the next day accutely when word spreads that so-so nailed so-so.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sinclair: The poster Simprimary who created this thread seems to have an axe to grind against MRAs. There are various men's groups online who all seem to complain about feminism in one form or another, but to conflate them entirely is intellectually dishonest. For instance, this fellow who went on the shooting rampage was a member of "PUAhate" website which was populated by men who were angry that the miracles pick-up artist gurus promised didn't pan out for them.
Back again?
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: No, I understand your point and I don't think you were trying to justify his actions. I just worry that a big part of the dark side of MRA/nice guy culture involves trying to pass the blame for sexual rejection off on women, which leads to that victim complex you mention.
The real problem is that there is intense comptetition over women aged 18 to 28, not just by their male peers but by older males as well. This leads to a shortage at a time when young men are at the peak of their sexual potency. This is a problem that is not true of all communities within the nation but is true for the entire country. The whole Nice Guy lament/PUA scene is the result of this sexual darwinianism abetted by the sexual revolution.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Sinclair: The poster Simprimary who created this thread seems to have an axe to grind against MRAs. There are various men's groups online who all seem to complain about feminism in one form or another, but to conflate them entirely is intellectually dishonest. For instance, this fellow who went on the shooting rampage was a member of "PUAhate" website which was populated by men who were angry that the miracles pick-up artist gurus promised didn't pan out for them.
Back again?
I'm sorry what?
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:The fact that a man would feel ashamed of his virginity to the point where places like Wizardchan need to exist is pretty sad, IMO. Ostracizing or belittling someone for how much or how little sex they have is unacceptable, and for a lot of college-aged men (18-22 or so) it's a very real thing.
Legalizing prostitution would go a long way to solving this problem.
They don't have these sort of random shootings in Mexico (though there is a lot of criminal violence there due to the drug cartels.)
This is because the Mexican incel who would otherwise whine/feel ashamed just goes the local brothel or street corner where the prostitutes hang out without any fuss.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey everyone who is already having a discussion here:
Please put it on pause until our latest sockpuppet is removed, and don't even respond to it.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hey everyone who is already having a discussion here:
Please put it on pause until our latest sockpuppet is removed, and don't even respond to it.
I don't know what you mean by "sockpuppet" or why you're calling for me to be "removed." I registered to share my opinions. It appears you already have in mind the the exact discussion you want to have and don't want to deal with anyone who challenges your perspective.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup. Good policy, Simprimary. It's an interesting, relevant discussion, but I think we should all agree either to completely not respond to him or simply wait. I'm happy with either one.
(For any actual newcomers, or simply those who don't recognize, Sinclair is a painfully obvious poster who has been banned under I believe at least three separate names, and whose chief hobby horse in recent months and years have been topics like these. He makes a habit of trolling. No one needs to take my word for it, either. In a thread that is not even a dozen posts long, there are three separate people recognizing him. So please, this isn't a 'benefit of the doubt' time.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dogbreath, I suspect Lyrhawn meant to suggest that in the eyes of some people, minorities have a very narrow range of (often demeaning when it is actually dug into) sexual power, not that it is the sort of authentic power that really translated much. Power is perhaps the wrong word, given those qualifiers.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
It's not a "discussion" when you "remove" the perspective you disagree with. Were you to have your way what you'd get is an "echo-chamber" where the like-minded mainly agree but vociferously argue and drone on about the mildest of differences while everyone patts themselves on the back for discussing things.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Since pretty much all MRAssholes/PUAs/PUAhaters sound pretty much alike, I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that this one is Sa'eed.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: Since pretty much all MRAssholes/PUAs/PUAhaters sound pretty much alike, I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that this one is Sa'eed.
It's very curious how much axe grinding is going on here, not just with the OP's slanderous title (equating the killer with MRAs) but in the feminist/liberal sphere as well who are all equating this young man's actions with MRAs. Example:
I would. He sounds very similar, has the same hobby horse, and apparently registered for this topic where his first posts could have been taken wholesale from Clive/Sa'eed/whoever.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
However it does appear that Elliot Dodger was versed in some manosphere theories. According to the UK "Mirror" this is an image he posted on his twitter:
I believe the middle figure is somewhat of an exaggeration but it certainly gets at a truth.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would. He sounds very similar, has the same hobby horse, and apparently registered for this topic where his first posts could have been taken wholesale from Clive/Sa'eed/whoever.
Did those fellows enage in trolling or did they merely share a viewpoint you found objectionable?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Trolling. For example, they would often pretend to be new posters even when it was painfully obvious that they were the same person under a new pseudonym.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Trolling. For example, they would often pretend to be new posters even when it was painfully obvious that they were the same person under a new pseudonym.
Repeated trolling is certainly obnoxious and ban-worthy. What is an example of their trolling as to justify banning in the first place?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, this isn't a game I'm going to play with you.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Sexual frustration was the root of this tragedy.
Elliot, like many other millions of men, was going through deep-seated resentment and frustration that develops with time when the male sexuality does not have an outlet. It's just that unlike the other men, he was mentally ill, and extremely narcissistic, who lived in a world of his own.
No one gives a damn about the sexual frustration that accumulates within the vast majority of men these days. And why should they? Women don't give a f*ck about men. They never have and they never will.
The only solution is for men to create a safe, easy-access outlet for male sexuality where not just the regular, decent looking men, but also betas, omegas, desperate, ugly and depressed guys can channel their sexual energy occasionally.
Just. Legalize. Prostitution.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: See, this isn't a game I'm going to play with you.
I'm just curious about the identities of the people I am accused of being. If you don't know about them then it's cool, there's no need to play games or distract from the topic at hand: how sexual frustration leads to these sort of tragedies and what, if anything, can be done.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sinclair: Even if you are not a previous poster, (and I strongly suspect you are, and I wish you'd save me the trouble of proving it.) several of the things you have said cannot be tolerated on this board, including but not limited to stating that rape is not a problem.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
I did not say that "rape is not a problem."
I did not say that "rape is not a problem."
I did not say that "rape is not a problem."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:There is no "rape crisis." There are girls making bad decisions and regretting it the next day accutely when word spreads that so-so nailed so-so.
Sounds to me like when there isn't a crisis, there is a moderate, a minor, or no problem. When you then contrast it by stating what the real problem is, you are not so subtly saying rape doesn't happen, so it's is equivalent to saying rape isn't a problem.
I wish we didn't have to play this game every few months.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:There is no "rape crisis." There are girls making bad decisions and regretting it the next day accutely when word spreads that so-so nailed so-so.
Sounds to me like when there isn't a crisis, there is a moderate, a minor, or no problem. When you then contrast it by stating what the real problem is, you are not so subtly saying rape doesn't happen, so it's is equivalent to saying rape isn't a problem.
I wish you wouldn't interpret my posts so erroneously as to make your interpretation a not-so subtle case of strawmanning.
Poster up thread: there is a rape crisis on college campuses.
Me: There is no such crisis.
BlackBlade: OMG you're denying rape happens.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:It appears that we are in the throes of one of those panics where paranoia, censorship, and false accusations flourish—and otherwise sensible people abandon their critical facilities. We are not facing anything as extreme as the Salem Witch Trials or the McCarthy inquisitions. But today’s rape culture movement bears some striking similarities to a panic that gripped daycare centers in the 1980s.
Lawyrthns' remarks echo that paronia/hysteria.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
This is the perspective that I find most interesting.
Responding to a comment along the lines of "some men think men are owed sex," a user on Roosh V's forum had this to say:
quote: Well, yes and no. A fundamental characteristic of any large-scale, prosperous society has been that men and women, as long as they remain within the law and customs of the society, can expect to find a mate. They'll be a few exceptions, sure, but just being average should pretty much guarantee not being alone or an outcast.
In modern, what I would call post-cultural, societies, we're all atomized individuals that don't owe one another anything. This is actually a very strange way to live, historically speaking, and almost certainly doesn't mesh very well with human psychology.
The results of this sort of thing are what Elliot recognized in the above chart he made and what Roosh and countless others have observed, as well. Namely, letting women do whatever they want -- ensconced in a legal, academic, and cultural bubble that protects them from both physical and social consequences -- results in run-away, every-increasing hypergamy.
Fewer and fewer men get the lion's share of the women. A huge, and growing, percentage of men are shut out of the game completely or close to it. Getting laid consistently will require ever more extreme and heroic efforts. Life will be amazing for the minority of alphas at the top but, by definition, few men will reach that level.
Giving women the sort of radical autonomy (only possible as long as we have an excess of wealth, high technology, can manage with sub-replacement birthrates, and the majority of men agree to pay and work to support it) is very much incompatible with sustainable civilization. Men won't continue to invest in society, such as:
-- pay taxes, -- build businesses, -- do all the dangerous jobs like military, firefighting, law enforcement -- and all the dirty ones like plumber, construction, sanitation, oil extraction
unless they feel "entitled to women's bodies." This doesn't mean any woman's body at any time (no man thinks that, anyway) but it does mean that, unless men believe that all their hard work and risk-taking means a reasonable expectation of sex and love, you can't have a (good) society for very long.
When you remove the incentive for men to invest in society, they either leave, become depressed drop-out incels, become players, or otherwise find a way to live a life as detached as possible from society. They have little connection to any community, certainly won't protect it and, occasionally, one of the endless, faceless rejects like Elliot will take out his rage and frustration in a violent way.
Are these guys crazy and abnormal? Sure. But does this sort of society that intentionally removes a huge portion of young men from meaningful participation (and leaves them clueless about their role as men) absolutely guarantee that we will have a small but steady stream of them? YES.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Men won't continue to invest in society... unless they feel "entitled to women's bodies."
I submit that the sort of men who feel that way -- who are only motivated to good deeds by the promise of a woman as a trophy -- are the sort of men we don't want reproducing, because they will make terrible husbands and terrible parents and almost certainly produce terrible children.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sinclair:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hey everyone who is already having a discussion here:
Please put it on pause until our latest sockpuppet is removed, and don't even respond to it.
I don't know what you mean by "sockpuppet" or why you're calling for me to be "removed." I registered to share my opinions. It appears you already have in mind the the exact discussion you want to have and don't want to deal with anyone who challenges your perspective.
like the other times you feigned ignorance then later admitted that yeah you were that guy
blackblade: do we have an eta on his re-ban
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: Since pretty much all MRAssholes/PUAs/PUAhaters sound pretty much alike, I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that this one is Sa'eed.
yeah it is entirely remotely possible that he's an identically neurotic misogynistic poster and not him but who cares well is poisoned bam
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dogbreath, I suspect Lyrhawn meant to suggest that in the eyes of some people, minorities have a very narrow range of (often demeaning when it is actually dug into) sexual power, not that it is the sort of authentic power that really translated much. Power is perhaps the wrong word, given those qualifiers.
I think power is the right word...but not the same kind of overt power that Dogbreath is talking about.
Taboo and mystique are powerful. Things that are forbidden are powerful. Rumor and innuendo are powerful. It's not the same kind of power as direct, overt control, but it's power nonetheless. Because it makes people curious about this thing they've heard about, curious enough to want to try or experiment with something they otherwise wouldn't have considered all that special, but this group is supposed to have heightened sexual prowess, so let's check it out for ourselves.
That's power. It's not control, but it's most certainly power. And yes, it comes from a bad place.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Again, where exactly is the evidence of all this power?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Again, where exactly is the evidence of all this power?
Haven't you ever heard the one about how well endowed black men are, for example? I don't know if there have been any reliable studies on penis size across the board, much less for particular racial groups. Not quite sure how such a study would be done, though I suppose it's possible. Anyway, it's a stereotype I used to hear when I was younger, for example, before I came into the nerve to tell someone straight up when they were saying something that sounded racist.
Anyway, that's an example of a form of power...specialness?...not sure of a good word, that some people invest in minorities. Could you perhaps restate your position, Dogbreath? I'm not sure where the point of disagreement is, since to me the notion that a taboo can exert influence over a group of people is pretty straightforward.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Again, where exactly is the evidence of all this power?
I could point you to about a thousand books, articles, blogs, oral histories and diary entries that talk about it as a phenomenon.
I'm actually fairly surprised this is the first you're hearing of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Again, where exactly is the evidence of all this power?
Haven't you ever heard the one about how well endowed black men are, for example? I don't know if there have been any reliable studies on penis size across the board, much less for particular racial groups. Not quite sure how such a study would be done, though I suppose it's possible. Anyway, it's a stereotype I used to hear when I was younger, for example, before I came into the nerve to tell someone straight up when they were saying something that sounded racist.
Anyway, that's an example of a form of power...specialness?...not sure of a good word, that some people invest in minorities. Could you perhaps restate your position, Dogbreath? I'm not sure where the point of disagreement is, since to me the notion that a taboo can exert influence over a group of people is pretty straightforward.
Yeah, demographic sexual stereotyping is closer to where we are at these days. Black men as sexual taboo isn't as powerful as it was a decade or three ago.
But black men as rapists is a big part of the stereotype as well. It harkens back to the irrational fear white men (and women by association) had of black men. So powerful was the sexual appetite of black men, the story went, that they couldn't even control themselves walking down the street. White men also implicitly feared white women would be "ruined" for sex with white men after being with a black man.
All of that is the genesis of much subtler, smaller stereotypes we have about black men today.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Again, where exactly is the evidence of all this power?
Haven't you ever heard the one about how well endowed black men are, for example? I don't know if there have been any reliable studies on penis size across the board, much less for particular racial groups. Not quite sure how such a study would be done, though I suppose it's possible. Anyway, it's a stereotype I used to hear when I was younger, for example, before I came into the nerve to tell someone straight up when they were saying something that sounded racist.
Anyway, that's an example of a form of power...specialness?...not sure of a good word, that some people invest in minorities. Could you perhaps restate your position, Dogbreath? I'm not sure where the point of disagreement is, since to me the notion that a taboo can exert influence over a group of people is pretty straightforward.
Yes, I've heard of those stereotypes. And I also have black friends who have a difficult time dating because of them. I doubt, if you asked any of them about them they would say they think they're very empowering. Crude, racist, derogatory, oppressive, belittling, dehumanizing, maybe. Empowering, no. I honestly am quite baffled you think that minority men have been "invested" with this much "power." How exactly are they using this power? Where is the evidence of it's existence? I would say the opposite is true - I think black men have been disenfranchised and segregated against by these stereotypes, to the point where it's actively more difficult for them to date.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Sinclair:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hey everyone who is already having a discussion here:
Please put it on pause until our latest sockpuppet is removed, and don't even respond to it.
I don't know what you mean by "sockpuppet" or why you're calling for me to be "removed." I registered to share my opinions. It appears you already have in mind the the exact discussion you want to have and don't want to deal with anyone who challenges your perspective.
like the other times you feigned ignorance then later admitted that yeah you were that guy
blackblade: do we have an eta on his re-ban
I feel it necessary to first ascertain the identify of the poster, before just going ahead an banning. Of course subsequent statements by Sinclair will be evaluated whether or not they are TOS compliant.
I'm not confident enough that Sinclair is our chronic troll, I wish if he was he'd do us all a courtesy and stop circumnavigating bans. He was given probably more opportunities to stop than any poster in the history of this board.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:smaller stereotypes
Alas for these weak, degenerate times, with their smaller... stereotypes.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I see your stereotype is as big as mine. But do you know how to use it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dogbreath,
Ok, I think I might see the disconnect more clearly now. Please correct me if I'm wrong: I am not suggesting, and I suspect neither is Lyrhawn, that this sexual stereotype is in the least bit a net gain. It's all a hazy blend of guesswork and anecdotal experience for me, but to my mind it's a bit like this: racial minorities, particularly African Americans, are regarded as having a certain sexual 'something' by some people. This idea is often a decent indicator of more plainly racist attitudes.
Someone regarded as having this special power might be deemed to be more sexually potent (meant in a lot of ways), but these ways are very much double edged: a white woman being 'ruined' for sex with other men, though that garbage goes well beyond racism, can be said to be a sign of acknowledgment of sexual prowess. But it's also a reason to lynch someone for looking at a white woman, much less dating one to say nothing of marrying one. Perhaps another way to put it would be '+1 perceived sexual power among some people, at the cost of -5 to law enforcement interactions, access to mainstream culture, acceptability for long term relationships, and likelihood of having legislation specifically against you'.
To continue with the Brooks references, here's a very relevant one that illustrates the whole perceived sexual power at a very high price idea:
"Hey, boys! Lookie what I got here?" "Hey, where are all the white women at?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Agreed. I don't think it's a net gain either.
Maybe for some guys it is, but on the whole I doubt it.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Call me crazy, but I don't think stuff like that is a "gain" at all, net or otherwise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah welcome to the nebulous "benefit" of "positive" racial stereotypes
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm really not sure what else Lyrhawn and I could do at this point to restate our agreement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It sounds a bit like saying that women have all the sexual power. Not exactly the same, but they have a bit of the same smell.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So...wait. My remarking 'some people in our culture regard minorities as having a specific, narrow type of sexual power that is often expressed in overtly demeaning ways, and carries with it huge and often dangerous or disadvantageous drawbacks' has the same smell as 'women have all the sexual power'?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Would it help if we changed minorities often have a stereotype of having sexual power to sexual potency and/or animalistic drive? I think that was what was meant.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: I'm sorry, but that's not at all how Lyrhawn phrased his position. Specifically, he said that white men have imbued minoritiy men with sexual power. Which sounds an awful lot like the "men have surrendered all their sexual power, women now hold all the sexual power" argument. If you are actually defending a discrete concept that is different from Lyrhawn's, that's fine, but it's disingenous to change the basis of your argument halfway through and then act like you've been unfairly misinterpreted.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dogbreath, I'm quite sure you're misinterpreting what Lyr meant, probably because of the ambiguous use of the word "power." He's not talking about empowerment, he's talking about the fact that white men have historically projected the idea of uncontrolled sexuality onto other races (and women). The idea of that powerful sexuality was then used to justify "rational" and "civilized" white men maintaining control over the bodies of non-whites and women.
"Sexual power" as Lyr was using it does not translate into relative power in social/societal relationships.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nor does it, in my use here anyway and I suspect his as well, suggest even an overall sexual power. I can see how the misunderstanding arose initially-though I am still baffled by kmbboots's (kmbboots'?) interpretation.
'Empowering', as dkw points out, is not at all what I was getting at. That suggests a net gain, a positive change. There are many things which are short term or narrow benefits but which are a long term or overall drawback. Someone might be highly tolerant to alcohol. If they have this 'advantage' by being a serious alcoholic, well, there is still a small bonus to not getting drink as quickly, perhaps, but no one would suggest it was a net gain.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Dogbreath, I'm quite sure you're misinterpreting what Lyr meant, probably because of the ambiguous use of the word "power." He's not talking about empowerment, he's talking about the fact that white men have historically projected the idea of uncontrolled sexuality onto other races (and women). The idea of that powerful sexuality was then used to justify "rational" and "civilized" white men maintaining control over the bodies of non-whites and women.
"Sexual power" as Lyr was using it does not translate into relative power in social/societal relationships.
I completely agree that white men have indeed projected those stereotypes on minorities. I doubt there's any contention on that part. My beef is that I sincerely doubt minority men have in any way benefitted from these stereotypes. Rakeesh seems to more or less have the same viewpoint as me, but a lot of things Lyrhawn said makes me think he genuinely believes black men have been "imbued" with sexual power because of these stereotypes, which is more or less the opposite of what is true. Again, I'm literally just taking his words at face value. If he was being sarcastic, he's more than welcome to clarify his position.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I remain genuinely baffled that such a miscommunication (or so it seems to me) has happened. I only know the dude from forum interaction, but it is extremely difficult for me to take as likely that Lyrhawn either a) believes that any racial group at all has a sexual advantage or disadvantage or b) was attempting to use sarcasm in this thread. I'm going to need to re-read again, and maybe then I'll see where the disconnect lies.
(Not putting this on you either, Dog. My confusion isn't an expression of an attack on your statements. I am authentically perplexed.)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: I direct your attention to:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Again, where exactly is the evidence of all this power?
I could point you to about a thousand books, articles, blogs, oral histories and diary entries that talk about it as a phenomenon.
I'm actually fairly surprised this is the first you're hearing of it.
This seems to indicate he truly, genuinely believes this is an actual thing. That this "sexual power" actually exists. (and isn't, say, just a figment of a racist stereotype)
I'm not trying to be belligerent with any of this. Lyrhawn has also struck me as a rational, intelligent poster who I almost always find myself agreeing with. It just strikes me that he legitimately believes this stuff, and his posts haven't really cleared this up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think when he talked about that, he was alluding to the idea that there is evidence that some people believe and have believe this power exists, and insofar power is a function of belief in power, it exists for that reason.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think Lyrhawn said that minority men have benefitted from these stereotypes. I think you read that into his statements, but it was the opposite of his intended meaning.x
Edit: reread his "imbued with power" post but think "powerful taboo," "powerful stereotype," "powerful image" rather than political or social power.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: Yes, but doesn't that imply a level of recursion - if he believes that power exists because people believe that it exists, doesn't his belief in the efficacy of their belief perpetuate the existence of that power? And if I believe that his belief in their belief...
Anyway, it's a minor point, so I'm not going to sweat it. I think my takeaway is that I don't think there can be any positive benefit from racial stereotypes, even if it's a "net negative" or whatever. Consider:
The belief in black men being more animalistic and "wild" sexually has caused overwhelmingly negative repercussions. Anything from legislation against interracial marriage, to pretty much everything that happens in "To Kill a Mockingbird." I think of Kurt Vonnegut's story of a black man being sawed in half on a barbed wire fence. We can all agree some pretty horrible things have been done because of these stereotypes.
But let's say it works out to the "benefit" of a black man. (And this is not nearly as often as the inverse, if my friends can be believed) Say, a woman dates him because she thinks he has a large penis, or because it's a rebellious thing to do and will make her dad angry. These are still negative things, because she's dating him due to misconceived expectations or to make a statement, rather than due to qualities he actually possesses. In the end, he's still objectified and dehumanized, the stereotype is affirmed and perpetuated, and the cycle of injustice continues.
Which is why I refuse to believe there is such a thing as a "positive racial stereotype", or that minorities can in any way be empowered by racism. No net positive or net negative, just all negative.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that was .. i .. an not used to ..
err, basically, you nailed it, in ways i can't yet express. "positive" racial stereotypes work that way. just ask all the Asians that are supposed to be ruery rurey good at math.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Clearly my use of the word "power" was a terrible mistake.
I tried to explain it a page back but that didn't seem to take, so suffice it to say, Dogbreath, that I did not mean power in the way you've taken it, and my meaning is more along the lines of what Rakeesh and dkw have been saying.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
ok. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: that was .. i .. an not used to ..
err, basically, you nailed it, in ways i can't yet express. "positive" racial stereotypes work that way. just ask all the Asians that are supposed to be ruery rurey good at math.
Or being called the "model minority".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this point I will admit to some frustration. Who has endorsed the idea of 'positive racial stereotypes'? Certainly neither Lyrhawn nor I have.
There is some social status in being perceived to be good at sports, regardless of the reality. Therefore, in some limited and very specific scenarios, someone perceived to be good at sports has a slight social benefit. Until such time as they actually play, or don't, that is. Which doesn't in the least dampen the impact of being regarded as more lazy or violent before doing anything.
The Asian kid with a teacher who on the first day of school thinks is very good at math. For a moment, just a moksbt, that particular teacher might think more highly of that student. Stripped of context-which nothing is, really/that would generally be held as a positive. But then the imaginary pause button is released, as we're back in a reality where many people think that Asian kid is great at math (and this is an actual trait of the individual, absent any knowledge), and the African American is good at sports, but if he's not or he wants to be a writer, he's aberrant or trying to be white or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I think that your talk of "+1" and "net gain" is part of the problem. Myths of sexual potency exacerbate exclusion from actual social empowerment rather than mitigate it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except what I'm doing is stating that it's a myth some people believe in! That's all!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Rakeesh's +1 and net gain post was in the vein of anticipating objections to one's argument and countering them.
"Even if sometimes some people mange to use these stereotypes to their advantage they are still an overwhelmingly bad thing" is not the same as "well, there are some positives and some negatives, so they're not all bad." It was pretty clear to me that Rakeesh meant the former.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Myths of sexual potency exacerbate exclusion from actual social empowerment rather than mitigate it.
But Kate, isn't that precisely what Rakeesh is saying here?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Someone regarded as having this special power might be deemed to be more sexually potent (meant in a lot of ways), but these ways are very much double edged: a white woman being 'ruined' for sex with other men, though that garbage goes well beyond racism, can be said to be a sign of acknowledgment of sexual prowess. But it's also a reason to lynch someone for looking at a white woman, much less dating one to say nothing of marrying one. Perhaps another way to put it would be '+1 perceived sexual power among some people, at the cost of -5 to law enforcement interactions, access to mainstream culture, acceptability for long term relationships, and likelihood of having legislation specifically against you'.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think it's a tough question for sociology and social psych to answer, exactly what the costs and benefits of "positive" racial stereotypes might be. To pretend that we know right now that these stereotypes have a negative effect on people's social standing and net social capital is to greatly overreach.
Yes, a large number of Asian people are disturbed by being stereotyped as the "model minority." On the other hand, this stereotype might land an Asian person a job. Yes, black men and Asian women are disturbed by being fetishized. On the other hand, these people also have the easiest time getting dates on OKCupid (as OKC's data shows).
Whether the psychological stress of the stereotype outweighs the material advantages that accrue to it is a very difficult question to answer and will probably vary a lot from person to person!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It probably depends in part on people's aims. If a black dude is not interested in long-term relationships, for example, the stereotype may well help him achieve his goals. On the other hand, this fact may itself drive black guys away from interest in long-term relationships, which may be deleterious to their happiness in the long run. It's all very complicated.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Yes, black men and Asian women are disturbed by being fetishized. On the other hand, these people also have the easiest time getting dates on OKCupid (as OKC's data shows).
Do you have a link for this. I did some Googling but found that for both match rates and response rates black men are responded to/matched the least and white men the most. You are correct about Asian women though.
You are right, I was remembering wrong about the black male response rate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jake, not really. Or maybe he is but is confusing the issue by saying, "Perhaps another way to put it would be '+1 perceived sexual power among some people, at the cost of -5 to law enforcement interactions, access to mainstream culture, acceptability for long term relationships, and likelihood of having legislation specifically against you'."
Being described as having a mythical sexual potency is a -1 rather than a +1.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Overall I would certainly agree. In some very, very narrowly defined circumstances, I would not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And in any event, you're still misunderstanding. At this point I'm not sure how. "Perception of narrow sexual power among a particular group: +1" is not not not the same as simply 'here's extra point'.
If I get a coupon to get some near-expired meat off a roving meat truck with a rickety refrigeration unit...well, yay for me, I guess? Or not at all really.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I'm with Rakeesh on this one.
A guy who is looking for a one night stand with a stranger meets a girl who him exotic/exciting because he is outside of her cultural norms. I am having trouble considering that a -1 which hampered his goals for the night.
This says nothing of the effects the mysticism has on the rest of the guy's life and how it affects his overall dating life. Just that in that specific case with that specific girl it worked out as a +1 that time.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
If it actually worked that way you might have a point. I think what we're actually talking about here is white men feeling threatened by the precieved sexual prowness of black men and demonizing them because of it without women, white or otherwise, having the equivilent increase in attraction to black men. Like the OK Cupid numbers show, black men are responded to the least in dating. I don't believe that is just among people looking for relationships, I believe it applies to one night stands as well.
I think a big part of it is that when women are making dating decisions they have to take their safety into account way, way more than men do. Black men are preceived as dangerous in our society. For men the sexual part of that might be "they're sexually insatiable, what if they take our women?" where for women it might be "they're sexually insatiable, what if they rape me?" So it's a lose-lose situation, not a win-lose one. And that applies among women looking for casual sex as well as those looking for a relationship.
Women also tend not to be attracted to exoticism in the same way men are, as evidenced by asian women being fetishized but not asian men.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
This thread is on such a strange tangent to me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
(To be clear, I am not trying to justify or agree with those stereotypes. I am just pointing out that the way men think women will react to them and the way women actually react to them are not usually the same. SOME women may be attracted to exoticism, or trying to piss off their parents, or whatever. But if you think black men have an easier time finding one night stands than white men do, you're seriously delusional.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Not just to you.
I think the original point was that the murderer felt threatened by interracial dating (or even friendly interactions). He felt like he wasn't getting the female attention he deserved (I shudder to think what form that attention took in his fantasies), and felt that the blame rested with women (all of them) and all the people who women evidently liked more than him.
It's just sick. This is already twisted enough, without even the violence. But combine that twisted outlook with the propensity to try to take revenge... Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Catching up on news at the airport.
Sound like the guy had some serious internalised self hatred for Asians.
An Al Jazeera reporter made an interesting point that the US media narrative seems heavy on the killers mental state as opposed to gun control. Raised the theory that the NRA successfully changed the media narrative after Sandy Hook.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Interesting tweets on covering the story, about three before and two after.
Bah. Twitter links are useless to me!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:An Al Jazeera reporter made an interesting point that the US media narrative seems heavy on the killers mental state as opposed to gun control. Raised the theory that the NRA successfully changed the media narrative after Sandy Hook.
My theory is, this guy's mental problems are much more interesting than the last guy's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: An Al Jazeera reporter made an interesting point that the US media narrative seems heavy on the killers mental state as opposed to gun control. Raised the theory that the NRA successfully changed the media narrative after Sandy Hook.
Yeah, they moved to doing that because they had stretched their previous bullshit ("Don't Politicize This Shooting It Would Be Disrespectful To The Families Give Us Time To Grieve Don't Make This Partisan") to the breaking point.
When mental illness should be PART of the conversation, they want to make it the distraction.
If Columbine had happened this year, it would have been just another shooting. Nothing noteworthy. Distract media, stall politicians, gridlock, move on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lather, rinse, repeat.
As needed.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
I'm afraid we have a perfect storm leading up to more of this kind of crap.
For the last few decades, women have struggled their way out of all-but-property into near-human status. Men who never learned how to deal with women as actual human people with feelings have been increasingly frustrated by this.
The sexual revolution did in fact make huge changes, good and bad, but the real change was what helped kick it off: reliable birth control that was totally under the control of the woman involved. Women could finally make decisions about their bodies and their roles in society.
People are drifting away from organized religions, most of which push the "Men are in charge" dogma pretty hard. Women are thinking out loud. Gay marriage is sweeping the nation. Believers are getting frantic.
It's been quite a while now since the husband could be the sole breadwinner for a family, and since the economy tanked many men have been completely unable to fulfill what they see is their role.
Thanks to the Internet, women can now speak out against how they are treated every day, and they can organize. Rape cases can no longer be swept away as easily. Casual sexism is getting called out, made public and more difficult to deny or say it's a he-said/she-said thing. Treating women like second-class citizens, sexual prizes or servants is, little by little, no longer the expected norm. Still happening, obviously, but s-l-o-w-l-y peer pressure, if nothing else, may finally start moving that mountain.
The Internet also has given a voice to the extreme sexists, the commenters, the trolls. Their violent, utterly inappropriate, very public responses to women online may do more to help turn reasonable men towards seeing women as people than anything else.
And the media, which has been reliably whipping viewers of movies, TV shows, talk shows and more into believing that EVERYONE deserves sex and that EVERYONE is having more sex than you and that women will eventually fall for the lovable persistent guy, has become more and more polarizing in the last 10 years until the only opinions allowed are the fringe ones because they get the most ratings.
PUA books and organizations are capitalizing on frustrated guys by telling them yes, women are machines that can be acquired by following the right instructions in the right order, and that men can be divided into alphas, betas and whatever other buzzwords they have this week.
And the NRA flatly refuses to allow any research into mental illness in connection with gun ownership, any hint of anything that might prevent someone with known problems from buying all the weapons he or she might want, while movie after movie and video game after video game assures us that shooting stuff solves all our problems.
NOTE: I am not advocating knee-jerk gun control, or blaming movies and video games. I'm not even blaming the PUAs. People are responsible for their own actions.
BUT, we currently live in a society full of frightened, weak men who have been told all their lives from every direction that men must be strong and guns make you powerful.
The answer, the only answer, is to change that society.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That was well written Chris. I was nodding along with a lot of it.
I some different perspectives on how our society has gotten to where it has, but I'm not sure Rodgers and his involvement in the PUA movement is really a good example of much anything. According to Rodger's own writings, he had been planning this infamy since he was 17?
I agree our society should be judged by the sorts of men and women it produces on the average. And that your points all warrant discussion. But I think Rodgers is an abnormally ill specimen, and so also think using him as a specimen of what is wrong with many American males is an exercise in futility.
edit: TL;DR I think we're going to get folks like Rodgers no matter how we as a society score on our report card.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't. I think that Rodgers was on the extreme end of a spectrum of entitled misogyny but that society allows that kind of thinking. Heck, we've got one (probably only the one) guy who promotes those ideas here. Not the shooting, but the entitlement. If society as a whole moved further away from those ideas, the crazy seeds wouldn't have such fertile ground. And if we give up our delusional gun fetish, those outliers won't have the power to kill as many as they do.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's a hard task to change our society because people seem to find community on the Internet even when their identifying features are pathological. It's harder to shame and pressure people out of their mistaken beliefs when they have a supportive community that validates and reinforces those beliefs.
Still, we have to try. I'm glad that objectification of women, misogyny, and sexual entitlement are getting some scrutiny and criticism, and I think it's extremely timely and helpful - because there's a lot of harm that can be avoided. I'm just pessimistic that this conversation is going to reach and affect the people who are the worst offenders - since they seem to prefer an insular worldview and way of discussing these topics.
It's made worse that there's a profit motive in exploiting the frustration and anger that exists in these communities. Validation is a powerful thing.
One just hopes that the REST of society can demonstrate that misogyny, pickup "game", and other objectifying ideas are bankrupt.
It's a hard road. MOST of our entertainment sells this stuff, in varying degrees. LOTS of celebrities display an image that validates these wrong ideas. I think many of us who recognize these problems still find glamorized versions of them attractive - at least enough to spend our time and money enough to keep the cycle going.
How do we demonstrate the bankruptcy of ideas that are endemic in the entertainment that much of society is immersed in?
I'm going to give an example. The Game of Thrones TV series constantly displays women as commodities. It also criticizes this practice, but only intermittently. There are many, many scenes where men are being fawned over enthusiastically by prostitutes. These have a pornographic appeal - no matter how ugly or unpleasant a man is, he can (according to the show) have pretty young women eager to please him. The women don't seem desperate or even businesslike. Nobody's worried about disease. These scenes are numerous. They are only partly counterbalanced by actual characterization of a couple of prostitutes, and by other settings where the women are treated with extreme cruelty. In fact, it's possible to say that the net message is that as long as you don't behave the way Craster or Joffrey does, it's fine to treat women like property and they will mostly be pretty happy with it.
(Note: I'm not against prostitution. I'm against pretending that prostitution is glamorous and risk-free and that if someone is getting paid that means they have no feelings or preferences.*)
My point is that this show - which is notable for how much MORE it treats (some) women like real people than many others - still indulges in and celebrates the objectification of women. It still sells harmful messages. And it's a good show, that I'm really reluctant not to watch.
I'm not sure how we can eradicate harmful ideas while we continue to celebrate them. And at the moment, I do not believe that removing the harmful messages that I'm talking about would help a show like Game of Thrones be more successful. I think the opposite would be true.
---
*I actually think this glamorized image of prostitution might be part of why legal prostitution might seem like a solution to sexual frustration for some people. As long as it's illegal, they can pretend that anything unpleasant about it is a consequence of that. The prostitutes you can afford aren't attractive, or are clearly desperate? Disease transmission is a serious concern? You won't be fooled into thinking that OMG she really wants me? Your social limitations make even that interaction really difficult? Maybe all that would be different, and it would be like those amazing brothels full of crazy hot women who are having a fantastic time, if only it was legal...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't. I think that Rodgers was on the extreme end of a spectrum of entitled misogyny but that society allows that kind of thinking. Heck, we've got one (probably only the one) guy who promotes those ideas here. Not the shooting, but the entitlement. If society as a whole moved further away from those ideas, the crazy seeds wouldn't have such fertile ground. And if we give up our delusional gun fetish, those outliers won't have the power to kill as many as they do.
That's probably true.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
In this case, the discussion would have to be "Knife Control, Gun Control, and Vehicular Violence Control."
That isn't nearly as easy to talk about.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Not THAT much harder.
I think a simple find & replace would work reasonably well.
quote:CONGRESS DISGRACED itself by refusing to toughen Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws after the slaughter of children a year ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. , yawning in the face of a national tragedy. Meanwhile, the battle for reform in state capitals continued and intensified.
Some states that already had lax Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws, mainly in the South and Midwest, moved to relax them further, in the apparent belief that a Wild West approach would promote a safer citizenry. Montana enacted a measure barring health-care providers from asking patients whether they own Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles; Tennessee cut the waiting period for people who want a handKnife, handGun, or handViolent Vehicle permit after they leave a drug or alcohol treatment program; and Alaska and Kansas nullified some federal Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles laws so that they will no longer apply in those states.
According to an analysis by the New York Times of state legislation enacted since the Newtown massacre, about two-thirds of the 109 new Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles laws around the country loosen restrictions — for instance, by easing the rules governing concealed-carry-or-drive permits or allowing Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles to be brought into places of worship or schools. The irony and tragedy of such efforts is that many states with the most anemic Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws already have the highest rates of Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle deaths, according to a new report from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle Violence. By further relaxing restrictions on weapons and assault vehicles, those states may invite even more Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle violence.
Other states, mainly those with legislatures controlled by Democrats, responded to the Newtown shootings and violent drivings by toughening measures that regulate the sale and use of Knives, Guns, and Violent Vehicles.
Among them was Maryland, which enacted an ambitious law. The state’s Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws are now ranked as fourth toughest in the nation, trailing those of California, Connecticut and New Jersey. While Maryland is not among the 10 states with the lowest rates of Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle death, seven of 10 states with the toughest Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle restrictions are. And while a survey by the Brady Campaign said that more research is needed, its authors noted that the data they collected suggest an inverse correlation between the muscularity of state Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws and the rate of Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle deaths.
Eight states have enacted major reforms to curb Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle violence in the year since Sandy Hook, the Brady Campaign’s report shows, and a dozen others enacted at least some laws to address the problem. Five states adopted background checks or toughened rules for issuing licenses. Four enacted laws requiring that Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle owners report lost or stolen Knives, Guns or Violent Vehicles to the police; four beefed up restrictions on the sale of military-style assault Knives, Guns or Violent Vehicles; and five moved to limit the use of large-capacity ammunition clips and key rings.
The survey dents the image of invincibility enjoyed by the National Rifle and Assault Vehicle Association and its brethren in the Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle lobby. In fact, America’s Knife, Gun or Violent Vehicle laws are an evolving patchwork. That offers some hope for further reform, but it also undercuts the effectiveness of restrictions that are in place. Criminals stymied by one state’s restrictions can cross a border to procure what they need in a neighboring state.
Yeah...there you go
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It's a hard task to change our society because people seem to find community on the Internet even when their identifying features are pathological. It's harder to shame and pressure people out of their mistaken beliefs when they have a supportive community that validates and reinforces those beliefs.
But you shouldn't have to rely on mere shame and pressure to persuade people -- you should actually talk and debate them. Time and time again I see cogent and intelligent posts like this (and especially comment #6) with no meaningful counter-point from those who believe that such anayslis is misogynistic. NPR's "On Point" invited three feminist dunces to bash men and not even someone like this blogger to give a different view. Those communities exist in part because the mainstream discourse is so biased and controlled.
[ May 30, 2014, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Sinclair ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is cogent but it is hardly intelligent to suggest, as that post does, that human history is a story of women wielding true power, and that this can be seen particularly in cases when r appears they are being victimized, but this is in fact only in service to the female puppeteers.
Not that you have any to spare, but you lose credibility and the appearance of honesty when you complaining of shaming and insults and label your opponents dunces, while insist I f ghat the other side is the one not actually responding to arguments.
(I can actually understand BlackBlade's policy here. In terms of fairness, it is the best one-Sinclair might *not* be Clive back again. But I suspect he is, and just the slightest coaxing will bring that trash back up to the surface, and he can be put down again.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
"Women innately view sex as transactional." (Specifically for money, attention, and affection, I'm actually not making that order up.)
Remember, 'Sinclair', when you make a habit of agreeing enthusiastically with the notion that women are innately whores, that this has nothing to do with your failures in romance. Instead it is a worldwide gender conspiracy against which you are powerless, in spite of an overwhelming majority of politicians and wealthiest people now and in history have been men.
Rember: they're all innately whores, and all you're insisting on is that they simply admit it, and things will be better for everyone. If only people woul understand!!!v
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe NPR didn't want their listeners to have to shower with bleach after the broadcast? Eeeauuuch.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Comment #6 pretty blatantly condones rape. Whoever wrote that pities the poor boy who didn't care that she was drunk and put up some last minute resistance, he should be allowed to use the "slut" defense, dammit.
Sinclair, people aren't afraid to debate these ideas on the merits. It's that pretending they have enough merit to be worth debating makes everyone who does so stupider.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
OK, I was going to ignore certain posts with the understanding that any links in them would almost certainly either make me angry or giggle unhelpfully, and yet I clicked on the one above to read comment #6, which ends with this plaintive plea from an imaginary doofus who is "ignorant about the new totalitarianism that surrounds" him. Italics are mine.
quote:But…huh? The cops came for me because she accused me of rape. What the hell? It wasn’t rape. Well, she was technically drunk and she put up some last-minute resistance, but there was no violence at all…what, that counts as rape anyway? What the f—is going on? And her name is withheld by the authorities due to some rape shield law? What the f— is a rape shield law anyway? At least I should be able to prove she’s just a bar slut who has casual sex like this all the time! This sucks, man!
Let's look at the two big problems here in this "cogent and intelligent" comment. I'm skipping the "technically drunk" part for the moment and will even give him the benefit of the doubt that she was not incapacitated.
1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
2) It doesn't matter whether she has had sex with every other person in the bar, consecutively or all together. You are never entitled to sex with someone. Doesn't matter if she previously wanted to have sex with you before she changed her mind, doesn't matter if you've previously had consensual, mutually joyous sex before, doesn't matter if you're married to her, doesn't matter if she's a sex worker, doesn't matter if she's working her way through her Facebook friends list. Doesn't matter if you really really love her and she'll see that if you just make her see it. If someone does not wish to have sex with you and you force them to, that is rape. It's kind of the definition, you see.
Big words do not a cogent and intelligent post make.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha, I didn't even read the entire thing-just long enough to find some obvious misogyny and insult guised as 'intelligent debate'.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: 1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
2) It doesn't matter whether she has had sex with every other person in the bar, consecutively or all together. You are never entitled to sex with someone. Doesn't matter if she previously wanted to have sex with you before she changed her mind, doesn't matter if you've previously had consensual, mutually joyous sex before, doesn't matter if you're married to her, doesn't matter if she's a sex worker, doesn't matter if she's working her way through her Facebook friends list. Doesn't matter if you really really love her and she'll see that if you just make her see it. If someone does not wish to have sex with you and you force them to, that is rape. It's kind of the definition, you see.
Big words do not a cogent and intelligent post make.
Also, if she (or he) is drunk, drugged or otherwise impaired, she (or he) is incapable of giving consent. Sex without consent is rape. Period.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is cogent but it is hardly intelligent to suggest, as that post does, that human history is a story of women wielding true power, and that this can be seen particularly in cases when r appears they are being victimized, but this is in fact only in service to the female puppeteers.
Quote relevant portion pls eitherwise this is another case of strawmanning by mis-paraphrasing.
quote:Not that you have any to spare, but you lose credibility and the appearance of honesty when you complaining of shaming and insults and label your opponents dunces, while insist I f ghat the other side is the one not actually responding to arguments.
They may otherwise be intelligent human beings but they all sound dumb on that show, especially David Futrelle who stammers endlessly and the first guest who doesn't really say anything deeper than the typical #yesallwomen tweet.
quote:
- posted May 30, 2014 09:33 PM Profile for Rakeesh Email Rakeesh Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote "Women innately view sex as transactional." (Specifically for money, attention, and affection, I'm actually not making that order up.)
Remember, 'Sinclair', when you make a habit of agreeing enthusiastically with the notion that women are innately whores, that this has nothing to do with your failures in romance. Instead it is a worldwide gender conspiracy against which you are powerless, in spite of an overwhelming majority of politicians and wealthiest people now and in history have been men.
My failures in romance? I'm glad you could glean that from my twenty or so posts, while throwing in a bit of the apex fallacy in there.
quote: Excellent post, Ciaran. It would make sense that more “female” tactics are used as the means to control society as the female herd has ascended in status, only second in power to the apex males to whom the herd is largely a tool and a puppet to further their ends. The apex males can get the female herd to do much of its work for them, which consists of pressuring females to act in the politically-correct way and to act as a regulator of pussy-begging non-apex males (via denying or granting pussy access and general ostracization or acceptance).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Here's a clue. Anyone who likens women to herd animals is wrong headed from the start.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
I know you know this, but for the peanut gallery: If she puts up resistance and you continue it *is* violence.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Comment #6 pretty blatantly condones rape. Whoever wrote that pities the poor boy who didn't care that she was drunk and put up some last minute resistance, he should be allowed to use the "slut" defense, dammit.
I'm afraid "Last Minute Resistance" is a PUA concept, but I'm pretty certain the idea isn't used to condone rape but is instead used in contexts where advice is being given as to how to get a woman to overcome her ingrained thought of being thought of as a "slut." I don't traffic in PUA stuff but the manosphere owes its existence in part to the rise of the PUA online scene around 2005 so there is some terminology everyone is familiar with but which might strike outsider as strange.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yeah, I don't actually care what buzzwords or terminology the manosphere uses to justify forcing a woman into sex in any context, thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is another clue. Manipulating a woman to "overcome her ingrained thoughts" is still pretty offensive.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Also, "manosphere"?
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
Curious how the only responses to post#6 just go to reinforce the dude's point that society now takes extra-care to protect women from the consequences of sexual freedom rather than asking women not to put themselves in positions where they can be taken advantage off (something which would go against their sexual freedom.)
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Also, "manosphere"?
Yes, it's the loose association of blogs (PUA, divorce & child-custody reformers, Men's Rights, Red pillers, incels, etc) that deal with masculine issues from an anti-feminist perspective. Some of those groups are hostile to each other (PUAs disparage MRAs, incels disparage PUAs and so on) but in general they believe that society advantages women over men in key ways.
The intellectual godfather of the Men's Rights wing of the manosphere is Warren Farrel, who wrote this book:
quote:1) If she puts up resistance and you continue, yes, it's rape, whether there was violence or not.
I know you know this, but for the peanut gallery: If she puts up resistance and you continue it *is* violence.
If you are hesistant but the salesman keeps trying to persuade you (and then wins you over) has he committed violence against you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's funny you would make such an analogy. Many contracts aren't binding if one party is intoxicated. And I think (but this is hazy) that attempting to sell someone certain things knowing they are intoxicated-still less providing the substance-is problematic as well.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
The Men's Rights movement is clearly ascendant. Just look at this commercial.
We have at least one hot lawyer on our side.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why are you comparing sexual assault to a transaction?
(Dammit, I wasn't going to engage.)
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's funny you would make such an analogy. Many contracts aren't binding if one party is intoxicated. And I think (but this is hazy) that attempting to sell someone certain things knowing they are intoxicated-still less providing the substance-is problematic as well.
What if both parties are intoxicated? Is it okay for a drunk guy to sleep with a drunk girl? Why does the law still punish the guy in this case if she were to complain?
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Why are you comparing sexual assault to a transaction?
(Dammit, I wasn't going to engage.)
PUAs would say that overcoming LMR is not sexual assault but seduction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They would be wrong.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yes, they would. That's the problem.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
Got it. Post#6 is entirely wrong because you guys agree that he endorsed rape in his last paragraph, therefore nothing else he said needs to be considered because rape.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
If your "seduction" results in "last minute resistance" your seduction has failed. And if you encounter "last minute resistance" and proceed to have sex, you are a rapist.
An article that might be interesting to those who aren't trolls/MRA activists is Arthur Chu's take on Nerd culture, entitlement and misogyny. The only disagreement I have with him is that it's not just nerd culture. This kind of entitlement and misogyny exists in many places - a friend of mine and I were talking last night and it came out that between the two of us and 30 years of work experience, we had been sexually harassed or a witness to sexual harassment at every one of our jobs. That's unacceptable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sinclair: Got it. Post#6 is entirely wrong because you guys agree that he endorsed rape in his last paragraph, therefore nothing else he said needs to be considered because rape.
Nope. That was only one example of how it is wrong.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, it's entirely wrong because it starts from the assumptions that all women are conniving and selfish, that if patriarchal restrictions on sexuality fade then the race will die out, that all women view sex as transactional, and that the changes in women's rights have all been directly damaging to men. AND that a fictional guy who seems to be admitting to rape is whining that he's being accused of rape and this is used as an example of how far things have fallen.
I support quite a few changes in things like child support, custody and other legal and financial matters where things aren't as cut and dried as they once were now that males are not always the main earners in the family. I favor more of a case-by-case determination. But that's a small current running in a big, ugly ocean of resentment and entitlement.
PUAs do not see women as humans. They see them as goals, points, numbers to rack up. The PUA tactics are based on trickery, manipulation and hard-pressing sales techniques designed to put a woman on the defensive or wear her down, and they play to the frustration of an awful lot of insecure men.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: If your "seduction" results in "last minute resistance" your seduction has failed. And if you encounter "last minute resistance" and proceed to have sex, you are a rapist.
Really? As in belonging in jail?
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
Resistance is the opposite of consent. If there is resistance, there is not consent. Without consent, it is rape. Legal definition. And one I fully and completely agree with.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, it's entirely wrong because it starts from the assumptions that all women are conniving and selfish
Quote relevant portion.
quote:, that if patriarchal restrictions on sexuality fade then the race will die out
He does no such thing. This is what he says:
quote: That’s because the unspoken consensus is that society can thrive only if women are able to satisfy their own biological imperative – after all, if that’s not the case, they simply won’t bother to reproduce and we all die out.
That says nothing about patriarchial restrictions. It's as true in a feminist utopia as in a patriarchy. It's a pretty profund post.
Shorter chris-bridges/rieunana/scifibum: rape rape rape rape rape rape
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: An article that might be interesting to those who aren't trolls/MRA activists is Arthur Chu's take on Nerd culture, entitlement and misogyny. The only disagreement I have with him is that it's not just nerd culture. This kind of entitlement and misogyny exists in many places - a friend of mine and I were talking last night and it came out that between the two of us and 30 years of work experience, we had been sexually harassed or a witness to sexual harassment at every one of our jobs. That's unacceptable.
Shoter Arthur Chu:
Hey you male dorks who think you are human beings deserving of sex/relationships, you should kill yourselfs, because I have no solution to present to you about your plight other than for you to forget you have these issues in the first place, so yea, just kill yourselves already.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Women innately view sex as transactional, something that entitles them to various things (money, attention, affection), not as a hedonistic act of mutual pleasure."
This is the viewpoint of a bitter, bitter man.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Women innately view sex as transactional, something that entitles them to various things (money, attention, affection), not as a hedonistic act of mutual pleasure."
This is the viewpoint of a bitter, bitter man.
It's a claim about human nature that is either true or isn't true.
This paper makes a case for it. I suppose the writers are just bitter sexists.
No one, male or female. No one is entitled to sex. It is not a promised thing that evil women are denying you.
Every human should have the opportunity to make relationships, meet people, and possibly, hopefully have sex, but no one should ever be forced to have sex with someone they do not wish to have sex with. And if they don't want to with a specific person, it's not their fault and that person is not a victim.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sinclair, what do you suppose women do when they don't get their choice of mate? Suppose for a moment that what women get from sex is sex. Imagine if you can that sex is about two people giving to each other. If you can't imagine that, read the article I linked above.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's a claim about human nature that assumes an entire gender has the exact same motivations, levels of desire and interests in procreation.
Whenever I hear any theory that starts with "all women" or, for that matter, "all men," I assume the writers are full of it. Haven't been wrong yet.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No one deserves sex.
No one, male or female. No one is entitled to sex. It is not a promised thing that evil women are denying you.
Yes, that's the new battlecry of feminists now that frustrated blue-pill men won't go away and keep complaining online about how being a "nice guy" isn't leading them anywhere. Why won't they shut up? Why they won't they just accept being incel and go away?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or maybe just stop whining and do something productive with their lives. Maybe stop childishly thinking only of themselves.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, Sinclair. It's human decency.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or maybe just stop whining and do something productive with their lives. Maybe stop childishly thinking only of themselves.
Yes, shame on those poor incels for aggrieving women with their selfish believe that they are human beings deserving of sex/relationships.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
They are human beings deserving of the opportunity for sex/relationships. Again, it is not guaranteed, it is not a right, and they are not victims if it doesn't happen. They're in a sad position, yes. Frustrated, certainly. So are women who can't get the dates they want.
However, if this logic really does work than I want to complain. As an inpo (involuntary poor) I deserve money. People who refuse to give me money are clearly victimizing me, so I am perfectly justified in using tricks to get their money or in just taking it if I see the chance. Besides, that guy I stole from gives money to friends and charities all the time, so he can't accuse me of theft.
And the guy I got drunk with, the one I convinced to sign his car over? How come he can just change his mind the next morning when he sobers up and demands his keys back? Like I'm the bad guy there.
Yeah, I hear capitalist yadda-yadda about "earning" money, but study after study shows that employers only like people with skills and that's discriminatory against us inpos. Aren't we human beings deserving of large bank accounts?
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: It's a claim about human nature that assumes an entire gender has the exact same motivations, levels of desire and interests in procreation.
A generalization isn't necessarily a claim that the class being generalized about is uniform.
quote: They are human beings deserving of the opportunity for sex/relationships. Again, it is not guaranteed and they are not victims if it doesn't happen. They're in a sad position, yes. Frustrated, certainly. So are women who can't get the dates they want.
If Baumeister and Vohs are correct then those women can't really be compared to male incels because female sexuality is always a scarcer resource.
Western society has had some strict monogomous norms for millineia, at least as far as most of the population was concerned, which has had the effect of evenly dividing female sexuality among the male population. This required suppressing female sexuality and that of would be cads, otherwise human nature would assert itself and top males would monopolize the prime years of multiple women. Anyway all of this worked to keep societies stable/functioning and gave a strong incentive for your average man to work for his society rather than against it in the pursuit of a mate. It could happen a new order, where female sexuality is entirely unrestrained and society doesn't care about the consequences of some men dominating multiple women's prime years, could work out. But it seems like an experiment.
quote: However, if this logic really does work than I want to complain. As an inpo (involuntary poor) I deserve money. People who refuse to give me money are clearly victimizing me, so I am perfectly justified in using tricks to get their money or in just taking it if I see the chance. And then when the guy I got drunk with and convinced to sign over his car got all pissy when he changed his mind the next morning and took his keys back, he blames me! Do you believe that?
We have welfare, obamacare, medicaid, homeless shelters, housing assistance, private charity, etc, for poor people.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yes, and the good Lord gave you two hands and an imagination. It's not like you're suffering.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes, and the good Lord gave you two hands and an imagination. It's not like you're suffering.
This brings to mind a thought: the thing that will really end the PUA movement and its offshoots is good virtual-reality sex simulation. Could do wonders to help with the rape culture problem, too, although I'm less sure of that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wow.
So. To recap, vagina is a finite resource that must be regulated. This was easier back in the good old days when vagina-owners had strictly defined roles to play and were kept to them by social pressure and legal restrictions. They could not own property, work outside the home or decide if they wanted to have a child or not, and in some periods and places they had no choice in whom they would marry. Sex outside marriage was forbidden, birth control and abortion were forbidden, spinsters were shunned and divorce was a scandal. Even men who were unattractive, socially inept or abusive could get a wife and keep her, because she had nowhere to go.
Now everything's gone horribly wrong. Vagina-owners have control of the disposition and usage of their vaginas and IT'S NOT FAIR. We can't force them to date us and we can't force them to have sex with us and they can leave us just because we get a little pushy and when we act like men they start a Twitter campaign against us. We deserve access to vaginas, like a public utility, and vagina-owners keep changing the rules so we can't keep track of what steps to take to get them.
I'm paraphrasing, of course.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I doubt virtual reality will improve anything. If hard-core snuff porn has any effects on people's expectations, imagine what being able to virtually rape will do to people's real life sexual behaviour. Having gone as far as they can in VR, wanting to see if it's really like that, if it's better... ugh, no.
Sure, most men and women will probably use it like Star Trek characters sometimes did, replacing the object of their affection with a loving relationship with some pixels, but there'd also be people who'd be disappointed that the real world wasn't like their VR universe, and set about trying to correct that.
Funny how if you're friends with a girl who doesn't want to sleep with you, she's a cruel whore who was leading you on, but if your male friend wants to sleep with you, you're fine to turn him down because you just don't feel like that about him, and that is perfectly ok. Hypocrisy is so adorable.
I think a lot of this is being stuck in that two-year-old 'I am the Centre of the Universe!' stage of development. No. Other people are real people too, and they owe you exactly nothing.
If you wouldn't have sex with someone you didn't want (there's always someone you don't want, however sexually open you might be), why should anyone else?
Also, I find it hilarious that everyone here knows this Sinclair sock puppet is Clive. Because he's the only one who leaps in with the red-pill manosphere caca de toro.
[ May 31, 2014, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
Everybody had it rough in the olden days, everybody. Who has it rougher -- the woman married against her will who can't own property or the disposable male who does back-breaking labor his entire life? Your gynocentrism only makes you see the former.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
Um, no. Women did back breaking labor their entire lives too. They breathed in cotton dust in the mills. They died in the fields giving birth or being whipped to death by their owners. They toiled on farms til they dropped from exhaustion. They died of infections butchering meat and cleaning fish. They caught diseases nursing the sick. Being a poor woman sucked.
And they couldn't hold property or choose who to marry.
Who were your female ancestors? Because none of mine sat on their backside ordering servants around.
Also, the servants? Many of them? On their knees scrubbing floors, building fires, cleaning chamber pots? Also women.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually I used too many words above. Here's the TL;DR version:
I can't make anyone love me and it's somebody else's fault. Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
That diagram is funny, Clive. If you're a 1, which, let's face it, many of these guys are - their hideous personalities make them so - do you want a 1? Do you want a conventionally physically unattractive, boring, unintelligent woman who is full of annoying habits and has nothing in common with you, who maybe finds you utterly disgusting since she didn't get to pick you, and lies back like a plank to think of England when you touch her, or maybe even winces a bit every time she thinks you might?
Or do you want something 'better'? Even a little bit 'better'.
If it's the latter, something is wrong with your diagram.
Maybe there was a guy she would have loved, a guy who would have adored her and found her beautiful, her habits funny and her personality fascinating. Maybe he was what you lot would consider a 7. Because people don't come numbered, and your 10 is someone else's 1. That's how the real world works, when you're not too bitter and hateful to get out in it.
And that other 1, the man? If he didn't hate women so much, if he spoke to them, treated them as humans, didn't prejudge them, was the best version of himself and tried to be a truly kind person, kept his mind open to what might be beautiful, even if it's not on the surface (because beautiful is not just conventional features, thin, young, blonde... whatever you think other men would envy seeing on your arm), if he actually engaged with women as a sexual being on an equal, respectful level... a guy like that eventually would be seen by some woman as far more than a 1. And the sex he'd have with her would be way better.
Of course, there might not be a whole string of women who'd have sex with him, and he'd have to put some effort in. Women have to do that too, and they don't always get the first, or thirty-third man they want, either.
[ May 31, 2014, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I am not dismissing the real issues of societal pressures against men to meet unrealistic, stereotypical standards of masculinity, or how child support defaults are still based on a time when the male was assumed to be the breadwinner, or how some divorce settlements are heavily weighted toward the wife when a case-by-case examination might be more equitable. Those are worthwhile fights to take on, when warranted.
I am not stating that women are perfect, or that they don't have their share of manipulators. That's the thing about treating people equally; you have to realize that women can be sociopaths too, and many women have been raised in the same mind-warping men-want-sex-women-want-security society that you were.
And I absolutely do not wish to downplay the real pain and frustration and feelings of worthlessness that come from the one you love liking you only as a friend, if that. Or the feelings of envy or injustice that come from seeing a jerk effortlessly date as many women as he likes. Been there.
But the second you talk about sexuality as a resource that must be regulated, the second you claim that sex is an entitlement that you are being robbed of, the second you try to excuse sexism or pine for the good old days of institutionalized oppression, I know that no, you don't deserve to have sex. Not while you still believe any of that to be true.
My recap above? That's what the PUA community and the "manosphere" looks like to women or to men who like women. Like whiners. Or, in the case of the experts of the manosphere, whiners with PowerPoint.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I doubt virtual reality will improve anything. If hard-core snuff porn has any effects on people's expectations, imagine what being able to virtually rape will do to people's real life sexual behaviour.
Does it have that effect? I don't know.
I wasn't talking about giving people the opportunity to commit rape virtually, I was talking about giving them the opportunity to virtually simulate consensual sex when they're feeling horny and frustrated.
My sense is that a decently large fraction of date rape, especially, happens not because the perpetrators prefer rape to consensual sex but because they rationalize what they do as "consensual" because there's no other way to get what they want.
So if there were another way...
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
The whole friendzone thing drives me nuts, too. How do some men really think this doesn't happen to women? It's just part of the human condition. Helping him buy birthday presents for his lovely girlfriend and listening to his troubles, and wishing he'd notice...
It's a truth that should be universally acknowledged. You can't always get what you want.
Not a dude thing. Human thing. And not anyone's fault.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Destineer, I doubt that it would help them see that women are real people instead of herd animals or that sex is a joy to be given rather than a commodity to be hoarded. It wouldn't teach respect.
It is, perhaps, relieving a symptom without addressing the disease.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I just don't think VR would be enough. Yes, you'd get off, but there's no real world benefit. No notch in your bedpost, no high five, no power trip. You didn't have sex with a women. You masturbated.
If you just wanted an orgasm, you could do that with a sex doll, or a latex lubricated porn star vagina and a video.
VR sex would be great for some normal people. But it's not going to devirginate you or boost you in the eyes of society, or convince you that you're attractive. And it's going to be a long time before all the sensations of sex can be full on holodeck style provided.
And as has been said, it'll do nothing for the way some guys see women. It may just give them false hopes about what may be acceptable with real humans, as I said before.
Also, I'm not sure about the date rape, just want sex with someone thing. There's also the fact that you're getting something you want from someone who doesn't really want to give it, or sometimes even know they're giving it. It is a power thing, and I think that's a motivation for many.
Otherwise, if you're into illegal stuff anyway, you could pay a sex worker. But there's no power trip in that.
[ May 31, 2014, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
The college men were asked if they'd had or attempted to have sex with someone to intoxicated to consent and if they'd ever used force or the threat of force to have sex with someone who didn't want to. 6% of the participants answered yes to at least one question - which indicates that they knew it was non-consensual sex and they weren't trying to convince themselves it was consensual.
Addtiionally,
quote:of the 865 total attempted or completed rapes these men admitted to, a staggering 95% were committed by 96 men, or just 8.4% of the sample.
In other words most rapes are committed by repeat offenders.
So yeah, I'm another who doesn't think VR will help.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I would have thought your first data point indicates that they were trying to think of it as "not rape," which is to say, as consensual sex?
Moreover, reading MRA crap like ReturnofKings.com, when they talk about rape culture issues they always push the line that drunk sex is consensual, for example. I'm not certain that these internet tough guys are a representative sample of date rapists, but it might be that their attitudes are not that far out of the ordinary for rapist types.
I'm not sure about the import of the repeat offenders statistic (which I was aware of). If the repeat offenders don't think of what they're doing as rape, it might be that part of the solution is to convince them that it is rape. And this might be easier if it were not so beneficial to them to pretend that what they're doing isn't rape--in particular, if they could have the same sexual experience without needing to get an unwilling person involved.
I don't think it's a magic bullet, but I suspect it would help at least somewhat and might help make other solutions easier for the potential offenders to accept.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: The whole friendzone thing drives me nuts, too. How do some men really think this doesn't happen to women? It's just part of the human condition. Helping him buy birthday presents for his lovely girlfriend and listening to his troubles, and wishing he'd notice...
It's a truth that should be universally acknowledged. You can't always get what you want.
Not a dude thing. Human thing. And not anyone's fault.
I wasn't aware that some people didn't view the friend zone as multi gender.
I also don't see what's offensive about the term.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Friend zoning is often associated with nice guy-ism, another sexual entitlement complex.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. I can see that.
But both those things also exist without their negative darker incarnations
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, there's nothing offensive or misogynist about the friend zone concept. It's just a way of talking about the fact that everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Clear that bar"? What a charming friend you must be! Relationships and attraction are complicated. Just because two people aren't a romantic match doesn't mean that either of them is somehow lower on an objective "do-able" scale.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Thanks for the generous interpretation of what I said, Kate "don't clear that bar" = "are not suitable for sex or dating (by the relevant person's lights)."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The "friend zone," as a concept, is not necessarily misogynistic, it simply means a relationship wherein one person wants notably more than the other one does, either romantically or sexually or both, and it can go either direction as far as genders are concerned.
However, using "friend zone" as a pejorative by men to mock or shame other men because they couldn't make sex happen and are therefore less of a man, or a man using "friend zone" accusations to passive-aggressively pressure women into responding to romantic or sexual overtures they simply don't want is misogynistic. To the PUA community the friend zone isn't a description of a universal condition, it's a personal purgatory where heartless women condemn helpless men into a life of servitude without sex.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, it seems like that kind of guy is not at all interested in even having Platonic friendships with women, which is pretty messed up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have mostly heard 'friend zone' in the male in a would-be hetero context, but I've also heard it from one woman in a lesbian would-be relationship (that is to say, personally) and read of it in just about every other array of human sexuality I can think of. Reading Destineer's remarks as some sort of demeaning shot at those who don't measure up as sex partners, and as denigrating platonic friendships seems an almost willfully hostile a reading.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I didn't get that from Destineer at all. Since the friend zone, by definition, describes a relationship where one person wants to date the other but the feeling is not reciprocated, "platonic friendship" by itself is not fully accurate. "Platonic friendship with one dissatisfied member" might be closer, which is more or less what "friend zone" is.
Quite often the longing member of the friend zone begins questioning his or her own worth, often harboring wistful or resentful opinions about why he or she is not worth dating (which generally fail to accept the idea that attraction is not always voluntary or that the object of desire may have other reasons not to return the affection), the notion of "measuring up as sex partners" is usually part of the perceived hellishness of the "friend zone." Especially when the object of desire is him- or herself attracted to people the friend-zoned person considers unworthy, or at least less worthy than he or she.
Also, in the post before yours Destineer pretty clearly approves of platonic relationships, or at least feels sorry for those who don't.
Many people in a "friend zone" situation accept the situation as part of the human condition and either walk away or choose to keep the relationship going for its own value. These would be people secure in their self-worth. People who get bitter and resentful about being in the friend zone tend to become PUAs...
[ June 01, 2014, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Also, in the post before yours Destineer pretty clearly approves of platonic relationships, or at least feels sorry for those who don't.
I am sure that is true, but the phrasing was unfortunate. It made it sound like when there wasn't attraction that it was because the friend lacked some objective standard of attractiveness. That they failed to "clear the bar" onto the "do-able" list. (Is there a little "do-able" "not-doable" box that gets ticked? Can a friend's status change is he gets a nose job or his skin clears up?) It hearkened back to the obnoxious 1-10 list that "Sinclive" linked. What people find attractive spans a wide and complicated group of attributes that are different for everyone and even change for specific people. What may not be attractive to a person may be really hot for them at another time or in a different person.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And whether or not someone is interested in dating a particular person at a particular time might not have anything to do with whether they consider the person attractive.
The not interested person might have just gone through a bad breakup or have other personal stuff going on that makes them not interested in dating at all right then. Or they're too busy or tired that day/week/month. Or they might be in a relationship or already interested in someone else and monogamous. There may, in other words, be no "bar" that's available for the other party to clear or not clear.
I also find the idea that everyone sorts their acquaintances into "dateable/doable" and "not dateable/doable" categories really weird. Maybe everyone who is actively looking for a relationship (whether long-term or one-night) does, but not everyone is actively pursuing relationships or encounters, even when they're single.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Also, in the post before yours Destineer pretty clearly approves of platonic relationships, or at least feels sorry for those who don't.
I am sure that is true, but the phrasing was unfortunate. It made it sound like when there wasn't attraction that it was because the friend lacked some objective standard of attractiveness. That they failed to "clear the bar" onto the "do-able" list. (Is there a little "do-able" "not-doable" box that gets ticked? Can a friend's status change is he gets a nose job or his skin clears up?) It hearkened back to the obnoxious 1-10 list that "Sinclive" linked. What people find attractive spans a wide and complicated group of attributes that are different for everyone and even change for specific people. What may not be attractive to a person may be really hot for them at another time or in a different person.
It was unfortunate phrasing when you start off with the assumption that Destineer was viewing all relationships as sexual or non-sexual in terms of whether or not they have value. It was clear, or could have been with a simple question to clarify, that he was speaking to the perspective of someone who felt 'friend-zoned'-that is, in a relationship they wished to be sexual, but was not.
Instead of jumping to the most offensive possible interpretation of his remarks, you could have for example asked Destineer if he thought that everyone did in fact rate people they encountered as 'dateable/do-able' and 'not'. I suspect many people do, but am not at all persuaded that everyone does and now I'm actually curious about the question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I also find the idea that everyone sorts their acquaintances into "dateable/doable" and "not dateable/doable" categories really weird. Maybe everyone who is actively looking for a relationship (whether long-term or one-night) does, but not everyone is actively pursuing relationships or encounters, even when they're single.
I suspect this statement was further than Destineer intended to go, but I might be mistaken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Destineer, when you wrote, "It's just a way of talking about the fact that everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar", did you mean that you think it is a fact that, "everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar"?
Or was it just unfortunate phrasing? Would you like to clarify?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even then, the more I think about it, it's not quite precise enough.
For example, it might be wrong without being offensive to say 'everyone classifies'. I suspect it's wrong, but even if Destineer believes that, it is hardly an offensive or somehow sexist belief if he claims everyone does that. The potential for sexism, I think, or for twisted relationships, might be in if for example:
Jane rates Joe as date-able. Joe rates Jane as non-date-able. Jane is friends with Joe, and is unable to accept Joe's rating, and their friendship is tainted.
The question then is, if everyone or even just a given person or persons, does rate someone as dateable or not, what does that mean if someone doesn't measure up and wishes to? Can they adapt to not having what they want, and still be a good friend? I certainly believe that's possible. Even if Destineer does believe that everyone classifies, is there really anything objectionable about it aside from perhaps being mistaken if he also believes people can and should deal with it?
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I'm all out of popcorn, but this show is fascinating. Anyone have something else I can snack on?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I am not saying that it is particularly sexist. I am saying that it seems a rather shallow, oddly-focused way of thinking about your friends. Also a good way to end up with hurt feelings and broken friendships. Joe could not want to date Jane for any number of reasons that don't involve putting her on some "do-able" scale and finding her lacking. Any of those reasons could be entirely true. Perpetuating the idea that people are ranked according to do-ableness (in addition to being superficial) will lead people to believe that those true reasons are just excuses and can lead to more hurt feelings or false hope. (Maybe if Jane gets a makeover...?)
I just don't think that it is a good way to deal with friends of either sex.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The state of a being in love with someone who doesn't love you the same way but wishes to remain friends is a common one.
When the term "friend zone" is used to describe it, it is much more likely that either the person using it the term feels that he or she somehow isn't measuring up, or someone else is using the term in a derogatory manner to insinuate the same thing, in the PUA world, that's the only thing it can mean. The feeling of inferiority is generally what prompts the description of "friend zone" in the first place.
You can be in an uneven relationship without being in the "friend zone." It is a subjective definition.
I don't see where Destineer is claiming that all unequal relationships are friend zones, or that anyone is reducible to a quantifiable level of sexual attractiveness. Only that there are those who do think that way, and they have Destineer's pity.
In short, I think Destineer described a sad sort of person and you're accusing the messenger of believing the message.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I've got some Toblerlone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The state of a being in love with someone who doesn't love you the same way but wishes to remain friends is a common one.
When the term "friend zone" is used to describe it, it is much more likely that either the person using it the term feels that he or she somehow isn't measuring up, or someone else is using the term in a derogatory manner to insinuate the same thing, in the PUA world, that's the only thing it can mean. The feeling of inferiority is generally what prompts the description of "friend zone" in the first place.
You can be in an uneven relationship without being in the "friend zone." It is a subjective definition.
I don't see where Destineer is claiming that all unequal relationships are friend zones, or that anyone is reducible to a quantifiable level of sexual attractiveness. Only that there are those who do think that way, and they have Destineer's pity.
In short, I think Destineer described a sad sort of person and you're accusing the messenger of believing the message.
I can empathize.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps it was the word "everyone" that threw me. Or maybe "fact". If Destineer had written, "It's just a way of talking about the idea that everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar," your clarification would make more sense. Or even have been unnecessary.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Adding: I could be wrong, of course. I just got the vibe that Destineer was explaining a term and how some people use it, not justifying or defending it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: I've got some Toblerlone.
I've got a couple pounds of dorito.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well. I think kmbboots has a point, here.
First: I think that anyone who has romantic/sexual interests does a sort of passive categorization of people into "interesting/attractive" or "not interesting/not attractive". However, there are some pretty crucial caveats when you're describing normal/healthy people.
1. There is no bar in the sense of a defined standard. 2. No active act of categorization. 3. And in fact, it's not actually binary.
It's just a range of attractiveness, and I think the normal/healthy behavior is to seek out people who are on the higher end of that range - but first filtered by those who are mutually interested.*
There would be a pretty significant mistake in not filtering to people who are reciprocally attracted.
If you also literally define your own "bar" of attractiveness below which you will not engage, you're in somewhat pathological territory which I believe correlates to this whole misogynistic PUA mindset.
I don't think Destineer was promoting the concept of a literal binary categorization of people according to some defined standard that could amount to a bar to clear, but the words used could mean that. So I think Kate was right to point that out.
I think the intent was to point out that we are not always attracted to or interested in all of our acquaintances. In turn, we are not attractive to all of them. The point, I think, was actually to counter the entitlement that might be displayed by a PUA or a "why am I always friendzoned" type, by pointing out the need for a reciprocal attraction and the fact that it often doesn't exist in friend relationships.
*There are other filters necessary to stay within social norms and avoid hurting people, of course.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Adding: I could be wrong, of course. I just got the vibe that Destineer was explaining a term and how some people use it, not justifying or defending it.
I wasn't suggesting that he was defending the term "friendzone". It was the assumptions that seem to be in his definition that rubbed me the wrong way. If he would like to clarify, that would be great. It may just have been unfortunate phrasing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I also find the idea that everyone sorts their acquaintances into "dateable/doable" and "not dateable/doable" categories really weird. Maybe everyone who is actively looking for a relationship (whether long-term or one-night) does, but not everyone is actively pursuing relationships or encounters, even when they're single.
I suspect this statement was further than Destineer intended to go, but I might be mistaken.
Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean literally everyone. There are asexual people out there, and also people who aren't looking for a relationship/sex, either because that's not what they want or because they're already happy on that front. It's a fair point.
Although maybe another way to put that point is that some people put everyone they know into the "friend zone."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I do defend the term, in the sense that I think it can be used to express something perfectly legitimate and unproblematic. But a lot of things that PUAs and Nice Guys want to say using the term are problematic.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Pro-tip: don't mention the friendzone in your online dating profile.
Actually, ignore that, it's a great neon sign of which people to ignore.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm just a "nice guy" i get put in the "friendzone"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
Although maybe another way to put that point is that some people put everyone they know into the "friend zone."
I think it would be more accurate to say that the "friend zone" (or even "acquaintance zone") is the default. Nobody has to be "put" there.
Framing the situation as being "put in the friendzone" makes it something that is being done to someone against their will, and opens the possibility of argument that it was done unjustly. (Not that I'm saying that's a valid argument, just that it would be better to close it off completely.)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, that sounds right.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Friendzone Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm not sure of the historicity of my view here, but my understanding was that "friend zone" was a rationalization that was invented to help assuage the feelings of people who aren't getting the romantic attention they feel entitled to.
Example:
quote: M: "Why won't you go out with me? I'm super nice, and I've always been there for you. I'm not a bad looking guy. What more could you ask for?"
W: <to herself> "Oh god...this is awkward." <out loud> "Well, it's like...you're my friend. You're kind of in my 'friend zone' - it's not that there's anything wrong with you, it's just that I have a hard time seeing you as anything other than a friend." <left unsaid> "There's just no spark there, sorry."
M: <not getting or caring the 'no spark' part> "Don't you want to date someone you can also be friends with? I think of you as my best friend, and I want nothing more than to really be with you."
W: <really doesn't want to hurt feelings or get trapped into a discussion of what he should do differently> "It's just hard to think of you as anything other than a friend."
M: <to himself> "Crap. Apparently once I'm in the friend zone, I'm there to stay. AVOID THE FRIEND ZONE."
In other words, it is NOT that the "friend zone" is literally a mental category that carries a special sort of inertia that is difficult to overcome once the assignment happens. So it doesn't follow that it's an [optional] bad idea to end up there, and you'll be more likely to win the girl you want if you avoid the "friend zone".
It's that this zone and the attendant inertia were creatively described to explain to someone why there will not be a romantic and physical relationship, in order to avoid directly saying that it's a lack of sufficient attraction, or an argument about why W should want to go out with M, or what M needs to do to convince W.
What's important to me about this distinction I'm trying to draw is that the root cause *is that feeling of entitlement*, and not a categorization event.
If M in the above scenario doesn't feel entitled to a relationship just because he's trying to have one and is convinced that she should want one too, then he doesn't force W to explain why not - he just accepts that she isn't interested.
If he doesn't invest his ego and self worth in winning her, she maybe doesn't feel forced to avoid pointing out that she's just not into him.*
If he doesn't conceive of her as an reward that can be earned through effort merit, she maybe doesn't sense a trap in explaining what it is about him that isn't quite to her taste, kicking off a indefinite cycle of "OK, I got in shape/make more money/am acting more aggressive. How about now?".
He needs to be straightforward about what he wants but also accept and honor what she wants. If he wants to be her friend, great. If he wants to be her friend so that she will want to be his girlfriend, he needs to stop when it's clear that she's not interested.
*It also helps if she's honest and straightforward, even if it means hurt feelings. Crushing his hopes might seem cruel, and she isn't responsible for obliviousness, but, pragmatically, maybe it's better to be clear and decisive about lack of interest. It's understandable that in some situations and with some people, there may be ways in which she does not feel safe to make an outright rejection. She should probably then get far away from that guy.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
It's worth pointing out that it goes both ways. I've been on both sides of friendships in which one party has become romantically interested in the other (never one in which one party was only interested in sex or a romantic relationship from the outset, and only feining friendship, though. Ick.) more than once.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, I don't mean to imply that it's always a male going after an uninterested female, and definitely not that there's something inherently wrong with people who end up in that kind of situation by accident.
But among the people who complain the loudest about landing in the "friend zone", it appears very common for males to feign friendship in hopes for sex, and for there to be some indications of misogynistic views. :/
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Oh, definitely. No argument there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, for sure.
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 13168) on :
(Post Removed by JanitorBlade.)
[ June 05, 2014, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah that's pretty solid, but ugh, I feel like both sides of the argument miss the mark.
White Men aren't under attack, and they aren't, as a whole in our society, marginalized. But they do occupy a questionable space. It's not the same as it is for minority men, who, especially black men, are very, very much under attack, have been for decades, and with no end in sight.
Society's response to the changing landscape for white men seems to be "deal with it," but I don't think they're (we're) handling it all that well at the moment. That whole "yesallwomen" thing came in response to men defensively interjecting themselves into women's debates on how men affect their lives, but it feel like the opposite happens too. If men try to have a legitimate discussion about problems they are facing, how their lives are changing, what new roles they just occupy in society, there's always a woman who jumps in to say "because you all have it soooo bad."
No one should seriously be arguing equivalance, but just because white men don't have it nearly as bad as white women doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about things in a serious manner. That means the MRA folks need to tone it done from 10 to about a 2, and really hone in on legitimate issues for integrating into a more gender equal society, rather than bitching about the lost status quo. Because there are legitimate issues for them to advocate for. They just aren't talking about them. And the other side, men and women both, need to stop bashing men as a knee jerk reaction to any time a man complains about his changing role in society.
It's just not constructive. Any of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the problem is that any discussion white men are going to have is "comparatively, our lot is getting worse relative to these other groups, whose lot is improving."
And people will be unsympathetic about that, even dismissive, because that's probably the way it should be.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not arguing against pouring some water out of our glass into women's to make things more equal.
I'm talking about how the water is poured.
My only interest is doing what works best for the most people with the least amount of resources necessary. No one wants to talk about men except to wring their hands when one of them does something stupid or violent or to tell them to sit down and shut up. And on the surface it FEELS right for exactly the reasons you state, because this change is necessary and our role in society has to change,
But if that's how people want to react, then let's stop being surprised when men do the things they do. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Society's response to the changing landscape for white men seems to be "deal with it," but I don't think they're (we're) handling it all that well at the moment. That whole "yesallwomen" thing came in response to men defensively interjecting themselves into women's debates on how men affect their lives, but it feel like the opposite happens too. If men try to have a legitimate discussion about problems they are facing, how their lives are changing, what new roles they just occupy in society, there's always a woman who jumps in to say "because you all have it soooo bad."
I think this is a fair perception to have. It can feel like that sometimes. From my perspective, though, I tend to have sympathy for it in proportion to how the discussion came up. If for example the discussion is about how women are systematically, even at the highest levels, significantly underpaid compared to men, well then a white male in the United States is going to be in a poor position to complain of being singled out.
If, however, they were to respond with something about how yes, women are underpaid, and in fact many segments of society all over the place are underpaid for arbitrary and unfair reasons, and why don't we talk about workers' rights, I'm going to be very sympathetic. It's the part where a minority or gender mistreatment complaint is often latched on to in sometimes naïve, sometimes quite cynical efforts to piggyback on the emotional weight of injustice that will be rejected.
Of course all of that said, there are people who are utterly and casually dismissive of problems that are uniquely male and even uniquely unjust towards men. Someone who complains of the (very rare) cases in which a man might be compelled to pay child support for another man's child once it's been proven. Yeah, very authentic complaint. But to attempt to attach that to a broader discussion about how society is really starting to favor men...eh. Not sympathetic, to me at least. To attempt to attach that to 'ugh, our system of family laws in this country are often an absurd and ineffective mishmash, and we need systemic reform from the ground up', to me, sympathetic.
I also think part of the problem is that attempts to do the one can sound like the other. And particularly in online settings, casual misogyny can be so rife that people have instinctive responses which are understandable but not always helpful or accurate.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah. There are some legitimate issues that should be addressed, like the gender bias in custody arrangements, but they don't amount to an overall disadvantage.
quote:hat means the MRA folks need to tone it done from 10 to about a 2, and really hone in on legitimate issues for integrating into a more gender equal society
Yep, that's about right. I'd add, police their own for misogyny.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree with both of you.
I also think the fact that you both felt compelled to attach a qualifier to your statements proves my point.
It's impossible to have this discussion without adding "but women have it worse" in the fine print as a preventive measure. And it's true, absolutely, but the fact that it needs to be acknowledged at the top or bottom of every statement on men's issues is a little silly. And I blame both sides for that. The MRA folks have so poisoned the waters for legit discussions that there is zero good will when saying this stuff for a person to believe you aren't a mysoginistic jerk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I hope that, at least here, you aren't going to get a lot of sympathy for men bemoaning the fact that women, now usually capable of earning a living, are no longer consistently destitute enough to trade sex for food and shelter.
That is what the MRA groups and types like our unlamented Sinclive are arguing. Is is harder for men to get women to have sex with them now that we can feed ourselves? Sure. But, constructive or not, I am not shedding any tears for those who want us to go backwards.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Maybe it's that the well has been poisoned to the point that it's impossible to have the discussion without qualifiers, or maybe it's just an inevitable side effect of the fact that men are speaking from a place of relative privilege? I think to some extent it's just human nature to be annoyed when the guy winning the game by 20 points is calling foul.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure I'd be okay saying "The bias toward mothers in child custody arrangements is problematic and I think it should change" without the qualifier, in a different context. But in the context of discussing MRA in general, I think you're right - there's enough crap and bad will out there to make it pretty difficult.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's at least a little aggressive and offensive for you to imply that Lyrhawn was asking for sympathy for such a perspective, you know.
For cripe's sake who are you even replying to? No one in this discussion asked that you shed tears for those perspectives.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't implying that Lyrhawn (or anyone here other than Clive) was suggesting anything of the kind. In fact, I implied the opposite. I don't think that (again, other than Clive) you will find that here. I am saying that those are the arguments that the MRA groups are making. Because that is really what has changed for men. I is a real change and really does make things worse for them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Maybe it's that the well has been poisoned to the point that it's impossible to have the discussion without qualifiers, or maybe it's just an inevitable side effect of the fact that men are speaking from a place of relative privilege? I think to some extent it's just human nature to be annoyed when the guy winning the game by 20 points is calling foul.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure I'd be okay saying "The bias toward mothers in child custody arrangements is problematic and I think it should change" without the qualifier, in a different context. But in the context of discussing MRA in general, I think you're right - there's enough crap and bad will out there to make it pretty difficult.
I don't have a problem personally, or even see one generally, with needing the qualifiers in a broader discussion where good will hasn't been established. You never know when Clive is going to rear his head again, after all.
But surely there is a point at which it's alright for Lyrhawn or someone else to ask, "Can we accept as given that I'm not lamenting the 'women as chattel' days of the past, please?" Not only is it actually constructive, since he obviously is not doing so and diverting a discussion into what is already known to be irrelevant is just a waste of time, but it's also if it happens enough times a pretty clear attack and insult.
My bias chips on the table: something similar happened to me a week or two ago, it might even have been in this thread, I'm on my phone now so I'll look later. But I had to explain more than once and even more than three or four times that, no, in fact I don't think that racial minorities in general and African Americans in particular are advantaged or empowered by American society. Some very specific, very contextual statements were-repeatedly-applied to a broader context that I specifically rejected, and that frankly I think anyone familiar with my thoughts would know was I was very unlikely to hold to anyway.
I suspect Lyrhawn's frustration stems from a similar source, not least because he had to do the same thing as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I wasn't implying that Lyrhawn (or anyone here other than Clive) was suggesting anything of the kind. In fact, I implied the opposite. I don't think that (again, other than Clive) you will find that here. I am saying that those are the arguments that the MRA groups are making. Because that is really what has changed for men. I is a real change and really does make things worse for them.
So when, in direct response to Lyrhawn, you posted that 'I hope that...' and you stated that you weren't going to be shedding any tears for...that direct response to Lyrhawn wasn't, I guess? You were simply responding to an opinion that wasn't being offered anyway? Lyrhawn wasn't asking that you shed tears for the lot of men in America. No one was, in fact.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
She's allowed to post something without addressing it to someone who recently posted, of course. I think she already clarified it sufficiently! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was responding to the conversation in general. The "you" was general. In general, the complaint of the men in the MRA/PUA and so forth groups that is actually true, is about the fact that they women are no longer "equally distributed". And they are right about that. It is harder for unappealing or unworthy men to get sex.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
That's because MRAs function like hate groups.
Cracked had a decent article on this recently. The argument is that the group is made up of men who are insecure and take their anger out on women as a scapegoat. In point number 3, they argue that MRAs, if they were truly a male welfare group as opposed to an anti-women movement, they would be VERY concerned with the problems of black men and gay men. But they're not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
My thoughts on the matter are mixed.
I won't hesitate to argue passionately against unfair child support and custody laws. You can search the forum for my complete position on that, but I mainly see them as a relic of a more sexist era where they were necessary to compensate for a woman's (then) inability to provide for herself, and that maintaining them entrenches and reinforces sexism and gender inequality in general.
I'm also opposed to men being blamed or assigned responsibility for women feeling uncomfortable being around/speaking to them, not because of anything they did, but because they're men and that's their fault. I can understand feeling nervous or uncomfortable, it's a natural reaction, but to get angry at someone for getting in the same elevator as you, or even politely saying hello to you (yes, there was a blog about this) is absurd. These are normal, socially acceptable behaviors, and I don't think men need to go out of their way to avoid accidentally making someone uncomfortable. (Just like I'd never dream of telling a girl to put on more clothes because she's making a man uncomfortable)
This one may be because I'm a big, tall, muscular man, and I've gotten tired of constantly cracking jokes and trying to put people (male and female) at ease because their first reaction to meeting me is being startled, or murmuring and generally acting skittish. Despite this, I've never had any man (even the ones smaller than most women) complain about it in any way, but I've had several women complain about me being too big and intimidating. (despite not doing anything beyond smiling, saying hi and shaking their hand or whatever) I suppose this is why I'm also pretty defensive of black men, since they seem to have the same problem, only much worse.
But anyway, despite the fact I think there are certain ways our society mistreats men, I couldn't really classify myself as a MRA. I don't think there is any sort of systematic oppression of men, and honestly, most of the issues we do run into are symptoms of sexism against women. The realization of gender equality should (hopefully) make those issues no longer problematic.
I do think there are some issues that are unique to men, and aren't really caused or greatly affected by men's relationships with women. Most of these stem from rather narrow definitions of masculinity, and extreme prejudice and mockery of men who deviate from them. I certainly think there should be more awareness of these issues, but I think presenting them in a manner analogous to a civil rights movement is... not the brightest idea. Especially considering the believes and activities of most of the MRA community.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I wasn't implying that Lyrhawn (or anyone here other than Clive) was suggesting anything of the kind. In fact, I implied the opposite. I don't think that (again, other than Clive) you will find that here. I am saying that those are the arguments that the MRA groups are making. Because that is really what has changed for men. I is a real change and really does make things worse for them.
Can you elaborate on your thoughts here? I have a longer response, but I want to wait until I fully understand what you're saying, especially the part I italicized.
Is it your contention that the only change men have experienced in the last couple decades is reduced access to sex?
Your wording was a bit ambiguous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And more generally, not specific to what Kate said, there are a lot of problems facing men that need to be addressed by society at large.
Mental health and sexual abuse issues are dramatically more under reported and under served for men and boys than women and girls. Most of that, I think, is because we've made it a point as a society to have conversations about helping women and girls with these points...but we never took boys and men by the hand and did the same thing, so they've stayed in the dark.
The federal definition of rape until just a couple years ago didn't even include men for pete's sake! We as a society were so blind to sexual assault on men that we didn't even include them in the definition of the word we most commonly use for sexual assault. We've done nothing to address the hundreds of thousands, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, of rapes that take place in America's prisons. Yes, that's for men and women, but they tend to suffer differently. Men are more susceptible to repeat assaults over time, and are more likely to be abused by prison staff, they are also more likely to suffer traumatic, severe or brutal assaults than women. Women on the other hand are twice as likely to be sexually assaulted by other inmates.
There's also recent research to suggest that a much, much larger percentage of female on male rape occurs than anyone realizes, as well as other kinds of non-prison rape. Numbers have been spiking in the last few years of reported cases of all kinds of male-victim rape and researchers have concluded the only thing that makes sense is that reporting is up. It's always been a problem, but men have been afraid to report it.
Men and especially boys are also much much less likely to report or seek treatment for mental health issues. Numbers on those who suffer from various problems are way off, but researchers have a hard time making educated guesses because reporting is so bad. For example, there are only a handful of in-patient centers in the country for those who suffer from self-injury problems, and the majority of them are female-only institutions, though experts suggest that the ratio of those afflicted is probably closer to 45-55 Male-Female rather than the 90-10 it's often portrayed as.
Then there's male body issues. Instances of steroids abuse and eating disorders in boys have been spiking like crazy for years. Boys see the same unrealistic images on TV growing up and realize that, like young girls wanting thin waists and huge boobs, they need six pack abs and bulging muscles. So they do terrible things to their bodies in search of a physique that will be genetically impossible for most of them to attain. They're also much more likely to be successful in suicide attempts stemming from body image problems. But this isn't talked about nearly as much as female body issues.
I think it probably does affect girls more...but only because of a bizarre mixed message that boys get from media. They're told they need to be super muscle fit and trim to get the girl and be popular...but they're also told it's okay otherwise because relatively unattractive men get the girl on TV and in movies all the time. And this feeds into what happened with that kid in California. He believed what he saw on TV, that no matter what he'd get the girl, but reality didn't match up to that.
We need to examine what we're teaching boys, because our society at present is severely messing with their heads while not giving much of a crap about fixing their problems once they develop. When those issues boil over and someone gets hurt, we all act confused. "How did this happen?" we ask, as if there aren't 15 issues we already knew about that probably contributed but no one wants to talk about.
None of this has to do with Men's "Rights." That's a stupid way to frame the problem. But it has everything to do with men's issues. We need to fight as a society, men and women alike, to get these issues the same legitimacy as women's issues. At the moment it's not about getting them equal air time. It's about earning a right to both be on the air at all.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote: There's also recent research to suggest that a much, much larger percentage of female on male rape occurs than anyone realizes, as well as other kinds of non-prison rape. Numbers have been spiking in the last few years of reported cases of all kinds of male-victim rape and researchers have concluded the only thing that makes sense is that reporting is up. It's always been a problem, but men have been afraid to report it.
Anecdotally, I can say this is true. At my last command, we had a female sexual predator. She was a Staff Sergeant and 25 years old, most of her victims were 18-21. She would basically wait for them to get overly intoxicated (a frequent occurrence for young Marines who don't know their limits/are pressured into binge drinking) and either they would call her, or she would find out when they came back into the barracks. She would bring them back to her house (or sometimes, a hotel room if her husband was around), if necessary coercing them with threats of getting them in trouble (for underage drinking, etc.), and then force herself of them.
My friend was raped by her, and afterwards he was laughed off by the chain of command. I mean, literally laughed off. He became their running joke. Guess how many other young men assaulted by her decided they wanted to report it?
As far as I know, she's never been so much as reprimanded for her behavior. She's still in.
That being said, this is hardly a male-only problem, or even a predominantly male problem. A lot of it has to do with the rape culture in general, and there are still places in the military where women get the same response. (though thankfully, a lot of that has changed in the past few years) But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of course.
And again, the qualifier at the end of your statement.
But I think the difference is that we're having a national conversation about how to help female victims of rape, how they are afraid to report, the terrible response from University/Superior Officers/Police officers when women report sexual crimes. It's an ongoing conversation, but it's a conversation. Hopefully next we can finally get some real traction on solutions to these problems.
For men it's not a conversation yet, and it needs to be.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The qualifier is almost a necessity. I knew if I didn't add it, there's a strong chance I would get bombarded with a bunch of links about the rape crisis in the military, or being asked if I seriously didn't think women didn't have it harder when it comes to rape. I've seen it happen almost every time I've brought the story up before. It's very difficult to get people to understand that saying "men experience this problem" does not mean "women therefore don't experience this problem, or experience it less." It's not like addressing one will take away from the other, but it's hard to convince people of that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hit the nail on the head. That's the crux of the problem in having any of these discussions.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Right, and if you said the, "Not all guys are like that." qualifier that often is met with frustration because you are making the conversation about you. You might think you are trying to to keep things nuanced when either sex is discussed.
So how do we converse? It kind of drives me up the wall when a person talks about racism and says something like, "Unless you're a white cis-male, you've probably felt the sting of racism."
You know what? I do know what it's like to feel the sting of racism. Would you like to hear about it? I thought bigotry is to say, "Because you're this, you must also be that."
If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now, instead of trying to gauge who did the most talking in the past and make them pay for it. Let's be friends trying to learn from each other, rather than the oppressed and the oppressor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, those are absolutely real problems and should be addressed. my point was that they are not new problems or at least not problems caused by the increasing empowerment of women. Nor are they usually the problems that the MRA groups seem to go on about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: I don't think anybody disagrees with those two points.
I would say though that the MRAs are to Men's Rights what The Black Panthers were to civil rights for African Americans.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now, instead of trying to gauge who did the most talking in the past and make them pay for it. Let's be friends trying to learn from each other, rather than the oppressed and the oppressor.
Attempts to correct systematic injustice aren't about making people "pay for" the past. They're attempts to address inequality in the present that is a result of that past.
You can argue about whether particular attempts are effective or even just, but framing it as punishment, as if the purpose was retributive rather than corrective, is missing the point.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Attempts to correct systematic injustice aren't about making people "pay for" the past. They're attempts to address inequality in the present that is a result of that past.
That is the idea, but in practice, in the hands of radical activists who are less interested in reasoning things through than in The Movement, it actually takes the form of punishment more often, in my experience. Plus some very questionable lines of thought about exactly how the past affects the present.
There is also very good scientific data about how women and minorities remain disadvantaged in the present, such as resume studies of hiring discrimination, and these point to very serious problems that still remain to be solved.
But the activists' commitments lead them down problematic paths very often. The "Not all men" and "Yes all women" memes are both very problematic, in my view. Sometimes exceptions to a generalization are important.
Moreover, not all women experience their lives as involving gender-based oppression. This can be labeled as "false consciousness," but that is unfair unless it is backed up with real data showing how wrong they are, objectively, to believe they are not oppressed. Not anecdata, which is generally what the "Yes all women" meme traffics in.
Let me also close with the standard qualifier that I'm aware women have it worse than men.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now
Then we'd be talking about a nonexistent hypothetical, and the conversation wouldn't be very important.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now
Then we'd be talking about a nonexistent hypothetical, and the conversation wouldn't be very important.
I think BB meant "everybody having an equal voice now" should be the ideal we aspire to, not that that is the reality.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: I don't think anybody disagrees with those two points.
I would say though that the MRAs are to Men's Rights what The Black Panthers were to civil rights for African Americans.
That's a terrible comparison. Black Panthers were more "militant" but they had legitimate beefs and were sick of waiting in line for a handout. They were done asking for equality, they wanted "Freedom Now."
I think most people don't really understand who the Black Panthers were, what they wanted, and what they did.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, have to agree with that. Though in fairness to BB, that perception of the Black Panthers is extremely common.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There were radical elements within the Movement that wanted the United States to carve out a country for African-Americans so they could leave America and form their own country, but we're talking about a tiny, tiny fringe group not recognized by the Black Panthers. I think that might be your better comparison, but no one ever took them seriously.
I'm sure it was an honest mistake on BB's part, the public perception of a lot of the Civil Rights era is really not reflective of what happened, ESPECIALLY the groups we tend to think of as radical and militant like the Black Panthers, who the government went through a lot of effort to not just smear, but systematically arrest and murder whenever they got the chance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I know it's not an adequate comparison. I should have spent more time thinking of another one.
I just hate the idea that MRA must mean either,
1: A bunch of misogynists
2: A bunch of men who are in denial about male privilege.
I remember in college we learned about a radical version of feminism among other schools of thought purely as an exercise to understanding the full spectrum of feminism. A lot of conservative commentators love to zero in on the radical schools of thought. Like men not being necessary except as sperm donors.
It would be terrible if we allowed opponents of feminism (and this is already a problem) to make it out to be a movement that seeks to emasculate men.
I've said something similar to this concept before, but I don't want to let the term Men's Rights Advocate become synonymous with "Woman Hater."
Men shouldn't have to be ashamed of wanting to empower their gender. Privilege ironically weakens us because it gives us false expectations that we then try to cling too. It makes us feel cheated and lied to and resentful especially towards the people who break the illusions. But in many real ways men (As others have written here) face real problems as a gender, and privilege doesn't make those problems less serious or critical.
One of the indispensable ways we are going to stop misogyny is by helping men to learn that manliness is treating women well.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: One of the indispensable ways we are going to stop misogyny is by helping men to learn that manliness is treating women well.
I would say rather is by helping people to learn that being a good person is treating other people well. I think separating out the genders the way you have is exactly what fuels misogyny and sexism, and it makes me deeply uncomfortable. I don't want men to treat me well because I'm a woman. I want people to treat me well because I'm human.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I didn't say, "Treat somebody well because they are a woman." I said "Manliness is treating women well". Your goodness towards others does not change at all based on a persons sex or gender.
But part of treating a person well is understanding what their sex or gender is and adapting to that information in a positive way. Mysandry and misogyny don't mean treating the genders differently. It means disliking, hating, or mistreating one or the other or both for those qualities.
At least, that's what I believe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now
Then we'd be talking about a nonexistent hypothetical, and the conversation wouldn't be very important.
I think BB meant "everybody having an equal voice now" should be the ideal we aspire to, not that that is the reality.
And if so, the conversation about the ideal future must regard the non-ideal now. If you are going to go into a discussion about groups who are socially marginalized, and especially if you are going to go into a discussion WITH people who are socially marginalized, the existing extent of that marginalization is part of the conversation. It's part of what you have to factor in. Because marginalization in these fields greatly influences people's tendencies and the power you have to speak over other groups.
The conversations that men often want to have with women about feminism become suspiciously less and less about advancing women out of social marginalizations and tend to go back again and again to men defensively interjecting themselves and their own concerns about themselves. It happens again and again and again and again until anyone who's working as an activist in the field, ~social justice warriooooor~ or no, gets very tired of it. Men putting most of their effort into defending themselves. Shifting the conversation back to "we have it bad too!" and devoting an amazing quantity of time and effort to make sure we are talking about men's 'half' of the patriarchy problem and issues of relatively minor consequence except that they primarily effect men. And, lest we forget, utter lunatics who aggressively direct hatespeech towards women in literally any venue they can espouse it in, and turn it into a discussion not about women's equality, but about misandry and how to get women back into a controlled social role again like things are supposed to be, because biotruths.
Elements of the conversation taking place here are quite the microcosm, quite representative of exactly that. And they teach the same lesson over and over again.
Like I mentioned earlier, the well is poisoned. Absolutely poisoned. The first responsibility of any guy who's otherwise tripping over themselves to assure that they are speaking from being in the position of being One Of The Good Men should, ideally, be to recognize what power they unintentionally hold in these engagements and how to keep that in check if they actually want to talk, with women, about women's issues. The overused and terrible term that bonkers social justice warriors hollered until the term was self-parody was "Check your privilege!!!!" — but expressed more moderately is still the most important recognition to make.
quote:I've said something similar to this concept before, but I don't want to let the term Men's Rights Advocate become synonymous with "Woman Hater."
Whether you want that or not is irrelevant at this point. Men's Rights Advocates have already done so, through their actions. MRA's these days self-select for those who actively want to continue being known and associated with the title, which means most every moderate fled the scene a long time ago when the people directing the movement hurled it into the territory it is now (essentially, as defined and tracked by the SPLC, a hate group).
quote:Mysandry and misogyny don't mean treating the genders differently. It means disliking, hating, or mistreating one or the other or both for those qualities.
A friendly misogynist who likes, individually means well towards, and is polite to women is still a misogynist. You have plenty of people who are like that. Older people, especially, who are big on chivalry and talk very kindly about what kind of respect women are owed, to open doors for them and be extremely polite, and how to treat them like the delicate little flowers they are, and about how God intends for the man to be the head of the household and for women to obey them.
In these and many cases, treating the genders differently IS mistreating women. Just like how Nobody's A Racist and Nobody's A Homophobe, these people soundly object to the notion that they're being misogynistic! After all, they're so polite to women!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I didn't say, "Treat somebody well because they are a woman." I said "Manliness is treating women well". Your goodness towards others does not change at all based on a persons sex or gender.
But part of treating a person well is understanding what their sex or gender is and adapting to that information in a positive way. Mysandry and misogyny don't mean treating the genders differently. It means disliking, hating, or mistreating one or the other or both for those qualities.
At least, that's what I believe.
Could you elaborate? What ways of treating genders differently would you suggest are good? How should we adapt to gender diffefences?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If you are going to go into a discussion about groups who are socially marginalized, and especially if you are going to go into a discussion WITH people who are socially marginalized, the existing extent of that marginalization is part of the conversation. It's part of what you have to factor in. Because marginalization in these fields greatly influences people's tendencies and the power you have to speak over other groups.
How do you know this? Or rather, how do you know it’s universally true in all contexts?
There are some cases where it’s pretty obvious that a white dude will have “the power” in the conversation. Two people trying to convince a cop which of them is at fault. But what about if you’re at a lefty political event, or a political discussion on a left-wing blog? Very commonly, both the privileged and the underprivileged person feel like the other one has more power. I think it’s entirely possible that there are situations where recognition of minorities’ weaker standing in broader society, and well-meaning attempts to compensate, give them more of a voice than privileged people have in that situation.
How do you know who has the power in those conversations? Surely not just by asking people for their anecdotal opinions and uncritically accepting the opinions of the women and minorities. I’m not saying I have the answer, but I am saying that the answer a typical activist will give is not well supported by evidence.
quote: The conversations that men often want to have with women about feminism become suspiciously less and less about advancing women out of social marginalizations and tend to go back again and again to men defensively interjecting themselves and their own concerns about themselves. It happens again and again and again and again until anyone who's working as an activist in the field, ~social justice warriooooor~ or no, gets very tired of it. Men putting most of their effort into defending themselves.
I would put it this way. I don’t consider myself an “ally,” because I think a lot of what activists are supposed to believe about identity issues does not hold up to critical scrutiny, and some of it amounts to pop-psychology pseudoscience. People put forward what are at best interesting conjectures as if they were confirmed truth. So I’m not willing to blanket sign on to every platform of that movement, even though I share its goals in every regard and do accept many of its well-confirmed substantive tenets (such as the fact that women and minorities face lots of discrimination in hiring).
Because I’m not an activist, when I have a conversation with a feminist activist my foremost goal is not to use that conversation to advance women, but rather to use it to figure out what views about the subjugation of women are supported by the evidence. So yes, I will object to anything the activist says that doesn’t meet my standards of good evidence or argumentation. Including any overly sweeping generalizations the activist may happen to make.
quote: And, lest we forget, utter lunatics who aggressively direct hatespeech towards women in literally any venue they can espouse it in, and turn it into a discussion not about women's equality, but about misandry and how to get women back into a controlled social role again like things are supposed to be, because biotruths.
I agree, except that I think feminist and anti-racist activists (and their academic counterparts in critical race and feminist theory) are far too quick to dismiss actual evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. This is not to conflate the pseudoscience cited by MRA types with actual behavioral science, mind you!
The rest of what you say, I basically agree with. Especially that the MRA is scum and that even a real, legitimate “men’s rights movement” would be one of the least important social causes, compared with the subjugation of groups which face more severe disadvantages.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I think a lot of what activists are supposed to believe about identity issues does not hold up to critical scrutiny, and some of it amounts to pop-psychology pseudoscience. People put forward what are at best interesting conjectures as if they were confirmed truth.
In case it wasn't clear what I meant, here are some examples of claims that many identity politics activists make as if they were known to be true, when they just aren't (they also aren't known to be false):
-Porn is a causal factor in the prevalence of rape -The portrayal of women in a show like Mad Men leads to more oppression of women -What people find attractive in potential mates is almost entirely socially conditioned -Gender differences in sexual behavior, like men being more polyamorous, are entirely due to social conditions
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I agree, except that I think feminist and anti-racist activists (and their academic counterparts in critical race and feminist theory) are far too quick to dismiss actual evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.
I do not disagree with this at all. It's worse than pop-psych. You have a whole group of people for whom the activism or the professional victimhood is the end and the means all in itself, a self-sustaining engine of justification in the 'productivity' of labeling or anger that moves outwards on the privilege continuum.
They are reliably incurious as to the actual full implications of neuroscience; if it suggests even the tiniest marginal undesired hint of deterministic biology for certain groups, it is soundly rejected. By now their appreciation or appropriation of scientific findings is entirely cherrypicked for if it passes a specific ideological test.
In that way they are ironically most operationally similar to wingers on the other side of the spectrum.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, when I first encountered the "red pill" rhetoric the MRA/PUA guys use, I was surprised that SJWs hadn't thought of it first. It certainly has very clear parallels on their side.
Anyway, it sounds like you and I don't really disagree about much.
I do call myself a feminist in broader society, because I think doing so has positive social consequences both for myself and others, and I meet the definition by all but the most wingnut standards.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I read a cute Facebook post about the Civil Rights Act, and how that act was not about minorities--it was written to help the majority.
The Civil Rights act said things like, Lynching was wrong. Most minorities--especially those being lynched--already knew that. It was the white majority dude with a rope who needed that explained to them.
Similarly most minorities knew that they worked hard and deserved the same opportunities and the majority, but the majority--they were the ones that needed to be told that fact.
With the civil rights act it was the voting that was the big issue. Minorities knew that they were people--and since the law said all "People" were allowed to vote, it was the ignorant majority who had to be reminded that black, brown, red or yellow were people, and were entitled to vote.
So to with "Women's" issues and "Feminists" issues. See, feminists are not about tearing the privileges away from men. They are there to remind men that those privileges belong to women as well as men. They know that woman are the equals to men in most ways--not better, not more deserving, not in need of more help--just equal. And they simply want to remind men that their rights to vote, to earn equal pay for equal work, to think and have opinions, to say no to sex, even after a drink or two, that these rights already exists. Men don't get the right to take them away.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Yeah, when I first encountered the "red pill" rhetoric the MRA/PUA guys use, I was surprised that SJWs hadn't thought of it first. It certainly has very clear parallels on their side.
Oh God, I need to send that to my sister. She and I were actually talking about this subject this morning, and I think it would either make her laugh or send her into a rage.
So, as a little background - my sisters and I grew up in a (in many ways) progressive household where our parents pretty much taught us we could be whatever we wanted when we grew up, and didn't impose any gender restrictions on us. I wasn't scolded for playing with dolls (though I didn't very much), my sisters weren't scolded for playing with trucks or climbing trees, I was never allowed to get away with violent outbursts or unaceptable behavior because "boys will be boys", etc. It wasn't perfect - we were taught homosexuality is wrong, for example - but we ended up not really having any engrained ideas as far as gender roles or male superiority. Not that we noticed and not that they explicitly ever told us they were doing it, I just realized it pretty recently and had to ask my mother to find out, yes, they did this very deliberately and spent a lot of time planning how they would go about doing it.
So anyway, my sister and I have a lot of the same views as far as race, gender, and gender roles, etc. She's currently a highly sucessful medical professional, and a mother of two. She's the primary source of income for her household - my brother-in-law owns a landscaping business and works 4 months out of the year (plus whneever it snows), but otherwise stays home with the kids. She's a strong, independent, intelligent and educated young woman, and she absolutely can't stand crap like that comic.
By which I mean, she's very quick to notice and point out vestigial remnants (major and minor) of sexism that still exist in our culture, and won't stand to have anyone treat her differently because she's a woman. But she absolutely hates the current #yesallwomen trend because she believes it promotes a sort of universal victimhood amoung women, and that in turn promotes a worldview that deprives women of moral agency and responsibility, and lessens their humanity in the eyes of society.
She argues that "no, I haven't been a victim." Her aspirations and dreams and livelihood haven't been negatively impacted by sexism or patriarchy, and where she has experienced sexism, it's been a minor obstacle at most, and not one that's given her any trouble. And there are quite a few women now who have grown up free of the shackles of sexism, for whom there is no glass celing.
Which isn't to say she doesn't recognize sexism or think it doesn't exist. She's actually written papers on it's influence on the medical community. (especially re: female doctors, male nurses, and how gender roles impact patient treatment) She just can't stand being told she's a victim when she clearly isn't, and feels that a message of empowerment is infinitely more important than one of victimhood. Which is how she raises her little girls. She doesn't tell them to be afraid of boys, or that they live in a society controlled by men, or that they don't have the same choices as boys do. She tells them they're just as strong and smart as boys, and that they live in a society they can shape and mold as they see fit, and they can achieve anything they set their mind to.
Honestly, I hope someday I'm half as good of a parent as she is.
But the frustrating part for her, is after explaining this to some people (men and women alike), she get's the response "you don't realize you're a victim of the patriarchy because you've lived in it your entire life." She responds "how, exactly, has my life been affected by the 'patriarchy' in any meaningful way?" They respond: "well, you wouldn't recognize it because you're too indoctrinated in a patriarchal mindset to understand." Which is always a dodgy argument, IMO.
And this is my frustration, too. As I stated earlier, I think a lot of these attempts at Social Justice (as far as advocacy or law goes) just augment and stratify existing sexism, or even engender it where it didn't previously exist. It's not ubiquitous or systematic, it's a mindset held by certain people, and it can be rooted out and destroyed. But accusing people (men and women alike) who legitimately aren't sexist of being part of the problem isn't going to solve it. If anything, it makes it worse.
As far as my personal life, I feel my wife and I live and work in a mostly post-sexist world. We both pay an even share of the bills (even though she makes slighlty more money), do about the same amount of cooking and cleaning. I hold doors for her, and she holds doors for me. I buy her flowers, she buys me flowers too sometimes. Or cooking utensils. Or a new grill. We don't really play out or adhere to any gender roles, and while we do sometimes experience sexism (she takes me out to dinner, the waitress hands me the bill instead of putting it in the center of the table), it's more of a nuisance than a fact of life.
And Sa'eed/Clive/Yehuda/Sinclair/whoever has shown, it still is a fact of life for quite a few young men. Which is sad and shameful. We need to simply make it clear that that sort of behavior isn't acceptable, and isn't tolerable. We need to take a stand against media and philosophy that says their behavior is acceptable or somehow natural, and that includes excusing it by saying they're just that way because it's how the "patriarchy" shaped them. They're not victims of the patriarchy, just like I'm not a victim of the patriarchy, and my sister isn't a victim either. We'll all free men and women, and we can chose how to react to our surrounding culture, and we can choose where we go from here.
My two cents, anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would say that it is possible to be a victim of something, without being victimized by it, so to speak. It's not something I've thought about very much, so I'm not committed to it yet, but in the example you offered, that of your sister, I might reply along these lines:
She came up to commendable success in a field that made it more difficult for her to do so than it otherwise had to be. You mentioned she has written papers on that, so I suspect she might even agree with that statement. But she didn't let herself be victimized by it. For whatever reason, defiance or brilliance or ambition hard work or all of that and more, it did not stop her from achieving to a level she is proud of.
It would be hard to overstate how helpful an attitude that is on damn near anything, but I'm not sure how much it actually challenges the core argument 'systemic and implicit sexism put up harriers for women in our society' might be a way to put it. The side of the barriers varies for everyone, that's just the human condition, and the capability of everyone to overcome varies as well. But is that really the same as them not actually being there?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
A woman's chances of landing a job are, on average, worse than an equally qualified man's. That's been pretty well confirmed. So yeah, there are barriers and anyone who denies that is just mistaken. The fact that many women clear the barriers does not make the existence of the barriers OK.
There is also a culture of victimhood and whining that encourages some women to complain about things like the fact that they get asked out on dates, makeup is marketed to them, pink things are marketed to their daughters, etc. And in my opinion that sort of complaining is pretty silly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I didn't say, "Treat somebody well because they are a woman." I said "Manliness is treating women well". Your goodness towards others does not change at all based on a persons sex or gender.
But part of treating a person well is understanding what their sex or gender is and adapting to that information in a positive way. Mysandry and misogyny don't mean treating the genders differently. It means disliking, hating, or mistreating one or the other or both for those qualities.
At least, that's what I believe.
Could you elaborate? What ways of treating genders differently would you suggest are good? How should we adapt to gender differences?
It would be difficult to generalize it because gender means different things in different places. It's more useful to think of gender as one piece that interacts with many others in creating the individual.
But for starters it would inform me whether or not I should address the person as Mr. or Ms. If they are a girl and they make a comment about girls/guys in general it lets me know how much experience they have in speaking on the subject. It let's me guess at many things about them with greater accuracy, I can discard lots of irrelevant statements and ideas depending on the gender they identify with.
But again, that's pretty bare bones stuff, I'd have to plug it in with myriad other information they divulge in the course of our interactions.
But it'd be pretty idiotic if I was speaking to a woman who had said, "Gah! I hate my period." and I responded with, "Yeah, periods don't sound like fun. But how are you having periods?! If you're confused it's because I have to respond to both possible gender outcomes in a bid to not treat you differently either way."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Women and men (or rather, strictly speaking, males and females) need different kinds of reproductive health care, so that's a big difference that should be recognized.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: pink things are marketed to their daughters, etc. And in my opinion that sort of complaining is pretty silly.
As a woman who was a girl interested in things like computers, building toys, math, etc., I think gendered marketing is a problem and I think that reducing that objection to "whining and complaining" about the color pink is ridiculous.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
gendered marketing is that sort of ridiculous thing that is nonetheless so ubiquitously done in society that we don't often get to see how ridiculous it really is.
a society that had done without it for ten years or so would be looking at our society kind of how we look at the gender roles of the 40's and 50's, in the 'wow, that wasn't that long ago and look at how we did things' way
Gendered marketing IS a problem, but it's a problem that exists because of market forces. In order to stop it, consumers have to resist it; it's gotten to this point because it works.
Destineer, do you think there are people who complain about it without resisting it? e.g. "I had to buy my girl these pink sparkly toys because I had no other choices available?" That would be kind of silly, but I'm not sure if that's what you are talking about.
In other words, it would be silly to act like a helpless victim of gendered marketing, but it would be inaccurate to use the word silly to describe those who notice it and want to talk about why it's problematic.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Some gendered marketing is potentially bad. Potentially, like I would need to see a study showing what bad effects it has.
I have a hard time seeing how it could possibly be harmful that pink stuff is marketed to girls. Suppose that marketing is actually effective as brainwashing. Why is it harmful to be brainwashed to like pink? Is liking pink somehow less good than liking blue?
I'm generally skeptical that gendered marketing really does any significant harm to anyone, but I don't rule out the possibility. I would just have to see some evidence to be convinced, and in the absence of evidence I think it is silly to be upset about it.
quote:As a woman who was a girl interested in things like computers, building toys, math, etc., I think gendered marketing is a problem and I think that reducing that objection to "whining and complaining" about the color pink is ridiculous.
People do complain specifically about the color pink, and that complaining is silly.
As for the broader stuff, I'm just not sure. Do you think it was bad for you that you didn't like the stuff that was marketed to you as a girl? What harm did that do?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is that a serious question, Destineer? Because it seems obvious. I'll hazard an answer which dkw can confirm or correct if she likes: "Because having things marketed to you on an arbitrary basis can encourage feelings of isolation and personal flaws if one doesn't like the things one is 'supposed' to like."
To expand on that, I would be surprised if anyone had seriously complained about the pink marketing, and that alone, that is. If they're complaining about a pink clothed Barbie doll, that's hardly the same thing, now is it?
As for the broader question of gendered marketing, well, whether or not it does harm is subjective. Whether or not it has effects? Well, I suppose it's possible billions are spent a year on targeted advertising, with constant efforts to hone the craft to be even more effective with less effort, and that all of this is done in an entirely fruitless endeavor that has no real impact one way or another.
Clearly plenty of people think it does, though, which eventually begs the question, if everyone thinks it has an impact, what's the difference if it doesn't, in and of itself?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I have a hard time seeing how it could possibly be harmful that pink stuff is marketed to girls. Suppose that marketing is actually effective as brainwashing. Why is it harmful to be brainwashed to like pink? Is liking pink somehow less good than liking blue?
the problem is that it does not even remotely stop with the color. the way we market things to kids (and the things we market to Boys and Girls respectively) tells girls and boys what is 'for' them and what is not 'for' them and woe betide the child who gets these mixed up. Boys get the monster trux and science kits, girls get the frilly sparkly barbies and ez bake ovens, ah, we've already started down the long complicated road of gender role socialization, and it is extremely powerful to the extent that actually genetically deterministic influences wane almost to the vanishing point.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would say that it is possible to be a victim of something, without being victimized by it, so to speak. It's not something I've thought about very much, so I'm not committed to it yet, but in the example you offered, that of your sister, I might reply along these lines:
She came up to commendable success in a field that made it more difficult for her to do so than it otherwise had to be. You mentioned she has written papers on that, so I suspect she might even agree with that statement. But she didn't let herself be victimized by it. For whatever reason, defiance or brilliance or ambition hard work or all of that and more, it did not stop her from achieving to a level she is proud of.
It would be hard to overstate how helpful an attitude that is on damn near anything, but I'm not sure how much it actually challenges the core argument 'systemic and implicit sexism put up harriers for women in our society' might be a way to put it. The side of the barriers varies for everyone, that's just the human condition, and the capability of everyone to overcome varies as well. But is that really the same as them not actually being there?
It's a hard point to pin down exactly, but obviously she (and most sane people) doesn't argue that sexism doesn't exist or that those barriers aren't there. She believes (I think, I know for sure I believe) that what is currently flawed with the "#yesallwomen" approach is a sort of imposed victimhood, which is a psychological phenomenon I talk about in the beginning of this thread.
Essentially, when you view yourself as a victim of circumstance, you surrender a certain amount of moral agency, because you begin placing responsibility for your actions in the hands of someone else. "Is it any wonder I react this way? Look at how I was treated as a child!" "Is it any wonder I can't get this job? It's because of sexism inherent in the system." The problem with this is it creates a chain reaction of causality, and it can eventually stratify and strengthen the sexism it was created to address. If you start seeing sexism everywhere, and blame it for everything, then you effectively are making that sexism (more) real. At some point the chain needs to be broken.
So she (and I) prefer an outlook that sees gender stratification and sexism as obstacles that need to be overcome rather than oppression that needs to be endured, or a wrong that needs to be righted. (not that it isn't wrong, I'll elaborate below)
Or to put in another way, you can spend all day telling men how they're responsible for the social inequality that continues to exist, and at the end of the day, what have you accomplished? You've put the responsibility, and therefore, the power to effect change, into the hand of men. And sexism continues.
Or you can acknowledge the barriers that are keeping you from success, take responsibility for your own success, and then achieve that success while helping shatter those barriers for those who come after you.
There's so much negativity, and so much anger and blame that's wrapped up in this subject that it's hard to talk about in a meaningful way. I'm not really interested in going on about it to much, since as a male, I don't have much of a platform to stand on and I feel anything I say might be construed as arrogant or condescending. I suppose it's more of a psychological point: I've had friends go through some pretty awful stuff and face adversity. The ones who managed to get back on their feet were the ones who spent most of their time thinking "where do I go from here?" and then acting on it. (with a healthy dose of "how can I protect myself from this in the future?") The ones who fell apart were the ones who became obsessed with "who is to blame for what was done, and how can I effect justice?"
I think there a lot of very positive feminist messages out there. (this one stood out to me) And I think there are some negative ones too. (Though I think they're intended to be positive, and simply send the wrong message)
I can say as a man, that being accused of being a sexist simply because you have a penis, and therefore society has indoctrinated you to be inherently sexist or whatnot, is something can rub you the wrong way. Worse, it sends the message "you're a sexist anyway no matter what you do, so why should you care?" Which is probably the opposite of the intended message.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
tbh I do not think that the yesallwomen campaign is ultimately that learned victimhood thing we've been talking about
it is a distinct challenge to the tiresome phenomenon of Not All Men - it's saying these problems are real, it's life for girls whether guys realize it or not (and not having to realize what life's typically like for women, or being disinterested in believing that women are actually frequently victims to such a reliable extent, is a function of ... wait for it ..... waaait for it .. privledj)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Let's say you're an educated white male, early twenties, who can't get two sentences into a discussion of pretty much, well, any social situation in certain circles without being told "check your privilege!" Let's say you're quite aware of your privilege, and also know a great deal about the sort of things that are regularly done to women and girls in this country having worked with battered women, etc, as well as having a sound understanding of the cultural and social pressures that are put on women to conform to a certain standard. Can one file for a privilege check waiver?
FWIW, I don't feel like the aim "Not All Men" is to say that those problems aren't real. Just like I doubt the aim of "yesallwomen" is to actively promote a feeling of victimization. It's just I think "yesallwomen" is inherently arrogant and presumptuous - and there are indeed a lot of women who say "wait, no, that doesn't apply to me." Worse, it makes sexism out to be (like the comic describes) an all encompassing, world wide system of oppression that all women are inevitably victims of. I would argue instead it's a belief or worldview that can be rooted out and eradicated, or even (depending on how you were raised) never be instilled in the first place. And yes, not all men - and not all women - hold sexist ideals or conform to gender norms or promote sexism in any way. There are quite a few men and women out there who simply aren't part of the culture of sexism, and to insist that they are, or to try and drag them in via some sort of universal victimhood or universal blame, is profoundly arrogant and insulting. Or to put it differently (and I stress this is a generic "you", not directed at a particular person), what makes you a better judge of how sexist I am compared to me, or the women in my life? What makes you a better judge of whether my sister is a victim than she? Why should her daughters be told they live in a patriarchal society where they'll never amount to as much as a man, or that they're inherently victims because they're female? Especially now, when we're finally at the point of changing that? Where they legitimately have a chance of growing up in a world without those barriers?
Again, I understand that's not the point. The point is to raise "awareness." I just don't think it's a healthy or productive sort of awareness. (though I can think of numerous other feminist campaigns that *are* healthy and productive and empowering, so don't take that as an anti-feminist rant)
EDIT: beyond this point, I'm going to leave my sister out of the discussion, mostly because I'm not comfortable extrapolating anything more from our conversation yesterday, and it feels like a cheap tactic to me. (since she's not actually participating in this thread) I apologize if it seems like I'm using her opinion to gain some unfair advantage.
[ June 09, 2014, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The point of "yes all women" is not that all women are beaten down and oppressed, it's that all women deal with sexism. "Deal with it" can mean laugh it off, or grit your teeth and endure it, or report it, or work extra hard to convince your boss or your subordinates that you're competent, or any number of other responses.
A shocking number of men are oblivious to the fact that the women in their lives deal with sexist crap on a regular basis, because most women don't whine and complain about it, they just quietly deal with it. The women posting their stories aren't asking someone else to solve their problems, in most cases they've already dealt with it themselves. They're just eliminating the "quietly" part.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
*dkw fangirl
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
*Joins CT*
Is this an official dkw fanclub now?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
dkw: That's an entirely different take on it than what I've experienced (re: the comic, etc.), and it's one I both appreciate and agree with, I think. I don't believe sexism is just some giant system that all women experience equally - some women can go most their lives only seeing small traces of it, other are raised in communities where they're treated mostly as property. The amount of sexism they experience is mostly impacted by how sexist the people around them are, and sometimes by how sexist they are. (like choosing to believe you're supposed to be obedient to your husband in all things, etc.)
If you describe sexism as I do - a worldview or mindset that can actually be measured by statements or actions, than I completely agree with you. But if you think it's an overarching "force" or "matrix" that all women are subjected to, or that men are inherently sexist just because of who they are, that's where I disagree. (I haven't seen you actually argue those points, and I suspect you don't believe them either, but I'm not sure)
Anyway, I'm obviously not opposed to the sharing of those stories! And my end goal is the reduction or elimination of sexism. I just mislike the idea of the imposition of a common female narrative.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Is that a serious question, Destineer? Because it seems obvious. I'll hazard an answer which dkw can confirm or correct if she likes: "Because having things marketed to you on an arbitrary basis can encourage feelings of isolation and personal flaws if one doesn't like the things one is 'supposed' to like."
But hold on. This will be true for any marketing that's done on the basis of demographics, won't it? Or even if there's no marketing. People who are different from average will feel set apart and excluded. Maybe demographically targeted marketing makes that worse, but I'm not convinced that it does.
quote:To expand on that, I would be surprised if anyone had seriously complained about the pink marketing, and that alone, that is.
Of course someone has. Do I seriously need to provide links for this?
quote:Or to put in another way, you can spend all day telling men how they're responsible for the social inequality that continues to exist, and at the end of the day, what have you accomplished? You've put the responsibility, and therefore, the power to effect change, into the hand of men. And sexism continues.
Or you can acknowledge the barriers that are keeping you from success, take responsibility for your own success, and then achieve that success while helping shatter those barriers for those who come after you.
I don't know, seems like a false dilemma to me.
quote:the problem is that it does not even remotely stop with the color. the way we market things to kids (and the things we market to Boys and Girls respectively) tells girls and boys what is 'for' them and what is not 'for' them and woe betide the child who gets these mixed up. Boys get the monster trux and science kits, girls get the frilly sparkly barbies and ez bake ovens, ah, we've already started down the long complicated road of gender role socialization, and it is extremely powerful to the extent that actually genetically deterministic influences wane almost to the vanishing point.
There is a huge chicken-and-egg question here about the gender socialization thing (does the marketing work because girls want X and boys want Y, or vice versa?). I would love to see someone actually bring the scientific method to bear on that question. But one thing I do know is, gender socialization worked great (indeed, even better than it does now) before there was such a thing as mass marketing at all.
But keep in mind, if marketing didn't differ between boys and girls, it would still be done, and (assuming the effect Rakeesh is talking about is actually widespread enough) people will feel left out because they don't like the stuff that's being marketed to them.
Anyway, even if the marketing of EZ bake ovens to girls is problematic, I maintain that the marketing of pink things to girls is probably not problematic, and many hardcore feminists do complain about it. I didn't necessarily mean my initial statement to be a criticism of all complaints about gendered marketing. I think in some domains there's a case to be made that it sets unhelpful expectations, although the case I've seen made is not strong enough to convince me at present.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Earlier this month, McKenna Pope, a 13-year-old from New Jersey, started a petition against Hasbro for making the Easy Bake Oven only in girlish colors, as I wrote in a story about gender neutral toys last week. She wanted to buy her little brother the oven for Christmas but discovered that it only came in purple and pink, which she knew would turn him off
quote:Apparently the toy has come in dozens of colors since 1963 (yellow, teal, brown) but lately the company has only been offering the pink and purple model.
The pink and purple is a very recent bunch of BS....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:There is a huge chicken-and-egg question here about the gender socialization thing (does the marketing work because girls want X and boys want Y, or vice versa?).
It's the vice versa. I can practically guarantee you. This has been quite significantly studied. The same question has been studied when people try to use deterministic biological roots to why there's so few women in mathematical and engineering fields.
Socialization >>>>>>>>> Genetics
quote:Anyway, even if the marketing of EZ bake ovens to girls is problematic, I maintain that the marketing of pink things to girls is probably not problematic
it is, in its own way. It's abstract and ultimately absurd even to begin with, cordoning off entire color groups as 'for girls' colors.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's the vice versa. I can practically guarantee you. This has been quite significantly studied. The same question has been studied when people try to use deterministic biological roots to why there's so few women in mathematical and engineering fields.
Socialization >>>>>>>>> Genetics
I'm not saying that Socialization < Genetics, although I'm interested to see links. I'm saying the socialization resulting from marketing may be dwarfed by the socialization from other sources, and indeed, a response to it rather than a significant part of the cause for gender dimorphism in interests.
quote:it is, in its own way. It's abstract and ultimately absurd even to begin with, cordoning off entire color groups as 'for girls' colors.
More absurd than cordoning off braids as 'for girls'? If it doesn't harm or disadvantage anyone, who cares?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
braids just for girls is also somewhat abstract and absurd! and even the color thing comes at a great and real harm and disadvantage, especially to children who are not presenting as the gender they are 'supposed' to be.
Which happens quite a bit. I'm watching that happen right now, actually. An adopted boy who likes pink and likes to wear dresses sometimes. Since this is something a boy is 'not supposed to do' he gets done real harm and stigmatization by adults and schoolkids alike, even as the school tries to work to minimize discrimination against his clothing choices.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, in many cases I think studies that purport to show Socialization >>>> Genetics on some question, really show that Environment >>>> Fixed Genetics. Epigenetics, which depends in many ways on the environment but is not a "social" variable, is rarely considered.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:braids just for girls is also somewhat abstract and absurd!
I don't actually think it is. We need convenient ways of telling the genders apart, not least because the vast majority of us are only or primarily attracted to one gender. Gendered differences in hairstyles and clothing choices make this very easy. Without them, life and especially dating would be much more awkward.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Without them, life and especially dating would be much more awkward.
I seriously doubt it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can't you tell the genders apart by whether or not you are attracted to them? Honestly, if you don't know them well enough to know what gender they are (and it matters to you) maybe you should hold off on dating them.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Look, given present-day standards of dress I can step into a bar and know pretty well with a single look which of the people inside are ones I might want to get involved with. If clothing norms were uniform between the sexes, that would not be as easy.
There is also just the fact that people who have things in common like to dress similarly. Nerds dress like other nerds, bros dress like other bros, etc. I don't see anything problematic about this, nor about the observation that women have something in common that they don't share in common with men. The differences in dress norms are no more problematic than other differences in dress norms across different social categories.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm around genderqueer and trans* presenting people all the time and I honestly would never expect that this would become a problem.
I mean, I know that people would have problems with it because they're legitimately afraid of the reduction of standardized gender roles and enforced presentation but it has literally never caused a problem, not even a remote one, for me
quote:There is also just the fact that people who have things in common like to dress similarly. Nerds dress like other nerds, bros dress like other bros, etc. I don't see anything problematic about this
Is it problematic if a bro decides he'd like to ditch the varsity shirt or the sleeveless t in place of some dress slacks and a plaid shirt that day, and then is brought in to the principal's office and told that it's really rather inappropriate of them to not dress like a bro is supposed to dress? That they need to dress more appropriately or they will receive further disciplinary action? The parallel does not quite work. What makes it problematic is not about choice, it's about when deviance from an artificial social expectation of dress (mainly by and for the comfort of men) becomes a socially prosecuted deviance.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:it is, in its own way. It's abstract and ultimately absurd even to begin with, cordoning off entire color groups as 'for girls' colors.
More absurd than cordoning off braids as 'for girls'? If it doesn't harm or disadvantage anyone, who cares? [/QB]
It certainly harms families who would prefer their second child of a difference gender played with their first-born's toys.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If clothing norms were uniform between the sexes, that would not be as easy.
Is that really a problem though? In other words, is the fact that people won't be able to make fast and superficial decisions about who they should hit on really a disadvantage for society or an advantage?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:braids just for girls is also somewhat abstract and absurd!
I don't actually think it is. We need convenient ways of telling the genders apart, not least because the vast majority of us are only or primarily attracted to one gender. Gendered differences in hairstyles and clothing choices make this very easy. Without them, life and especially dating would be much more awkward.
Have you ever had hair that would go past your nipples? Serious question.
One of my former co-workers (a man in his early 30s) decided he wanted to go back to having long hair from his military buzz cut. This person had no qualms about wearing a "utilikilt", so I guess he felt less constrained by gender roles than most folk. At a certain point, he started wearing his hair in low pigtails, which was kind of weird, as a 30 year old guy. But, I realized that I've used the style as an adult when my hair was just too short for a single ponytail, but too long not to put back without it seriously annoying me.
Likewise, if your hair is long enough, and you are bad about getting the ends trimmed, you will find that braids are INCREDIBLY practical. And once it reaches a certain length, absolutely essential.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is that really a problem though?
I've been trying to imagine scenarios in which my requiring more than a cursory glance to determine the gender of everyone at a bar would be an actual issue, and haven't come up with a non-hilarious one yet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I'm trying to imagine a world or at least a society where one's choice of clothing and hairstyle was more (or even much more) fundamentally a reflection of themselves versus 'themselves in the framework of their gender socialization'. It's so far out of our experience that I can't, really, but still.
Would that girl in the bar you see who attracts your attention have a scarlet Mohawk if she hadn't been raised to think it was deeply objectionable? Would the dude you see decide it was past time to see what all the fuss was about makeup? Wouldn't that be interesting? Well truly I don't know. But I think it might be.
Now as for the utility of needing to discern genders at a glance-at-a-distance...erm. Well, let me pose your question back to you: what is the harm in not being able to tell if someone is a man or a woman from across a crowded room?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Is it problematic if a bro decides he'd like to ditch the varsity shirt or the sleeveless t in place of some dress slacks and a plaid shirt that day, and then is brought in to the principal's office and told that it's really rather inappropriate of them to not dress like a bro is supposed to dress? That they need to dress more appropriately or they will receive further disciplinary action? The parallel does not quite work. What makes it problematic is not about choice, it's about when deviance from an artificial social expectation of dress (mainly by and for the comfort of men) becomes a socially prosecuted deviance.
Obviously I have a problem with social sanctions against deviance. But social sanctions are a distinct phenomenon from marketing and media portrayals. Note that there are also marketing and media portrayals reinforcing the prevailing styles of dress for bros. That works fine, because there aren't corresponding social sanctions for bros who break with the convention.
quote:Now as for the utility of needing to discern genders at a glance-at-a-distance...erm. Well, let me pose your question back to you: what is the harm in not being able to tell if someone is a man or a woman from across a crowded room?
I'll let this question stand in for similar ones from Tom and Mucus... it's just a question of minor convenience, in terms of knowing more easily who to approach or check out. Not a huge deal, but on the other hand I see no harm being done by the conventions to outweigh it.
quote:Have you ever had hair that would go past your nipples? Serious question.
Nope
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Careful, Destineer. I am starting to rethink my rethinking of my opinion that you are shallow!
Social sanctions are not at all distinct from marketing and media portrayals. Marketing and media are a big part of how we determine what is and what is quite often translates to how things should be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'll let this question stand in for similar ones from Tom and Mucus... it's just a question of minor convenience, in terms of knowing more easily who to approach or check out. Not a huge deal, but on the other hand I see no harm being done by the conventions to outweigh it.
Your objection to criticisms of gendered marketing of color choices was 'what's the harm if girls are taught to like pink?' It was pointed out that this is hardly the only thing that's ever done. It more or less is universally accompanied by other gendered marketing characteristics. Don't see any pink GI Joes for example, and I can't recall any camouflage My Little Ponies.
That seems like a shade past 'minor inconvenience', but it was not enough to make a valid criticism in your eyes. So...how then is the 'inconvenience' of not being able to tell at a glance even if you're near-sighted whether someone is male or female from a distance a valid justification?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well, it's pretty inconvenient when going to a singles party and trying to determine if there are enough ladies in the room to justify mingling or if one should bounce. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Social sanctions are not at all distinct from marketing and media portrayals. Marketing and media are a big part of how we determine what is and what is quite often translates to how things should be.
Marketing doesn't by itself serve to punish people who don't succumb to the marketing. That's what I meant when I said marketing is not the same as social sanctions. I can tell you how things should be all I want, but it becomes much more problematic if I set down bad consequences for you if you don't act the way I say you should.
quote:Your objection to criticisms of gendered marketing of color choices was 'what's the harm if girls are taught to like pink?'
That was my initial more flippant point, yes, and at that time I was literally only talking about complaints about pink. Since then I've raised a couple of other more serious objections, including the chicken and the egg objection and (in response to Sam) pointing out that demographic marketing is not so problematic if it's not accompanied by social punishment for those who don't conform. The problem isn't the marketing, or the fact that there are norms. It's the fact that the norms are commonly treated as things to be enforced, unlike the norms about how nerdy people dress.
quote:That seems like a shade past 'minor inconvenience', but it was not enough to make a valid criticism in your eyes. So...how then is the 'inconvenience' of not being able to tell at a glance even if you're near-sighted whether someone is male or female from a distance a valid justification?
I don't think it's justified, it's mostly just arbitrary. It wouldn't be bad if it were different. I'm just saying that the way it is now isn't bad either, and serves at least some minor useful functions.
Anyway, it would be well on its way to being a valid criticism if someone could actually show that the marketing plays a major role in socializing people, as opposed to being a scheme to make money off kids who have already internalized gender norms through other channels.
I think the blaming of gendered marketing for the unfortunate expectations placed on girls and women is exactly the sort of poorly supported pop psych that Sam and I were talking about earlier.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I also think there's a question of artistic expression in the neighborhood of what we're discussing.
Did Clockwork Orange have morally problematic effects when it was made? Yes it did, there were several copycat crimes. Does that make it bad that the movie exists? Does it mean that the movie shouldn't have been made or that it was bad of Kubrick to make it? No, it was a great artistic achievement. And even if it wasn't so great, it's still important for artists to be able to follow their vision without being shouted down or silenced by social pressure.
Now, not all marketing involves what I'd call art, but some certainly does. The TV shows used to market toys like My Little Pony, Transformers and GI Joe, for example, are absolutely in the domain of art and should be accorded the same basic regard as Clockwork Orange--even if they have problematic consequences. In my opinion, at least.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: and I can't recall any camouflage My Little Ponies.
Lots of pink Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think the blaming of gendered marketing for the unfortunate expectations placed on girls and women is exactly the sort of poorly supported pop psych that Sam and I were talking about earlier.
The statement and general theory observing how gendered marketing is a significant force in socially determining 'appropriate' or approved non-deviant gender determinant roles in a society is very far from pop psych. It's been studied in very interesting detail, down to figuring out what general word associations exist across items and literature marketed to girls and boys. For instance, products marketed to girls is vastly more likely to involve the message, direct or implicit, that you buy things to make yourself pretty, but vastly less likely to involve the message that it is fun do design, build, or innovate things.
Gender marketing pigeonholes our children into specific roles and behaviors. We know this. Since marketing is a very prominent and pervasive force in a capitalistic society, obviously, it becomes a prominent and pervasive force that socializes kids to know what is 'for' their gender.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My Little Ponies right now aren't quite as relevant to what I was saying. Though I should note that a single example ever (and privately created deviantart stuff hardly counts) doesn't really challenge.
As for GI Joes...well. One of them was a woman. I'm honestly not sure if this is just funning around or what.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's been studied in very interesting detail, down to figuring out what general word associations exist across items and literature marketed to girls and boys. For instance, products marketed to girls is vastly more likely to involve the message, direct or implicit, that you buy things to make yourself pretty, but vastly less likely to involve the message that it is fun do design, build, or innovate things.
I agree that those associations are there in the media, absolutely. What I think remains poorly understood is what effects the associations have on the people who consume the media.
Just noting that media portrays the home as the place for women will not by itself tell you whether this media portrayal causes women to stay in the home, or whether it's being portrayed that way because women are caused to stay in the home for other reasons. Like for example whatever reasons kept women in the home before there was mass marketing, or even before there was such a thing as contemporary capitalism.
quote:Gender marketing pigeonholes our children into specific roles and behaviors. We know this. Since marketing is a very prominent and pervasive force in a capitalistic society, obviously, it becomes a prominent and pervasive force that socializes kids to know what is 'for' their gender.
If life imitates marketing, media and toys to the extent you suggest, there should be all sorts of correlations that just don't exist. For example, kids who play with toy guns at an early age should be more violent. Turns out they aren't. (Even if they were, that wouldn't by itself show causation, but it's interesting that there's not even a correlation.)
So why should we necessarily expect that (for example) playing with baby dolls causes girls to become stereotypically motherly?
It's possible that it does, but I just don't see why we should assume it does without specific evidence of causation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Destineer, it isn't poorly understood. There are whole departments in most universities that study exactly the effects media has on people. We give advanced degrees on that very thing. Of course, individuals can have a poor understanding of such things but that isn't because the information isn't out there.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Ten seconds of googling later, from a syllabus for an NYU grad seminar in sociology:
quote:Commentators often point toward media influence when they try to explain contemporary gender inequality. Theories of media alert us that we must always consider reciprocal causal processes. While any individual may appear only to be the object of media influence, the content and impact of media depend greatly on the existing culture and social structure. The relationship of the media to the collective market effect of consumers may be compared to the relationship between elected public officials and voters. Also, consumers have considerable freedom to choose which media outlets to give their attention and people selectively interpret and judge the media to which they are exposed. All of this makes the relationship between what is portrayed in the media and what occur in the "real" world rather complex.
In sum, it is poorly understood.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I don't get "poorly understood" from that quote at all.
I read it as saying the following:
People blame the media for gender equality, but our theories make us ask if people have an effect on the media. It looks like any one person is just influenced by what the media says, but what the media says depends on the culture that makes it. Analogy: people influence the media like they influence politics by voting. They can also change the channel. They also judge what they see. Therefore it's complicated.
They are advertising for a class! That it can be taught, means someone has to understand it, or at least decide they are going to read and write papers on it.
Now, I didn't take the step of actually doing the course reading, but I disagree. But I don't think that the fact that people can choose to turn off the TV (or watch something other than Fox News) means that they are immune from hearing a message over and over, and eventually internalizing it, or judging parts of it doesn't mean that other things are subtly influencing them without their notice. That's why the Daily Show LOVES to rattle off clip after clip of Republican congressmen repeating the same line over and over in the media. Death panels! Death panels! Death panels!
I haven't read Speaker in a while, but there's a quote about questioning everything but what they truly believe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In the social sciences, "complicated" usually equates to poorly understood. Also, the inclusion of the Dahlgren reading "Mass media: Introduction and schools of thought" on that syllabus suggests that there are competing theories about media influence and no clear front runner (I can't get access to the whole article, unfortunately). That's to be expected, it's true all over the place in sociology. Social science is very hard.
ETA:
quote: They are advertising for a class! That it can be taught, means someone has to understand it, or at least decide they are going to read and write papers on it.
People read and write papers about what might have caused the big bang, but no one knows the answer. There are competing hypotheses. My sense is that that's the case as well with the actual good science surrounding marketing and its causal relationship with culture.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It really doesn't mean that. Complicated means complicated. It means that there is a lot to understand.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The company I work for must be one of the most sexist organizations in the US.
Women can wear pant suits, blouses, even T-Shirts. They can also wear dresses, skirts, capries, open toed shoes, and high heels.
The men can only wear a button down shirt/polo shirt and slacks. No open toed shoes, no skirts, hair has to be trimmed above the ears, no tattoos can be visible, and since I meet with clients I can have no facial hair.
It's an outrage. I want to grow out my hair and beard and wear a kilt to my clients to celebrate my heritage for goodness sake!
Seriously though, most marketing is done for demographics. If I sell Barbie dolls, they are going to appeal a whole lot more to little girls than little boys on a statistical level. I've no problem with them showing little boys playing with them in commercials, I just think it is smarter to market to the group that buys the majority of them.
Cell phone companies do the same things. When you see an Iphone commercial, how often do you see people in their late 70's? Nope, you see business men, hipsters, and young people. Where do you see the people in their 70's? On phone commercials marketing old, outdated flip phones with large numbers that are easier to read.
I don't think it has to do with sexism, ageism, or anything like that. Market to your demographic. The majority of women that watch daytime television are stay at home mothers. It's not sexist to market cleaning products during that time, it's smart business sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Smart business sense is not necessarily moral or good for consumers or society.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In the social sciences, "complicated" usually equates to poorly understood.
No, in the social sciences themselves, "poorly understood" equates to poorly understood.
In layman interpretations of social sciences, however, "complicated" is made to mean any one of a number of things at the discretion of an individual's pre-existing confidence in social sciences as an institution.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The company I work for must be one of the most sexist organizations in the US.
Women can wear pant suits, blouses, even T-Shirts. They can also wear dresses, skirts, capries, open toed shoes, and high heels.
The men can only wear a button down shirt/polo shirt and slacks. No open toed shoes, no skirts, hair has to be trimmed above the ears, no tattoos can be visible, and since I meet with clients I can have no facial hair.
It's an outrage. I want to grow out my hair and beard and wear a kilt to my clients to celebrate my heritage for goodness sake!
Seriously though, most marketing is done for demographics. If I sell Barbie dolls, they are going to appeal a whole lot more to little girls than little boys on a statistical level. I've no problem with them showing little boys playing with them in commercials, I just think it is smarter to market to the group that buys the majority of them.
Cell phone companies do the same things. When you see an Iphone commercial, how often do you see people in their late 70's? Nope, you see business men, hipsters, and young people. Where do you see the people in their 70's? On phone commercials marketing old, outdated flip phones with large numbers that are easier to read.
I don't think it has to do with sexism, ageism, or anything like that. Market to your demographic. The majority of women that watch daytime television are stay at home mothers. It's not sexist to market cleaning products during that time, it's smart business sense.
No one is positing that advertisers are mustache-twirling misogynists for whom pink stuff for girls is an end in and of itself. Yes, of course it's good business sense. The question is 'why?' Well, to get more bang for your advertising buck. Why is it more profitable? Might it be because from infancy most people encounter regular gender socialization?
I mean, think about it in the abstract. Is there really any reason men inherently 'should' care less about clothing than women? We all wear clothing. We all spend money on it. It's in contact with our skin. It shows status and tells the rest of the world something about you. It can be helpful (or dismissive) sexually speaking. But for some crazy reason, that's not the way things are marketed. Why is that? Is this just something that somehow happens? Well, maybe. But if that's the case, then frankly the experiment hasn't been run yet, whereas we've got an entire species constantly running a contrary experiment.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: and I can't recall any camouflage My Little Ponies.
[ June 11, 2014, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Traceria ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No one is positing that advertisers are mustache-twirling misogynists for whom pink stuff for girls is an end in and of itself. Yes, of course it's good business sense. The question is 'why?' Well, to get more bang for your advertising buck. Why is it more profitable? Might it be because from infancy most people encounter regular gender socialization?
I will posit that women are underrepresented in marketing organizations. Apple would probably not have named their big product with a name similar to something women stick in their underwear if there were more women in upper level management.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: In the social sciences, "complicated" usually equates to poorly understood. Also, the inclusion of the Dahlgren reading "Mass media: Introduction and schools of thought" on that syllabus suggests that there are competing theories about media influence and no clear front runner (I can't get access to the whole article, unfortunately). That's to be expected, it's true all over the place in sociology. Social science is very hard.
ETA:
quote: They are advertising for a class! That it can be taught, means someone has to understand it, or at least decide they are going to read and write papers on it.
People read and write papers about what might have caused the big bang, but no one knows the answer. There are competing hypotheses. My sense is that that's the case as well with the actual good science surrounding marketing and its causal relationship with culture.
It's been years since I've taken a cosmology class but 1. I do not recall any alternative hypothesis to the Big Bang that was presented. 2. The reasoning behind the Big Bang is clearly motivated from the expansion of the universe. While everything that came before the Big Bang is not well known, what had to have happened INFINITESIMAL PIECES OF A SECOND after is well understood and model-able, such as how long it took it for atoms to form 3. Science is actually quite comfortable with not knowing the answer to things, but having an explanation that at least matches everything that people can see. 4. There are competing schools of how economics works too. Dos that mean it's completely incomprehensible at the level where no one can say anything concrete about the economy?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In the social sciences, "complicated" usually equates to poorly understood.
No, in the social sciences themselves, "poorly understood" equates to poorly understood.
In layman interpretations of social sciences, however, "complicated" is made to mean any one of a number of things at the discretion of an individual's pre-existing confidence in social sciences as an institution.
This short review article, although relatively old (1997), also suggests that the evidence is mixed and in particular the arrow of cause and effect has not been well established.
quote:According to Van Evra, Repetti (1984) found no relationship between the amount of viewing time, and the amount of gender stereotyping in children. What Repetti did find, however, was that the amount of viewing was found to be negatively associated with stereotyping. Indeed, the more educational television watched, the lower the gender stereotype score tended to be. This could, however, be reflective of the parents who encourage their children to watch educational television. That is to say that in practice, their behaviours may be less gender stereotyped.
quote:Morgan's results were found to support the view that television does cultivate gender stereotypes, although he found the effects to be mainly in girls. The girls who watched greater amounts of television were found to be more likely to hold the opinion that women are less ambitious than men, and find their happiness among children. It was also reported that for girls, there existed a relationship between the amount of television watched and their subsequent educational aspirations. The ones who watched more television were the ones who, after the two year period, set their sights higher.
This is somewhat surprising given that the majority of women presented on television often tend to be seen in traditional women's occupations. It is possible that the heavy viewers, seeing the fairly limited roles of women, are more encouraged to want better for themselves. However, this is purely speculative, and more information needs to be available.
quote:This study has been criticised for failing to clarify the causal relationship between the amounts of television watched, and its effects. Childrens' television viewing has been found, in other studies, to increase with age, and McGhee and Frueh's study has also demonstrated that with age children tend to develop greater gender role beliefs.
The sources cited are all from good university presses.
As you should know from our previous discussions, I'm not dismissive of social science. I do think its conclusions have been misrepresented as univocal about these sorts of issues, when they are not. Activists who write about this stuff tend to cite one or two studies, leaving out the ones that don't fit their pet theories quite so well.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:4. There are competing schools of how economics works too. Dos that mean it's completely incomprehensible at the level where no one can say anything concrete about the economy?
I think there are many areas of economics where, because of the mixed evidence and competing theories, we don't know much about the best way to set economic policy. That said, it also seems like some of the disagreement in economics is because of unresponsiveness to evidence; the Chicago School guys don't seem interested in empirical data that falsifies some aspects of their approach.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I mean, think about it in the abstract. Is there really any reason men inherently 'should' care less about clothing than women? We all wear clothing. We all spend money on it. It's in contact with our skin. It shows status and tells the rest of the world something about you. It can be helpful (or dismissive) sexually speaking. But for some crazy reason, that's not the way things are marketed. Why is that? Is this just something that somehow happens?
Lest this be mistaken for my view, I would say no, it's not something that just happens. Almost certainly it's socially conditioned by some factors or other. I would just say that it's entirely possible that marketing plays an insignificant role in bringing about this socialization, changing how products are marketed would not fix the problem, and one would have to change other things about the culture in order to fix it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I stopped after the second time I read the word "God". Then I remembered why I don't visit Cosmology sites that are .coms. Sorry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That didn't take long. He'll probably still win his seat. The knuckleheads who elected him apparently believe raising the debt limit was Cantor's gross capitulation to Obama.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I stopped after the second time I read the word "God". Then I remembered why I don't visit Cosmology sites that are .coms. Sorry.
The article was written by Sean Carroll, a Caltech physics prof who is an atheist. That section is just about new theories of cosmological origins.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
And PreposterousUniverse.com is Carroll's highly regarded cosmology blog.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The company I work for must be one of the most sexist organizations in the US.
Women can wear pant suits, blouses, even T-Shirts. They can also wear dresses, skirts, capries, open toed shoes, and high heels.
The men can only wear a button down shirt/polo shirt and slacks. No open toed shoes, no skirts, hair has to be trimmed above the ears, no tattoos can be visible, and since I meet with clients I can have no facial hair.
It's an outrage. I want to grow out my hair and beard and wear a kilt to my clients to celebrate my heritage for goodness sake!
Seriously though, most marketing is done for demographics. If I sell Barbie dolls, they are going to appeal a whole lot more to little girls than little boys on a statistical level. I've no problem with them showing little boys playing with them in commercials, I just think it is smarter to market to the group that buys the majority of them.
Cell phone companies do the same things. When you see an Iphone commercial, how often do you see people in their late 70's? Nope, you see business men, hipsters, and young people. Where do you see the people in their 70's? On phone commercials marketing old, outdated flip phones with large numbers that are easier to read.
I don't think it has to do with sexism, ageism, or anything like that. Market to your demographic. The majority of women that watch daytime television are stay at home mothers. It's not sexist to market cleaning products during that time, it's smart business sense.
No one is positing that advertisers are mustache-twirling misogynists for whom pink stuff for girls is an end in and of itself. Yes, of course it's good business sense. The question is 'why?' Well, to get more bang for your advertising buck. Why is it more profitable? Might it be because from infancy most people encounter regular gender socialization?
I mean, think about it in the abstract. Is there really any reason men inherently 'should' care less about clothing than women? We all wear clothing. We all spend money on it. It's in contact with our skin. It shows status and tells the rest of the world something about you. It can be helpful (or dismissive) sexually speaking. But for some crazy reason, that's not the way things are marketed. Why is that? Is this just something that somehow happens? Well, maybe. But if that's the case, then frankly the experiment hasn't been run yet, whereas we've got an entire species constantly running a contrary experiment.
I'm not sure I agree with your example. In the past (I'd say) 15-20 years, men have become more and more concerned with how they look. During that time, marketing for men's clothing has also increased. 30-40 years ago, men wore Polo shirts, jeans, and suits. That was basically it.
I don't agree with the thought that "gender socialization" is some sort of way to indoctrinate or brain-wash people.
What would you suggest? Have every commercial for dresses show a man and a woman wearing a dress? Have a version of Barbie commercials that show a bunch of little boys playing with life size Barbie and wearing her dress and putting on make up?
Generally speaking boys are wired differently than girls. Blaming it on society saying that they were brainwashed into thinking that way just doesn't make sense. I know there will always be exceptions, but making blanket statements just doesn't make sense.
The whole gender socialization mindset is why I think school age boys are so over diagnosed for ADHD. There is no such thing as "boys are more hyper," or "boys will be boys!" anymore. Now we treat it as a disorder and think we have to medicate.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Men also didn't buy their own clothing 15-20 years ago. Their mothers did. Then their wives did. My mom buys all my dad's stuff. My older's sister husband wanted to know if my little sister's new job would get him a discount at J. Crew. Hence not a lot of marketing.
Guidos and the late 18th century (dandy) are two fantastic examples of straight men peacocking it up when their society lets them.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
If anything, schools were more strict, not less strict back in the day. ... teachers also could hit kids who were out of line. Not advocating that, but I don't think the requirements for good behavior in school have become more stringent.
And if you think 6 year old girls don't like to run around in circles like maniacs the very second they have nothing to do, you have never been to visit a Brownie troop.
[ June 13, 2014, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Generally speaking boys are wired differently than girls.
What do you mean, "generally speaking?" Do you think this accounts for things like the ratio of men to women in mathematics or engineering? ADDITIONAL to answering that question, what DO you think women's 'different wiring' represents itself as?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:I'm not sure I agree with your example. In the past (I'd say) 15-20 years, men have become more and more concerned with how they look. During that time, marketing for men's clothing has also increased. 30-40 years ago, men wore Polo shirts, jeans, and suits. That was basically it.
Is this anywhere even remotely close to the focus women place on clothing (are taught, marketed to, and discouraged from not)? Of course it's not. Strangely, though, clothing focus on the genders has started to move more towards equivalence...with the gradual shifting of gender roles. I'm not saying that's the only reason, but the timing is peculiar.
I'm also not saying I think this is some heinous injustice, either. I'm just remarking on something that is peculiar-we all wear clothes.
quote:I don't agree with the thought that "gender socialization" is some sort of way to indoctrinate or brain-wash people.
You can disagree all you like, but gender socialization is unquestionably a form of indoctrination. It's just that word has some negative connotations.
quote:What would you suggest? Have every commercial for dresses show a man and a woman wearing a dress? Have a version of Barbie commercials that show a bunch of little boys playing with life size Barbie and wearing her dress and putting on make up?
Because absolutely what I was discussing was an argument for an immediate and absurd shift right this moment, Geraine. C'mon.
quote:Generally speaking boys are wired differently than girls. Blaming it on society saying that they were brainwashed into thinking that way just doesn't make sense. I know there will always be exceptions, but making blanket statements just doesn't make sense.
You lose a little something from your argument when you use a blanket statement such as 'generally speaking boys are wired differently than girls' to attack a blanket statement, Geraine. Anyway, I have really no doubt that there are many behaviors and ways of thinking that are, intrinsically, more likely in one gender than another. We see that in more or less all animals (in fact I don't know of any that don't, but then that doesn't mean much), so why should humans be any different?
But it's hard to take seriously a statement casually dismissing the role socialization plays when as a society and throughout history we have spent a great deal of effort, sacrifice, time, and money in not only continuing such socialization (that supposedly is just innate, right?) but often times in quite ruthlessly suppressing those who step outside them. How long was it before women could vote, own property, have a right before the law not to be raped or sold, so on and so forth? On the other hand, to get very modern, how much longer will it be before no one sneers at a man who stays home and raises the family's children?
If we are simply wired differently, what's with all the effort into reinforcing this stuff?
quote:The whole gender socialization mindset is why I think school age boys are so over diagnosed for ADHD. There is no such thing as "boys are more hyper," or "boys will be boys!" anymore. Now we treat it as a disorder and think we have to medicate.
Is this a serious statement? Because I don't think either of us are anywhere near well informed enough at all to be talking credibly about if and why ADHD is overdiagnosed among anyone, much less a particular gender.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
not to mention that "boys will be boys" is a classic example of an awful and fully gendered excuse for behavior, and part of the continued cycle of excusing or permitting aggressive and unacceptable behavior in boys from an early age
when a parent is saying "boys will be boys" they're essentially saying "he gets to do that because he's a boy."
kids on both sides understand that lesson all too well, and that's the problem.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, even supposing that to some extent aggression or bad behavior comes naturally, that's no reason to accommodate it (indeed, no reason not to treat it like a disorder if medication will help--cancer comes naturally too).
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Most of the times I've heard "boys will be boys" my first response was too interpret it as an insult, as a child or adult.
It clearly can be applicable to what Sam is saying, and I think its a dumb thing to ever say. But I think there are examples where its communicating something less harmful.
You can read it as "Look, this isnt the first time this has ever happened with him/them--it wont be the last. It's a problem. But if I get too frustrated with it now, I'm going to want to kill myself later."
Basically a gendered version of "shit happens" I'm being a little meticulous but i think thats different.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Well, this settles it. The Feminazis lose, men win.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"don't clear that bar" = "are not suitable for sex or dating (by the relevant person's lights)."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)