First flickers of male-centric consciousness: a work in progress
Men's Rights, pro-feminism, etc. Too bad all the good terms have been taken by people who are on the wrong track. I've just gone through a personal transformation and I'd like to have something to call it. "Menimism" isn't going to cut it.
I'm not very far along. And it might peter out. But while replying to comments from Friday's post about Scott Adams's blog, with a lot of help from remarks by Amanda Marcotte, I'm starting to catch on to an idea about men's consciousness that stands in men's relationship in society rather than men's relationship with women.
I don't think I can articulate it clearly so instead I'm going to post the comments and my replies to them so you can see how they're starting to unfold.
So, taking a very deep breath, here goes.
Comment from Avalon
Figleaf. I was intrigued by your contention that anti-Feminist thought is underlain by a negative stereotype of men. I agree that there are many men that are very well behaved and have themselves under control. I also don't like the negative stereotype of men that you described. My male friends are invariably wonderful respectful men. I loved the imagery of rapists as squirrel-brained, self-licking sorts that could not keep their teeth off a steak! We laughed for at least 10 minutes. However, as a young person I was subject to repeated harassment and even assault from young men. Therefore, I am very careful, especially with regard to the young women in my care.
Figleaf...I'm sorry....I have to pick up on your example.... I know that your focus was on the male stereotype, not the religion...please don't take offense!!
Um...you must see the Sheik's comment and its report within the media within the general trend for stereotyping Muslims as violent threats to all that is civilized. For many days the only report in Australian media was that women that did not wear headscarves were like pieces of meat. The Sheik actually said that women that behaved provocatively, wore inappropriate clothing and no headscarf were tempting some men too much.
I disagree with the implied contention in his sermon that women are responsible for rape. Rape is essentially a crime of power, not sexuality, and victims can be highly unattractive in conventional terms. However, he was speaking within his own religious context, so I would not normally mix in. In any event, the situation is being dealt with by Muslim elders in their own way, lets leave it to them.
It is unfortunate that the Sheik said what he did, but how many pastors have to be worried about what they say in their own church in the context of their own religion? We say similar things to young women in our church - if you dress and behave provocatively you will get the wrong type of attention. On the other hand, we tell our young men that there is no excuse for inappropriate touching or indeed rape.
It's not just some Muslims that think that women ask to be raped. My Father overheard Christian men in the local bar say just the same thing. He never went in there again! Also, I found a mainstream American site saying that if you were looking for a woman that would agree to have sex with you, then you should observe behavior and clothing before choosing your target. These instances could be construed the same way... and the communities involved vilified similarly.
I refuse to take part in any mass hysteria that is stereotyping members of my community (either Muslims or men in general) as rapists and violent threats to society. I refuse to be manipulated by the mass media and political forces within our society. I refuse any part of the racist political agenda that is driving discrimination and violence against innocent people. Many Muslim men in Sydney where the Sheik lives have to escort their wives and mothers to the shops because of overt racism whipped up by the media. One Mosque has been burnt in my city and an unarmed round the clock guard needed to be placed on another.
....mmmmmm....
[I'll stick with Adams's point that anybody, of any culture, who believes that men are *literally incapable of controlling themselves* and that *that's* why women should walk around in full-size burlap sacks has an astonishingly, insultingly low opinion of men. That the cleric has an even lower opinion of men than (many) Westerners is immaterial in the face of the young men you encountered who felt, nor feel, any obligation to control themselves around young women. It's a characteristic of human beings to live up to whatever standard they're raised to believe is expected of them... and generally no more. Thanks, Avalon. --fl]
Comment from Cuddlesslut
Being Australian myself, this particular issue is extremely personal to me. These statements were made after it was discovered that a bunch of teenagers had attacked and abused a young girl in a park and had filmed the entire thing. The "movie" was then circulated among high schools around the country (you know how quickly these things spread) until one teenage girl was disgusted enough to report it to the police. The way these boys treated the poor girl was disgusting, beating her, lighting her hair on fire, stripping her of her clothes and tossing them into a pond/mudpit, urinating on her, and then raping her.
When those particular comments were made there was instant public outcry here and 99% of the Muslim community are asking for his resignation as they strongly disagree with his opinion, especially pending "the movie" being shoved into lives in such a harsh and violent way. They show excerpts on the news (covering her face) and there is not a human alive that I know who could possibly watch it and take the boys side in the debate...Sorry for the rambling comments - but this one is personal.
[First of all I really don't want this to be about the cleric because, in particular, there's a local sports broadcaster who doubles as a "hot talk" radio host who, despite being pure-bred lily white and not particularly religious at all (else he'd be in church instead of a broadcast booth most Sunday mornings) renders approximately the same opinion in situations like this: she should have known better than to X, Y, or Z. And implicit underlying assumption is that women shouldn't do X's, Y's, or Z's because men are hyenas. Nor, I should add, should *he* be singled out because there are plenty of other men and women from all sorts of walks of life in all sorts of places who *also* believe it. I agree that almost all men are actually pretty decent guys -- my experience with very small boys is that generally they *want* to be good. So why are we have such low expectations for them that by the time they reach the age of the boys in the video they're capable of such bestial acts? I ought to add, by the way, that Pfc. Lynndie England's behavior at Abu Ghraib demonstrates that a) it's not intrinsically *male* behavior and b) that, again, it's a matter of expectations at every scale. The conservative (which is synonymous with anti-feminist) response that, Pfc. England notwithstanding, it was just a matter of "well, boys will be boys" and "harmless fraternity pranks" is damning proof of their low opinion of men. Thanks, CS. --fl]
Comment from JeN
I couldn't stop giggling at what Adams wrote.
Since I'm studying the history of sexuality in Canada in one of my classes, this post reminds me that men were raised to be "real men" by being able to control their sexual desires. If/When they were unable to do so, they became less of a man.
As for women, it's up so us to always appear to be pure and chaste in order to become "real women" for if we aren't then we aren't able to fulfill our "true purpose in life" which is to be wives and mothers.
*eyeroll*
I do wonder how many Muslim men have beeb raped by women? Like there'd ever be any who would report it...
I can't help but shake my head at a large part of humanity.
[Yup, I read the same sort of thing in Coontz's "Marriage, a History." Until roughly the beginning of the 20th Century real men were indeed supposed to very tightly control their impulses. And yes, generally when they failed they were thought less of rather than more of. Stephenson's Victorian-era "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was entirely a morality tale of what happens when men follow their "natural" impulses. Good point. One imagines there needs to be some sort of compromise here. Thanks, JeN. --fl]
Comment from Five of Nine
It may not be Islam it self, but its assimilation of cultural traditions that portray women as the seducer and men having no responsibility in controlling their behavior. As Avalon mentioned, that idea is not peculiar to Islam, other cultures and religions have perpetuated it. Is it something about most men, where they don't want to take responsibility for there behavior? When it is religiously sanctioned, what incentive do they have.
[it's worth pointing out that until roughly the 1700s Westerners also held that men had the moral compasses and women the opportunistic seducers. And today more of the world still believes that than believes our largely Puritan-influenced, largely Eurocentric reversal. (Which, incidentally, plays hob with various equally Puritan-influenced, Eurocentric Evo/Devo theories of gender determinism.) As for who's to blame, I blame the men and women who spend so much time obsessing over the slightest blemish in women's virtue that they utterly neglect to instruct men in virtue at all. (I remember hearing an inner-city woman say the problem there was "We love our sons but we *raise* our daughters." Which, I think, is more universal than she imagined.) Thanks, Five. --fl]
Comment from Rae
I won't go into my views on the religious aspects, but I do wish to say that a similar statement was made by a university official in my state in regards to a high-profile rape case at the university--the official said "You can't throw a chicken leg out in a parking lot and not expect ants to crawl all over it."
It's called victim-blaming, and it doesn't just happen with rape. It happens with poverty, with CDV, with young pregnant mothers, with virtually everything. As a social worker-to-be and a victim advocate, it's easy for me to see the effects of person-in-environment. On a macro-level, things make sense in regards to personal interactions, and also how we're not taught to/or discouraged to see things through a critical lens.
I would have to argue, though, that it's worse to be viewed as a self-licking rapist cat or a hungry mindless worker ant, than a piece of raw uncovered meat, or a spicy southern-fried chicken wing.
Let me elaborate--as a cat or an ant, you still are seen as having agency, are an animated being, have control, self-ability--you have power/over. As a piece of meat, things are done to you. You are totally objectified--you are seen as something dead and thus acted upon with no control over fate.
I understand it's bad to be stereotyped, either way. But I would still have to say it's better to be seen as something with agency than a piece of dead non-human something with no ability to say no, to stop what's being done to you--and then get blamed for it afterwards, suffer the long-term physical and psychological trauma, while little to nothing happens to the actor, the ant, the cat.
Just my two cents.
xoxo,
-Rae-["Let me elaborate--as a cat or an ant, you still are seen as having agency, are an animated being, have control, self-ability..." vs. "As a piece of meat, things are done to you." I'd argue it's actually worse than you think because the moralists are effectively saying that women *have* agency *until* they unbutton one too many buttons, or walk to the car at night, or whatever thing the moralists blame them for *doing* that turns them into male ant or cat bait. And that *that* agency, that failure to exercise that agency *virtuously,* is what makes it women's fault. It's a genuinely hellish double-standard, yes. But they don't even give men that much credit. It's all just "Ugg, him see unbuttoned button. Him go berserk. It her fault. What she expect? Ook, ook." It's just starting to soak in for me how totally weak an indictment "blame the victim" really is. Not because women don't deserve better -- you certainly do! -- but because it so totally fucking leaves men mired in the animality of low expectations. --fl]
Comment from Avalon
I really appreciate Figleaf and everybody that comments on his views. You really stimulate my thinking and facilitate discussion within my friendship group!
OK...so.....
Firstly, I read that humans have a natural tendency to blame others when things go wrong and take credit when things go bad. That could help explain victim blaming. Secondly, last night I discussed with a friend the paradigm of men pushing and women being reticent as the traditional sexual relationship dynamic. In this context men might be seen as pushing too much. My male friend mentioned that some women also push too much. So...maybe the problem of sexual misbehavior and blaming the victim is a human condition rather than just a male thing. We may tend to vilify males because the media tends to report male misbehavior a lot more than female misbehavior (and for other reasons).
Why do people hurt others?
I think that people that hurt others generally rationalize their behavior, for example, those young men that attacked me did not seem to feel guilty and there appeared to be acceptance in society in general for their behavior (may I mention in the context of the debate about dress that I was dressed at all times as a conservative and non-attractive female). As my mate said last night - attitudes have changed! We cannot judge the past using present values. (Figleaf is right in emphasizing the influence of societal values)
Nevertheless, while I am very tolerant of differences and capable of understanding diverse others, I cannot support the exploitation and harm of vulnerable people, especially children (but also adults of any gender), whatever the value system!
What is the point of view of the victim? (thanks Rae)
For many years I was the stereotypical victim: vulnerable, passive and accepting. My chief attacker blamed me and felt totally justified in her actions. For years I wondered what I did wrong. It helped to see that it was not my problem and to frame her violence in terms of her problem. But that did not take back my power. I was still the "meat". I was still the southern fried chicken wing in the car park!
My power returned when I asked myself, not "was I to blame?", but "what could I do to protect myself?". I realized that I could (as an adult) stay away from circumstances in which I was vulnerable, learn how to defend myself verbally and physically and report misbehavior.
But back to the original debate...it was about stereotyping of males and anti-Feminism...I am really curious to learn more...
[I think I can lay it out for you (though I'm formulating as I go.) I say it's anti-Feminism's fault because anti-Feminists put *all* the emphasis on women's faults -- you could have done this, you shouldn't have done that -- and consequently they're unable to hold men responsible. Which is a *very* peculiar, but sort of internally consistent, attitude for a philosophy that claims that men are the superior gender. I mean *seriously* they're unable to see past "blame the victim" for the same reason most of us can't see past the occasional lunatic who jumps the fence into a hyaena's cage. *Of course* the hyaena's going to eat them so it's lunatic's fault... and since they genuinely believe that men have no more responsibility than a hyaena they're conceptually incapable of blaming anyone else but their victims too. Thus my contention (via Amanda Marcotte) that anti-feminists are far, far more anti-men than feminists are. (Amanda speaks about "...how profoundly anti-male anti-feminist thought is, and conversely how feminists tend to show more respect for men and their potential than non-feminists.") Feminists demand that men behave responsibly because they believe we're capable of it. Anti-feminists can't even imagine it and therefore lay all responsibility, and blame, on women instead. Eww! Thanks for asking exactly the right question, Avalon. --fl]
Comment from Five of Nine
Is it about stereotyping males, when only about ten percent of the worlds population of women have equality as we do in the western world? Even here, when it is about rape, pregnancy and defining moral attitude about sex, underlying assumptions rise to the top. She really did want it, it's her responsibility for birth control and she must be a whore, she's slept with too many men.
It's more implied in that sermon than was reported, it puts the responsibility totally on women and says that men by nature are weak when it comes to sexual desire. In places where women are required to wear burkas, raising an eyebrow can be justification for their murder. I think the sermon is dangerous not only because it diminishes the victim, but sets up the scenario for even more violent attacks to occur.
I do know that not all men are morally challenged, but I am concerned with how many that are.["...it puts the responsibility totally on women and says that men by nature are weak..." Exactly! "I do know that not all men are morally challenged, but I am concerned with how many that are." There's only one way to find out and that would be to actually try instructing men in morality. I rather expect we'd pick it up pretty quickly if it were expected of us. And more and more I'm convinced that feminists expect it more than do anti-feminists. Thanks, Five. --fl]
I've always believed that the strong "stay angry" reaction of my generation's 2nd-wave of feminism grew out of a realization that women have been groomed to be virtuous and morally superior, on the one hand, but raised also to be commodity/objects to be traded to men. And my experience with most men's groups has been that at some point they, in turn, turn their anger towards women based on some variation of a "withholding" theme. That's never seemed terribly authentic to me.
My first encounter with a sort of rump men's group was late in the summer of 1974, at a retreat for teenagers, where the young women, alive and crackling with Holly Near and "The Dialectic of Sex" and "Stay Angry" t-shirts, informed us they thought we young men needed to go get our own consciousness. And not to bother them again until we had it.
Though baffled and a little hurt, we took it very seriously. Got into groups. Dithered about for an hour or so. And sent a delegation over to the women's circle to ask whether we'd gotten it right yet. We evidently hadn't so, over the next couple of years, individually and in smaller groups, we'd trickle back, always with the same question: have we gotten it right yet?
I've understood for a very long time why the answer was always no: if we had to ask we hadn't gotten it.
The problem always was we were looking at our relationships to women and not to our relationships to society. If women were rejecting to the role society had meant them for, *we* were at best trying to reject their rejection.
What's happening to me tonight, 32 years later, is I'm finally looking at the role society has reserved for men. And I'm rejecting it because, frankly, I'm not too keen on the notion that for all that talk about male supremacy society has no higher expectations of us than they do for tongue-cleaning, bug-eating, IQ-of-a-squirrel cats. Or ants at a picnic.
Getting angry at women in general and feminists in particular, which seems to be the entire raison detre of the MRAs, is about as productive as a bull getting angry at a red cape. I think it's time I got a little more ticked at the matadors.
Anyway, I'm starting to get it. With any luck I'll be able to articulate it concisely.
15 Comments
(1) I agree that that Islamic culture has a very unflattering view of male sexuality, i.e., desire so strong that it cannot be curbed and becomes predatory.
(2) I agree that Islamic society is anti-feminist in that it denies essential rights and freedoms to women. The control of women's appearance is in reality a control of women's behavior.
However, men are viewed as predators not because Islamic culture is anti-feminist. The perception of men as sexual predators (1) and the control of women's dress/behavior (2) are attributes of a society that views the body as inherently corrupt and in constant conflict with the *higher* aspirations of the spirit. Because of these uncontrollable urges, modesty in the public sphere must be regulated by a higher authority, in this case, a religious authority.
Philosophically, Feminisim is the new kid on the block, even younger than her brother, The Enlightenment. The religious absolutism of Judaism and Islam has been around for two thousand years, and is rooted in preceding cultures. I think the fulcrum here is the *individual* -- Islamic culture perceives the individual as incapable of self-government; Western culture sees government as existing only through the consent of the individual.
In support of your argument, Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. also views the individual as inherently corrupt and weak, if it asserts that religious or government authority must determine what is moral in the public sphere. (I am sure the Founding Fathers are not amused.)
I don't know if this helps or muddies the waters, Figleaf. Very thought provoking post and discussion. Thanks.
[It's not about Islam, or Christianity. You see the same basic framework in Homer which predates both by many centuries. And it's as recent as day before yesterday when I was walking back from the video store with my children and we watched a well-heeled guy hop out of his oversized top-of-the-line Suburban-style SUV and start screaming at an older, smaller bicycle commuter about bike lanes before decking him! It's not even about an American culture of violence. Lord knows what brought him to our neighborhood but he had Canadian licence plates. And it's about me charging across the street, all my ancient bar-bouncer instincts jumbling through much more recent playground-volunteer training, roaring "Ok, Ok, stop it, both of you, we do not hit other people" and biting back telling him to "go sit on the stairs" because for all the very real danger in the situation he looked like nothing more than a pre-schooler having a tantrum. The point being that such lack of impulse control doesn't just happen, it's *allowed* to happen. In pre-schoolers (at least around here) it's considered neglect when it's allowed to happen. So what is it when those little boys make it another 30 years *still* unchecked? Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]
I think PFC England's behavior may have been as a result to conform in that military situation. You have to be ready to give up your life if you question or have objections to orders. The Army has not yet adapted to women as soldiers and in this instance, took advantage of the women prison gaurds. She was made an example of, so the Army would not really have to change its ways, that's the Army way. The overall thinking of the intelligence community feels that using women's sexuallity and menses against Muslims prisoners is OK. It bought into the belief that the prisoners could be easily morally currupted and those truly faithful to Islam would give up information rather than be corrupted. The short of it, the Army put those women out there as meat. I've gone off on another tangent.
I did try to raise my son, so that he would be responsible for his behavior. It was a constant effort to debunk myths about women, he would hear from his male peers. Culture and especially Pop Culture are powerful influences.
[Actually in a perverse way I see the Pfc. England business as further proof that women are considered equivalent to (and not better than) men by higher ups. I feel strongly that she was no more used than any of her colleagues -- in the sense that upon reflection most of her colleagues also felt they weren't being "their real selves" when they did what they did. I think one big trick with raising our children, boys or girls, is to teach them to discern right from wrong and not just how to stay out of trouble. Things like Abstenence-only, removing lockers, urine testing, and Just-say-no seems more like the latter than the former -- they're an assumption that all people will be bad if given an opportunity rather than an assumption that all people are responsible. And so we go around trying to make sure they can never have the chance to do anything rather than holding them to expectations of responsibility. (The Anti-virus/Anti-spam industry suggests how futile the former approach will ever be.) Thanks, Five. --fl]
It is interesting, and frustrating, to see how gender issues continue to bring out such extremes in thought and behaviour. As a Westerner I do see the Muslim cleric's comments as certainly way over the top for our tastes and completely blunt and offensive for most.
Nonetheless, there is a basis of truth in his statement. While the context for his statement is very brutal and insensitive, he does have a point. It's in no way a black and white issue as many would like it to be, but there is absolutely no way one could disagree and say that women's dress has no affect on male behavior whatsoever.
As distateful as his comment was, simply saying the guy is a nutcase and completely clueless is the easy way out. It's not a black and white issue. Both sexes SHARE responsibility in their interactions. To say that woman have absolutely no responsibilty whatsoever, 0%, is downright ridiculous. We all are responsible for our actions, every one of us.
To say that women are 100% responsible is also ridiculous, and I am no way implying that. But to deny that a woman wearing provocative clothing makes absolutely no difference in male behavior is living in some sort of bubble.
For the overwhelming majority of men, if a woman wears sexy clothing, nothing is going to happen other than some stares. But I'm not being anti-male when I say that in a crowd of 100 guys, one clueless idiot may try to do something more. These actions are crimes and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I'm in no way saying that the guy should go free because "he couldn't stop himself." I'm not apologizing whatsoever for his actions, the guy should be punished.
But from a purely prevention standpoint, can anyone actually argue that a woman dressed in a miniskirt with her boobs almost falling out, does not have a higher likelihood of getting unwanted attention than someone who is dressed more modestly?
This isn't rocket science folks. And no, I'm not advocating women need to dress up in burqas or burlap sacks. I'm just keeping it real here.
It's about taking responsibility for yourself. If someone argues they can do whatever they want at all times no matter what, they are not taking responsibility for themselves.
If I get dressed up in my nicest suit and go to the poorest section of the city late at night with dollar bills sticking out my pockets and get mugged, do I bear any responsibility whatsoever? If I leave my luxury car unlocked and idling with the keys in the ignition, do I bear any responsibility if the car gets stolen?
I do take responsibility and therefore don't do these things. If I did do these things I certainly can put blame on the criminals who mug me or steal my car, and would want them caught and punished by the law. But I also made some poor choices that led up to the crimes. I was partly responsible for them happening. I say it again. Partly. Partly. Partly. Partly responsible. Yes, I was. Partly responsible. Not entirely responsible, but partly.
For women to say that they have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for a sex crime if they are wearing next to nothing strikes me as almost downright delusional. Hello?! You've got to be kidding me!
Again, I'm not saying all men are slaves to their testosterone. But SOME are, so know that you are taking a chance. Men can be excited very easily. And if you like playing with fire, you can't blame the fire 100% if you get burned. You can partly blame yourself. Yes, blame yourself. It's healthy folks, and it's how you learn and grow from your mistakes.
Everyone's actions have consequences. It would be nice if we lived in a world where rape, murder, and other crimes didn't happen, but that's not the world we live in. You have to be a bit careful and street smart if you want to get by. Risky behavior can be a whole lot of fun, but it can get you hurt. That's life, and life is not fair.
Again, the majority of people are not rapists, thieves, or murderers. But they are out there. To deny that they exist, and that you don't have to take any precautions whatsoever is downright foolish. Why do you lock your doors at night?
I'm telling you what I truly feel, and know that this is a contentious issue. I hope you read all the caveats I've put in this post to try to reduce misunderstandings, and encourage you not to attack me. I am a humble man and only want what's best for people. Thanks.
[*If,* like the cleric, we're willing to buy into the idea that men are incapable of responsibility *then* everything you say makes perfect sense, Jonah. I wonder, however, what the effect might be of spending even 10th of the energy spent warning, upbraiding, and cloistering potential victims were instead spent inculcating boys and men with a fraction of the sense of responsibility we impose on girls. A key insight in 18th Century American politics was that the Jerimiads of the Puritan and Pilgrim holdouts -- long catalogs condeming exactly how things were falling apart -- had the *very* unintended consequence of *establishing* those catalogs as authoratative definitions of the new *norm!* Seen with those eyes the fulminations of the Reverend in Austraila amounts to a benediction on the criminal irresponsibility of the men in question, and an establishment of that behavior as a new status quo. In short, saying "well, what did she expect? That's what men do" becomes *the definition* of what men do! Not a good approach. Thanks. --fl]
My question then, how did any society manage to function when their only clothing was something close to a "g" string.
Clothing was an adaptation to temperature and somehow cultures have made it have some intrincially moral value.
[Bingo! The fallacy of "The Tragedy of the Commons" was that the commons had existed for so long that their loss could be construed as a tragedy. Similarly the fact that societies (including ours at various points in the past) have survived provocative attire without triggering mass assaults. (Consider how few women in low-cut gowns at formal balls wind up assaulted compared to "dowdy" librarians in parking garages.) Therefore clothing, or the degree of clothedness, isn't a cause. (And, more significantly, if it's not a cause then further covering up is not a solution!) Every minute spent blaming bare flesh is a moment spent *not* looking for whatever the real problem must be. Thanks, Five. --fl]
I don't have an answer to how society worked in the past. I'm interested in how things work now in the world that we live in. Everyone I know around the world wears clothes most of the day. There are pockets of tribal societies around the globe that wear very little, but the vast majority of the world's population now wears clothes in the workaday world, and I assume most bloggers are living in that reality.
Since I was a child I have attended nudist and naturalist camps in the summer, and nudity is not that big of a deal. You've seen one body, you've seen them all. Nonetheless, even in the open-minded nudist environment, an attractive woman entering into any social environment always becomes the center of attention for the men, much to the dismay of many of their wives.
Could it be that many of the social rules imposed on women by society were in fact originated not by men, but by women themselves to reduce competition from other females?
["Nonetheless, even in the open-minded nudist environment, an attractive woman entering into any social environment always becomes the center of attention..." Exactly. Therefore clothing or lack thereof is irrelevant to the situation. Anti-feminists might claim "well, the victim was half naked so that explains everything." But if that were an explanation why was the victim perfectly safe in a co-ed sauna the weekend before? If people are gonna bark they gotta pick the right tree. Thanks, Jonah. --fl]
Clothes are a signal of intentions, and people who make choices about clothing, men or women, are responsible to signal their intentions correctly. Thus, if a woman behaves in a way that indicates that her intention might be to seduce my husband, I get to be mad at her, and if a man behaves in a way that indicates that it might be his intention to seduce me, my husband gets to be mad at him. And we both get to take into account, in inferring that intention, any clothing choices that hypothetical man or woman may be making that deviate from the norm.
However, it's nobody's intention to get assaulted, and everyone has enough self-control not to assault (or, if not, belongs detained in some place for the criminally insane). So, yes, I'll go out on a limb and say that women wearing provocative clothing do indeed bear 0% responsibility in their assault, if they should get assaulted.
As for "unwanted attention," well, the person giving "unwanted attention" is 100% obliged to cease doing so once it's been made clear that the attention is unwanted. And we're all 100% responsible to avoid forms of attention that it's been made abundantly clear no one wants. "Unwanted attention" that's the result of miscommunication is both parties' responsibility, until the miscommunication is cleared up (but it's also a hugely different thing from rape).
The main point I was making in my original posting was that all sides in these arguments tend to jump straight into black and white, all or nothing thinking. If it's this way, the other way is absolutely not possible.
These issues are not localized to 18th century Pilgrim morality nor the rantings of a modern-day Muslim, they have been around since recorded history. And consistently, around the globe, the vast majority of societies have established rules to try and control the male and female population into acting in ways that they consider "civilized."
I'm quite sure you can pull out some examples to the contrary, but if we are looking at the overwhelming majority of industrialized societies that we are now living in, historically, our ancestors developed these rules as a way to deal with their situations in the best way they knew how. It wasn't just my grandmother and grandfather here in the U.S. but virtually every generation around the globe.
To say that such rules are completely contrary to reasonable human behavior is saying that your grandparents and their relatives, no matter where they lived, were a hell of a lot more stupid and ignorant of basic human behavior than we are, in our "enlightened" age.
I don't think we are that smart.
Again, most of these discussions hinge on things being either 100% one way, or 100% the other. Come on guys, the world is a shade of grey. Actions depend on situations.
There's a lot of "if, then" statements in these discussions that paint things into extreme positions, demonizing one side, and portraying the other as having no responsibility whatsoever. There has to be absolute good and absolute evil for these arguments to even make any sense. The good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black. It's all so simple.
The co-ed sauna or the nudist colony is a "safe space" with established rules and regulations. I cannot realistically take these rules and say, "nudism is great and feels so liberating that from now on I will apply nudism to every area of my life." If I go to a job interview and instead of a suit and tie, I go nude, what's up with that? Why can't I do that? It was no problem in the sauna, why can't I go nude everywhere, all the time, no matter what the circumstances?
It's my right to do anything I want, and if I run into problems, well then that's certainly not my fault. How come these small-minded and nude-prejudiced people cannot understand that nudism is our natural state? I mean we're born nude, so why these clothes? They're a socially constructed way of repressing me.
I'm on an international flight, why do I have to wear clothes? I'm a kindergarten teacher, what's the big deal? Why can't I walk around publicly with my erection standing proud? It was alright in the bedroom, why is it not alright on the street?
My penis is a beautiful work of art, a natural wonder. Why do I have to cover it up with a figleaf? ;-) Just because society says so?
People give me strange looks, what a bunch of assholes. Don't they understand that they are nude too, underneath all their clothes? There is so much hyprocisy and injustice in this world.
Society must be changed. I will continually go naked in all situations, and if others have a problem with that, then tough shit. No one is going to tell me what to do. Particularly not a bunch of sexually-repressed nude-hating old-farts. Get with the times folks, we're living in the 21st century.
I am nude, hear me roar!
[The decision to criminally assault another someone is a decision, not a reflex. Therefore the person who decides to commit the crime is responsible. Debating the appearance or behavior of the victim denies the assailant's responsibility for his, or her, or their decision. Any merits or demerits of nudism notwithstanding. --fl]
Um... I think you maybe didn't hear the full story. There was no "she shouldn't have x, y or z."
The only way anyone could argue that is that she shouldn't have had a disability or ridden through the park on the way home from school. This wasn't a cocktease situation - this was an unsolicited and unprovoked attack. There is NO excuse for these boys.
[Hi CS. I definitely haven't heard the full story but I'm trying to say I don't need to to get that *any* discussion of the victim *at all* distracts from the point that the young men who attacked her made a *conscious* decision based on *free will* to criminally assault another human being. What I *don't* get is why everybody is acting as if the men have no free will, are incapable of making decisions, and thus can't be held responsible for their own actions. And to demonstrate how insidiousness and universal the assumption that women really are to blame, look at the assumptions about the victim in this case: she was disabled and not provocative therefore... what.. that she deserved it even less than someone else would have? (Told you it's insidious! Nothing about the victim makes her any more or less deserving, and all discussion, even ones about "mitigating circumstances" like her disability, just distract from the crimes the men committed.) Not only was it not her fault, it was *not her fault!* It was the men's fault. And anti-feminists get so wrapped up in trying to figure out why it some how *could* have been their fault that they overlook that because, contrary to anti-feminist fantasies, those men actually do have free will and therefore it's *their fault!* Thanks, Cuddleslut. --fl]
And consistently, around the globe, the vast majority of societies have established rules to try and control the male and female population into acting in ways that they consider "civilized."
And I'm all in favor of "civilized" rules. But the civilized rule is "don't rape," not "don't dress provocatively, because you're tempting men to rape you." It really is that black and white. There are no shades of gray here. A woman really does bear 0% responsibility for a man's decision to actually, you know, rape her.
Now, there are also often civilized rules that say "don't dress provocatively," to some degree or other, in some situation or another. And most of us try to respect those rules. You don't see me at the office displaying cleavage or wearing a short, short miniskirt. But that has everything to do with wanting to be professional, and nothing to do with a serious fear that my colleagues will actually rape me. And there's lots of room for gray on the "don't dress too provocatively" rule; it isn't at all black and white, and "provocatively" varies tremendously with the situation. While the "don't rape" rule, to the extent that we are a civilized society, really does need to be black and white.
To say that such rules are completely contrary to reasonable human behavior is saying that your grandparents and their relatives, no matter where they lived, were a hell of a lot more stupid and ignorant of basic human behavior than we are, in our "enlightened" age.
No, actually my (quite conservative) grandparents had plenty to say to me how I should handle sexuality, which basically boiled down to waiting till marriage (and hurry up and marry if you've insisted on living together before marriage). And my grandmother conveyed to me plenty of rules about clothing and grooming and such, which basically boiled down to my dressing in a more femme way than I'm naturally inclined to do, but without showing too much skin. But they never once conveyed to me that the reason for me not to dress provocatively was that I could get raped if I didn't dress properly, still less that I'd bear any responsibility in said rape. So if, the rule is that I should respect the wisdom of my own personal grandparents, I should have been a lot more chaste before marriage than I was, but rape still really is that black and white.
[Thank you, Lynn. I might add that the "she was asking for it" construction is a covert way of saying "we want him to." Which, I think, is the real, unspoken mechanism whereby men with free will are led to believe it's ok to do such a thing. --fl]
Cuddleslut, thanks for the full story. I didn't realize what the crime was, thought the cleric's comment was simply one of a more general nature.
The clothes issue is then not appropriate at all for his comments, as this was a flat-out brutal attack with no provocation whatsoever. Bullies preying on the defenseless.
No doubt these kids will get the shit kicked out of them in prison, and will probably be raped from time to time themselves for as long as they stay in there. Rough justice...
I was talking more about the "cocktease" issue that Cuddleslut refers to.
Why did Lynn's grandparents recommend "not showing too much skin." Would showing more skin make her look more like a slut in their "old-fashioned" eyes? Displaying her body like it was for sale? Like a prostitute would?
What was the rationale behind their advice?
Perhaps they did not explicitly convey it to you, but in addition to making you look "cheap,"(again in their eyes, not yours)your provocative attire is giving an inviting message to anyone who you meet.
Provocative means to provoke. An action is implicitly and passively intended. Look at me, like what you see?
Let's say I get dressed up in bright-red super-tight spandex pants, so you can clearly see the huge bulge of my penis, and my perfectly shaped ass, and I walk into a gay bar. I flirt with all the cute guys, touch them playfully and provocatively, laugh at all their jokes, and make suggestive comments. I like having fun! But I'm just flirting, I'm playing, and don't really mean anything by my actions. I have a steady boyfriend at home, but I just like getting all the attention, makes me feel desirable.
Later, however, much to my dismay, this one guy, who I flirted with, wants to take me home and fuck the hell out of me, and I'm just not into it. But he's stronger than me, and one thing leads to another. He forces himself upon me, and rapes me.
Horrible horrible scene. I call the cops and the guy gets thrown in jail, the fucking bastard, piece of shit. May he rot in hell.
However, should I take some responsibility that my actions went a bit too far, and that it might not have been the best idea to be so overtly flirtatious and sexual the next time I go to the bar?
Or should I go out the following week and do the exact same thing, because I certainly had nothing to do with it? It was all his fault of course, 100%.
[Not to put too fine a point on it, but to condone prison rape as a form of social retribution blames victims and, once again, absolves assailants. I might add that it also legitimizes sexual assault *outside* of prison and leads to misleading debates about whether this victim or that "deserved" it. Just sayin' --fl]
Hey fl,
I'm in no way condoning prison rape at all, just stating the facts. I know several people who have been in the prison system, and they have told me that those who have committed sexual crimes are the first to be selected as "bitches." There's a pecking order in prison. Do I condone it? No. Does it exist. Certainly.
Hearing from my mother from an early age that all rapists should have their balls cut off, I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that someone who was raped wouldn't feel a bit happy to hear that their assaultant was getting a bit of their own medicine.
Is that noble? No. Should we encourage it. No. Does it happen? Yes.
Many believe in an eye for an eye as justice. I don't personally, but many do.
Many people jumped for joy a few years ago when the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was executed in front of a live audience.
Tasteless and offensive? Yes. Real? Yes, that too.
But these are all side details, and not at all the point of this post, nor my other ones.
I'm more interested in hearing your answer to my question of any responsibility I may have had in my visit to the gay bar.
Would I have been less likely to have gotten into trouble if I had worn corduroys rather than form-fitting red-tights that clearly showed my package, and not flirted so directly and heavily?
Not every culture embraced total cover up throughout history. It is only so now, because of encounters with the Western world. These encounters happened even into the middle of the twentieth century. Some of these societies had had civilization for quite some time, Hawaii for example. They may have lacked technology, but that is not a prerequisite for a civilzation. There were requirements in conversions by the Christian missionaries to cover up. It was also required to cover up when interacting with the western world.
You have been taught what is provocative relative to the custom of the time. Most women's modern attire would seem provacative 150 years ago.
It is not the idea of clothing, it has been what you have been taught to accept as indecent or provacative. Mix this with being taught that you should respond positively to any dress that is provacative, this is when you get a dangerous mix. That teaching assumes that you will blindly follow whatever is being taught. It is a doctrine where free will is suppressed, one has no choice. Living in a society where freedom and liberty is valued, free will is expected, there is choice. It appears its easier to follow doctrine and custom than exercise one's liberty. It takes a lot more work to exercise free will.
Why did Lynn's grandparents recommend "not showing too much skin." Would showing more skin make her look more like a slut in their "old-fashioned" eyes? Displaying her body like it was for sale? Like a prostitute would?
Sure, they wanted me to have other people's good opinion, which they figured I wouldn't if I showed a lot of skin. They also, you know, assumed that I actually had agency in deciding whether I wanted sex, that I might even welcome the advances I'd get by displaying a little skin. I'm pretty sure they always addressed their admonishments as if I actually had a sex drive, and wasn't just the subject of other people's desires. So, my reading is that they felt that I shouldn't be putting myself in positions that would lead both me and the man involved to want to move faster than we ought. In other words, they were worried about me engaging in consensual, but uncommitted, sex.
I'm more interested in hearing your answer to my question of any responsibility I may have had in my visit to the gay bar.
Actually, gay bars are a good example of how form-fitting and revealling clothing doesn't lead men to lose control and be unable to avoid raping someone. Gay bars tend to have a strong community standard of cruising; you feel free to make casual advances to anyone, but move on quickly if you're rebuffed.
Lynn,
You make a good point. Most gay pick-up joints are very user friendly. While I have a good gay friend who is very monogamous, he's told me that a good chunk of the gay community is totally pick-up oriented. You may have a "steady" boyfriend for stability, but there's absolutely no problem in getting random blow-jobs from other guys whenever you feel like it. Some of his friends have had sex with hundreds of men and they're only in their twenties.
Contrast that with my lesbian friends. They are all in extremely long-term relationships, and are connected at the hip. They share everything and act as one unit. Their sex-life though is a bit dull for my tastes. A couple times a month for some of them. A lot of intimacy, but no spark to get them going. Some go months or years without sex. They call it lesbian bed death.
These two extremes, sex first, intimacy second for gay men, and intimacy first, sex second for lesbians, is the male-female polarity in a nutshell. The tendencies of male and female behavior are exagerrated in a same-sex environment.
The Chinese say men's sexuality is like fire. Very easily started and burns bright, but just as easily is quickly extinguished.
Women's sexuality they say is like water. Hard to warm up, takes some time, but once warm, takes a while to cool off.
Sex and intimacy, fire and water, the battle of the sexes is about assuming your opposite gender is just like you, but then getting upset when they act totally different from the way you would want them to.
We don't understand each other, and that's frustrating to all of us. So there's a power play going on. Women trying to control men, men trying to control women. If you were just like this, I would be happy. Why aren't I happy? Because you just aren't "who I thought you were." You have to change into what I want you to be, and then I will be happy.
So we have women, craving lots of intimacy but ultimately being dissapointed, saying that all men just want sex and are pigs, are potential rapists and wife-abusers and start all the wars, and that only if they changed and "grew up," we would all live in some peaceful utopia devoid of problems.
And the men, craving lots of sex but ultimately being disappointed, saying that all women are nothing but materialistic prostitutes selling their bodies to the highest bidder, want to be treated as equals but then expect men to pay for everything they desire or else, and act like children by rarely taking any responsibility for anything they do. If only women were less fucked-up and depressed individuals, life would be much better and we would live in a peaceful uptopia devoid of problems.
Who's right? Both are. Who's wrong? Both are. Both sides have legitimate complaints, and whether it becomes a dance, or a battle, is up to each individual.
I myself prefer the tango, which has both the elements of dance, and the brutality of a down and dirty street fight. Intimacy and rough sex, water and fire combined. The union of opposites requires both.
Out.
Happy Halloween today, Figleaf !
Sincerely,
Anne Elizabeth
[Thank you, AE. Happy Halloween to you too. --fl]
Comments