In comments to my post about the relationship between low self-esteem and privilege/entitlement TLT said
I thought it was me that makes the girl this way.
I came to find out she’s like that every day.
I thought it was me that made that girl so wild.
I found she’s like that with all the guys.Those lyrics are from a song called “I thought it was me” by an early 90s hip-hop/R&B group called Bel Biv Devoe. Back when it was on the radio every five minutes in the town I lived in, I didn’t think anything about it. (I didn’t even really know what they were talking about.) But I heard it the other day and thought it would make a fantastic opening quote for a book about worthiness and expectations.
If sex is meaningful to you, you’re probably best off only having sex with partners you know well enough to know whether sex is meaningful to them too. It might reduce the number of people you’ll get to have sex with, but that’s vastly preferable to the humiliation of being blown off or finding out that you’re just someone’s person of the week.
I still think this is a hugely big deal. You’ll often hear men, MRAs particularly, complaining about the consequences of male “expendability” or perhaps interchangability, including the bitter lament that they’re appreciated only for their ability to provide, to compete, or otherwise do as opposed to be. And most feminists, correctly I think, point out that it’s an artifact of men’s dominant paradigm, and therefore something for men to address. And that since women meanwhile are struggling with the roles that same generally-male paradigm prepares for them, it’s not really feminism’s business to tackle the fact that men screw themselves and each other. And indeed men really can and really should address it. (And doing so would even make feminist’s lives a lot easier.)
But before you can start working on solutions you really have to get clear about the problems. And this self-esteem/privilege/worthiness-trap business really isn’t even well enough recognized, let enough well enough acknowledged, let alone well enough understood to make headway against.
Men might create much of the mindset wherein they mostly aren’t special. But that doesn’t change the fact that they too-often feel that way. Or that they (very mistakenly!) think that women’s role is to affirm their specialness or even to bestow it on them the way a medieval damsel would bestow a kerchief to a knight before a tournament.
But really, that’s not what sex, or even love, is all about. Expecting the fact of a sex partner to validate us, or believing that only the fact of being loved exclusively affirms our worthiness just overloads what’s great about love, sex, companionship, and intimacy and makes it difficult to appreciate it for what it is. Or to appreciate the people we share it with for who they are instead of for what they do.




Awww, my little comment grew
Submitted by tlt (not verified) on Tue, 2010-10-12 22:28.Awww, my little comment grew up to be part of a post.
I was thinking about this again yesterday and I realized that, as you said, the existence of the problem is scarcely recognized or acknowledged. The world still teaches men how to be leavers and women how to be left. It's no wonder people freak out when someone doesn't play their assigned role.
Girls are taught, from (or even before) the second they display any interest in boys, to guard their self esteem from the beating that it takes when you realize that you aren't important to someone that you want to be important to. Mothers, older siblings, aunts and even complete strangers warn us to carefully evaluate what a boy or man's "intentions" are and how sincere his interest in us might be.
I don't think anyone has those kinds of conversations with boys. It's just assumed that their feelings can't get hurt, that they really are "only after one thing" and that, to them, girls are more or less interchangeable. At best, they're encouraged to gracefully extricate themselves when someone gets too "clingy" or "needy." Perhaps being tossed aside is a much bigger, more painful surprise for men than it is for women because they weren't taught that it could happen. It would be like the newspaper jumping out of your hands and biting you while you were trying to read it. Not only would you be injured and angry, you'd be totally disoriented because that Just Doesn't Happen. Add to that the fact that men aren't encouraged to really talk about this sort of thing with their friends, so they might think it's never happened to anyone else they know.
So maybe people fall back on "slut" to describe a woman who behaves the same way as a man who would be labeled a cad/womanizer/Don Juan/dog/jerk/player/Cassanova/rake, etc. because we don't bother coming up with a menu of colorful names for something that was assumed not to exist.
I don't think anyone has
Submitted by Danny (not verified) on Thu, 2010-10-14 23:01.I don't think anyone has those kinds of conversations with boys. It's just assumed that their feelings can't get hurt, that they really are "only after one thing" and that, to them, girls are more or less interchangeable.
I think its a bit more specificc that just an assumption. At least in my experience boys are not just left to assume that their feelings can't get hurt but are actively taught that admitting one's feelings are hurt is a sign of weakness therefore we must act like our feelings can't get hurt in order to be a "Real Man". And by the "only after one thing" I assume you're talking about sex right? Again I think that's something boys have drilled into their heads as part of being a "Real Man".
At best, they're encouraged to gracefully extricate themselves when someone gets too "clingy" or "needy." Perhaps being tossed aside is a much bigger, more painful surprise for men than it is for women because they weren't taught that it could happen.
That and I think again part of it is we're taught to act like its not painful.
It would be like the newspaper jumping out of your hands and biting you while you were trying to read it. Not only would you be injured and angry, you'd be totally disoriented because that Just Doesn't Happen. Add to that the fact that men aren't encouraged to really talk about this sort of thing with their friends, so they might think it's never happened to anyone else they know.
I would also add in that when said newspaper jumps out of your hands and bites you not only is it possible men are shocked because that Just Doesn't Happen but I its also possible that they feel the pain and anger but, again in order to prove they are a Real Man, are falling back on their upbringing to refuse to acknowledge it. The mentality of "to acknowledge pain is to be weak" is one of the most damaging things (along with chivalry) that interferes with the emotional (and sometimes physical) health of men and boys.
Hi Danny, It sounds like
Submitted by figleaf on Thu, 2010-10-14 23:35.Hi Danny,
It sounds like you really get it — not surprising since, as a man, you’re almost bound to have experienced it directly! It’s really great to hear you chiming in and amplifying TLT’s comment.
Thanks!
fl