Speaking of discussion that shakes out of the Anthony Weiner fiasco without actually involving Weiner himself of Sheryl Gay Stolberg mentions a serious double standard in our expectations of men and women's sexual "propriety." And I'm passing it along because to a certain (I think probably extensive) degree
“I have no hard evidence that women are less likely to engage in risky or somewhat stupid behavior,” Ms. Pearson said. “But women in Congress are still really in a situation where they have to prove themselves to their male colleagues and constituents. There’s sort of this extra level of seriousness.”
And voters demand it. Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist, says women politicians are punished more harshly than men for misbehavior. “When voters find out men have ethics and honesty issues, they say, ‘Well, I expected that.’" Ms. Lake said. “When they find out it’s a woman, they say, ‘I thought she was better than that.’"
Source: The New York Times
One of my big axioms about expectations is that while nobody's perfect, in the aggregate human beings are remarkably good at rising to their expectations but remarkably bad at exceeding them.
So... what do you think the consequences might be of saying "We can't expect men to control their sexual urges but we expect women to be better than that?"
Note: Celinda Lake isn't saying those are her expectations, she's reciting commonly held social expectations -- expectations that are held as dearly and enforced as rigorously by the likes of arch patriarchs like Mike Huckabee and of uber-radfems like Twisty Faster as well as fans and commentators of relative lightweights like Bret Farvre ("some guys just never grow up") and Britney Spears ("what a slut.")
Check out all the foofaraw over the recent SlutWalk protests. The whole thing was triggered by a Toronto cop setting expectations: we expect women to control themselves because men are incapable of self-control. And the reaction, again from left and right, has had a disappointing tendency to revolve around social expectations that... women must act "respectably" in order not to "make" men behave irresponsibly.
Ironically, but in a lot of ways not at all surprisingly, the only voices of dissent from that particular status quo are the subset of generally-younger feminists who aren't old-school "man-haters" at all but instead have a rather generous expectation that men are human beings and not animals, and who are mostly just over-the-moon exasperated that men don't, won't, or (even more often) are heavily pressured not to meet their expectations.
Those are the feminists, for instance, who got the original intention of the SlutWalk organizers, or like Halifax crisis center co-ordinator Jackie Stevens who, according to reporter Hilary Beaumont (emphasis mine) says
Rather than automatically thinking that way, she says society needs to see that an attacker has chosen to take advantage of someone who is vulnerable.
When Stevens reads articles about drunk driving, the police are quoted telling people to stop drinking and driving. But when she reads articles about sexual assault, there is no warning telling would-be attackers not to rape. Instead, the authorities tell potential victims to take precautions.
...
“Rather than always putting out the messages of ‘don’t walk alone’ or ‘don’t drink’ or ‘don’t talk to strangers’—all of those things—we need to say ‘don’t sexually assault,’” Stevens declares.
...
As a result of these misplaced messages, we say, "She shouldn’t have been walking home alone late at night," or, "She shouldn’t have worn a short skirt," rather than, "He shouldn’t have raped her."
Source: The Nova Scotia Dominion
Not that expectations are all about rape, even though questions about expectation and rape abound. It also boils down to crap as petty as expecting adult men to figure out how to tie their own ties instead of needing their partners to do it for them. (Hint: My dad taught me how to tie a tie on Sunday mornings before when I was about eight. And then expected me to do it from then on. An expectation I've somehow always managed to rise to even during my hippie and every-day-is-casual-Friday tech days when I could go years at a time without needing to wear one. But I digress....)
Anyway, that's the big realization that caused me to drop my lackluster search for a non-misogynist, non-sensitive-new-age-guy men's movement and switch to unapologetic feminism: that feminists had higher expectations for men than not only society at large but of considerable numbers of nominal "men's rights" activists. (Because with a few notable exceptions most of the "rights" MRAs are activist for read a lot more like excuses. I'm pretty sure this is one of the big reasons they get so little traction from feminists and non-feminists a like.)
Does that mean I agree with everything feminism has to say about men? Why no as a matter of fact I don't. And does it mean I think men should just go along with whatever feminism says would be good for us? Bwahahahahah! No, because that would be just more of the same letting women do the heavy lifting expectation-wise wouldn't it? Which in my very sincere opinion would be falling once again into the most insidiously anti-feminist trap possible. It's ok to listen to feminists as human beings contributed to what might be a consensus on expectations, but because they are human beings there's no reason to believe they've got any essential insight. In fact almost the opposite! There needs to be a consensus on equal expectations precisely because society demands as much too much of women as it expects too little of men. That's something we can only all work out together.
Anyway, I seriously appreciate those feminists who've got enough respect for men (and, I'd add, enough realism about women) to recognize that one of the most critical equalities is not simply equality of opportunity ("classic-liberal" feminists) or separate-but equalities (essentialist feminists) or even equality of power (original-radical feminists) but equality of expectations. Because, seriously, the sentiment captured and related, but one hopes not shared, by Celinda Lake does no favors either for men or for women. Period. At all.
Tags:




RAPE-RAPE-RAPE-RAPE-RAPIDY-RA
Submitted by Sigil (not verified) on Mon, 2011-06-13 09:12.RAPE-RAPE-RAPE-RAPE-RAPIDY-RAPE goes the relentless drum beat.
One way to do that is to keep publishing the reliable information that destroys the morally superiour/eternal victim female myths until all the myths about male lead domestic violece, child abuse and rape are dispelled.
I dunno, Sigil. Seems to me
Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2011-06-14 07:09.I dunno, Sigil. Seems to me that the idea that men can't control themselves and so rape is always women's fault predates feminism by a *very* long time.
And not to sound tetchy or anything but why do you keep dump trucking on posts that suggest that neither men nor women are morally superior and that men and women should be held to equal expectations rather than exceptionally high or low ones?
Because you seem mostly mad because you (correctly!) believe women are just as capable and as likely to commit sexual or domestic violence as men, and that when they do it's way more likely to go unreported. Fine! In fact excellent! Except we all know that women commit quite a bit of sexual assault and domestic violence, right? Which necessarily implies that men are doing just as much as women, which means they're actually still doing quite a lot.
The problem being that the very gender expectations you're hassling me for criticizing -- that "we expect better of women" and "what do you expect, he's a man" -- are straight-up responsible for the imbalance in reporting and responding.
So... what's your objection to changing the cultural messages, the ones, again, that predate feminism by decades if not centuries, that women are angels and men are animals?
Because right now all I'm hearing you say is that women are as much animals as men. Which sort of necessarily implies that men are animals. Meanwhile I am *not* proposing that women are angels and men should be seen as angels too. Because that's also swallowing the idea that women are angels. And the whole point of my post is that both MRAs and feminists ought to be able to agree that imbalance of expectation sucks.
fl
""Seems to me that the idea
Submitted by Sigil (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-14 08:15.""Seems to me that the idea that men can't control themselves and so rape is always women's fault predates feminism by a *very* long time.""
Perhaps that is true. But the evidence on the ground thats there today is that feminism deliberatly conflates "rapists" with "men" and produces fraudulant research and memes to back it up, just like they did with domesic violence.
When feminism takes out a screen and hides female abusers and their victims behind it while conflating male abusers with men in general, and feminists work very had to suppress mens rights groups that are speaking the truth, It fairly safe to say that feminism is deliberatly maintaining these stereptypes, for political gain.
Its not just that abuse by women going unreported that makes us angry, its feminisms protection of female abusers and oppression of their victims playing the rape card against all men and political opponents. Then feminists like yourself come along and say that we are wrong for objecting to feminism doing this, and dening all feminist involvement in the abuse culture that it deliberatly maintaines for poltical gain.
Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence
V74
Murray A. Straus
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Met...
THE POLITICS OF RESEARCH: THE USE, ABUSE, AND MISUSE
OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DATA—THE CASES OF INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE
Richard J. Gelles
http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/july07/Politics%20of%20research.pdf
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Met...
Aaaahhh, figleaf...bulding
Submitted by Troll King (not verified) on Mon, 2011-06-13 11:19.Aaaahhh, figleaf...bulding more strawman mras to knock down huh?
Let's look at this:
Not that expectations are all about rape, even though questions about expectation and rape abound. It also boils down to crap as petty as expecting adult men to figure out how to tie their own ties instead of needing their partners to do it for them. (Hint: My dad taught me how to tie a tie on Sunday mornings before when I was about eight. And then expected me to do it from then on. An expectation I've somehow always managed to rise to even during my hippie and every-day-is-casual-Friday tech days when I could go years at a time without needing to wear one. But I digress....)
So, your daddy taught you how to tie a tie huh? What about us boys who never met our fathers or who didn't have fathers, cause don't you know?.....the Single Mother by Choice is so fashionable these days....
What about them? Who is going to give them guidance on how to be a man? Who?
Anyway, that's the big realization that caused me to drop my lackluster search for a non-misogynist, non-sensitive-new-age-guy men's movement and switch to unapologetic feminism: that feminists had higher expectations for men than not only society at large but of considerable numbers of nominal "men's rights" activists. (Because with a few notable exceptions most of the "rights" MRAs are activist for read a lot more like excuses. I'm pretty sure this is one of the big reasons they get so little traction from feminists and non-feminists a like.)
This irks me. MRAs understand that men already have huge burdens and expectations placed on men. Now feminsits want to add to those burdens and set the standards of manhood even higher?? I think I would call that shit testing + hypergamy. They just want to weed out the weak men so they can tell the real alpha apart from the betas.
As a man I won't let women or men define my role as a man or what my expectations are or should be. I am not even sure if I would allow a woman to hook her wagon to my car even if she met MY expectations. I sure as fuck won't let a feminist define what my role is or isn't, what my identity is or isn't on a individual or cultural basis. Who are they to set any expectations for me or men?
As far as the part about women being held to a higher standard, duh...this is because women are seen as moral agents while men are seen as morally degenerate. It wasn't that long ago in society when men were thought to be moral agents and women the corruptors...we have done a 180. Thank feminism. They are the ones who claim the moral ground and then get offended when MRAs like me point out how they are being morally bankrupt by doing something as simple as objectifying male bodies, for ex.
"MRAs understand that men
Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2011-06-14 09:14."MRAs understand that men already have huge burdens and expectations placed on men. Now feminsits want to add to those burdens and set the standards of manhood even higher??"
Oh great, so you're saying you agree with notorious "feminists" like Mike Huckabee or Phyllis Schlaffley or Pat Robertson (not to mention the entire Iranian Islamic Council) that men can't be expected not to attack women when they see more than an ankle on a public street and so women who don't wear full body armor only have themselves to blame? Fuck that and fuck them! Men aren't animals and I think it's crap that so many men defend that expectation.
And not to sound prickly here but it's been a common trope in pop media that men need their wives or moms to help tie their ties since at least the 1950s. And in the 1950s, you'll recall, or at least I do, families with children were about 85-90% male-head-of-household. So no way, no how can you blame single mother by choice families for that one. Instead you can blame an incredible, generations-old culture of learned helplessness for men around issues of domesticity and personal grooming. If there were really so few men in your life growing up that there wasn't even anyone around who could teach you how to tie a necktie I'm really sorry. But that doesn't excuse all the *male heads of households* I knew growing up who asked their wives to do it because "I can never get this right."
"I sure as fuck won't let a feminist define what my role is or isn't, what my identity is or isn't on a individual or cultural basis."
Read my post next time. I know they're long, and I use run-on sentences, but if you had read my post instead of just jumping in with the same old Speak and Spell you'd have noticed that I said
"does it mean I think men should just go along with whatever feminism says would be good for us? Bwahahahahah! No, because that would be just more of the same letting women do the heavy lifting expectation-wise wouldn't it? Which in my very sincere opinion would be falling once again into the most insidiously anti-feminist trap possible."
Which I'm... pretty sure is saying exactly the same thing you did. Only without all the whining and antagonism and therefore way more chance of getting some cooperation.
figleaf
"When they find out it’s a
Submitted by Gumble (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-14 01:43."When they find out it’s a woman, they say, ‘I thought she was better than that."
Well feminists do keep telling the public that woman are morally superior, so is it any surprise that the public expect a higher degree of morality from female public figures?
But those nasty misogynistic, wife beating, sex obsessed, incompetent fools we call men... Hell, we're lucky they don't all rape a bus full of catholic schoolgirls on their way work every morning.
Bingo. They have so
Submitted by Sigil (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-14 03:27.Bingo.
They have so much blind faith in their belief system and the moral superiourity of women that they cannot tell when they are the ones that are creating and perpetuating the steroetyoes and double standards.
"Well feminists do keep
Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2011-06-14 09:39."Well feminists do keep telling the public that woman are morally superior..."
Um, no. You know that whole "pedestal" thing feminists object to women being put up on? That's where "women are morally superior" comes from. It's exactly *not* feminist.
I mean, yeah, back in the 1800s early feminists would talk that way, but it was mostly because they were using the leverage society had already written large for them. By the 1920s they were getting tired of it, and by the 1960s they were starting to realize where the idea of women's moral superiority originated (not in feminism) and by the 1980s they were pretty much done with it.
And remember, it's not just feminists who say men are misogynistic, wife, beating, sex-obsessed, incompetent fools. In fact there aren't enough of them to do the job that's been done on men and they sure as heck haven't been around long enough either.
And meanwhile just like we're choking under all these fucking stereotypes about what animals men are women are choking under stereotypes that they're all fucking angels. And MRAs can sit there wrestling feminists in the gutter all day long and the people who are the real problem will just step over us and keep on spreading the bullshit.
I mean, see, that's the whole fucking problem isn't it? Because for all the talk about "man hating feminists" there's nobody on planet earth who hates and fears men more than traditional anti-feminist men and women. And the more you concentrate on feminism the more the traditionalists who are oppressing both men and women win.
figleaf
Figleaf We view feminists
Submitted by Sigil (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-14 13:44.Figleaf
We view feminists as modern traditionalists, chivilary for more modern times. For example, going by your post here your primary concern is for how these social expectations effect women. In your gynocentric post, you put women on a pedestal.
The morally superiour female and the eternal famale victim are one and the same thing.
"We view feminists as modern
Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2011-06-14 15:46."We view feminists as modern traditionalists, chivilary for more modern times." That's a... pretty limited view of feminists. Are we even talking about the same thing? And my *primary* concern in this post is how social expectations affect everybody.
"...going by your post here your primary concern is for how these social expectations effect women."
No, my primary concern is how social expectations affect men. I've blogged about artificially low expectations on men for years. It's a very big deal for me *independent of feminism.* I did mention social expectations on women in this specific post but that's because I was introducing the idea that the same set of traditional lies that says men are or ought to behave like animals also lyingly say women are or ought to behave like angels. Not sure how you turn that into putting women on pedestals when the whole point is to get everybody on the sidewalk instead of dumping men into the gutter and imprisoning women on pedestals.
fl
"Um, no. You know that whole
Submitted by Gumble (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-14 22:04."Um, no. You know that whole "pedestal" thing feminists object to women being put up on? That's where "women are morally superior" comes from. It's exactly *not* feminist."
Exhibit A
Why Men Aren't Suited for Public Office.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-men-arent-suited-for-public-office-20...
How many feminists have said things like "There'd be no wars if women were in charge"?
Social conservatives may have come up with the idea of the virtuous noble women who need protection from the dangerous brutal men, but femnists have proven more that willing to perpetuate the myth when it suits their purposes.
The entire domestic violence industry, and half the funding for feminist organisations depend on maintaining it. Try telling a feminist that the majority of domestic abuse is perpetrated by females and watch the sparks come out of their ears.
The central belief of feminism is that women are noble victims, and men are evil oppressors.
Bingo, Figleaf. You, as a
Submitted by Jessica (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-14 13:30.Bingo, Figleaf.
You, as a feminist, and every other feminist who supports your blog are exactly the ones who, in this instance, are holding the position that women are NOT superior (i.e. that they are subject to the unfair expectation that their perfect behavior can (and should) make men act decently), and that men are NOT inferior (i.e. incapable of acting like decent human beings - the only expectation that we want to "add".)
MRA's if you hold that position as well, then you are agreeing with us.
But feminists that are
Submitted by Sigil (not verified) on Mon, 2011-06-20 21:04.But feminists that are prepared to support genuine equality are the minority and they certainly arent governence feminism, legal dominance feminism or feminst jurisprudence or NOW.
So what good can ernest feminists do, if they wont help destroy supremasist feminism?