Holly of The Pervocracy digs in hard not just to Cosmopolitan for propagating destructive myths but the actual myths:
...There’s an article on home security for women living alone that basically comes off as “you fool, a woman can’t live alone, she’d be a babe in the woods!” (Naturally, it doesn’t even mention guns. This is a magazine for women, sillypants!)
Plant something thorny, like a small cactus or rosebush, in front of your windows to keep Peeping Toms or potential thieves at a distance.
I’m pretty sure thieves don’t care if they have to destroy a little bit of landscaping, and as for peepers, maybe you should just close your curtains when you take your clothes off.
20 percent of all violent crimes occur in the victim’s home—more than in any other venue. The greatest number of rapes and sexual assaults (33 percent)... happen in the victim’s home as well.
That’s because you’re massively more likely to be assaulted or raped by someone you know. These statistics don’t represent home invasions, they represent truly shitty boyfriends, and there’s nothing you’re going to plant in front of the windows to get rid of those.
It’s a killer point that shows up in Yes Means Yes as well: women are taught over and over (there are whole cable networks just for that <cough>Lifetime<cough>) that scary happens out in the world. Jessica Valenti doh! Jill Filipovic puts it bluntly, and accurately:
Women are more likely to be victimized in their home or in the home of someone they know, whereas men are more likely to be victimized in public. ... And yet it is women who are treated to “suggestions” about how to protect themselves from public stranger assaults.
Source: Yes Means Yes, pg. 23.
And not to put too fine a point on it, cactus bushes? Rose bushes? Seriously? And when they recommend getting a dog they suggest precisely the cutsie but useless little lapdogs they say guys hate (and would admit if they “had the guts” and ever “told the truth.” Undercut much, Cosmo?) Seriously? I know, and how about putting an ottoman somewhere in the living room for burglars to trip over Dick Van Dyke style!!! Yeah, that’ll work! Then you’ll be safe!
Oh, and do complete the circle of gender obliviousness, let’s not forget the countless “home security service” ads pitched, hard, on men’s programming about how your hot-looking but down-home wife is by herself in your big house with all the glass windows and no curtains and she’s lovingly wiping invisible crumbs off the some-kind-of-expensive-substance counter and there’s a man behind her, and because she’s cleaning the kitchen with no lights on it’s too dark for her to notice, and he’s got ropes, or an ax, and he’s really big and the music’s getting all dumm-dumm-doom-y… and… oh if only you hadlocked her inside a secure perimeter before you went… wherever it was in that big SUV and/or first-class plane seat and you keep dialing and dialing to warn her about the big guy who’s right behind her right now only she’s deaf and… and…
And meanwhile on average women are safer when there aren’t men there to protect them. Because as I’m pretty sure Holly can confirm as an ambulance-company employee, the number of 911 calls about home-invasion injuries is dwarfed by the number of plain old-fashioned domestic violence calls.
The point here isn’t that men are violent brutes, by the way. In fact almost none of us are and (not to sound too much like the constable in Pirates of Penzance) most of the time those who are violent brutes aren’t being violent (gimmie one more second here before you press ‘fail,’ I’ve got a point here.)
The point here is that the gender modeling we have for women and men isn’t just about watching threats that are fairly low-probablility. It’s that we’re narrating gender plot lines that leave us unprepared for much more real, much more high-probability problems: domestic violence, domestic sexual assault, acquaintance rape, and date rape.
The point is we’re not narrating scripts for detecting, assessing, communicating (“if he had the guts to tell the truth” indeed!), mitigating or resolving issues while they’re still precursors to conflict and not triggers for committing or failing to confront violence and sexual assault where it happens — in generally familiar locations with perpetrators and victims who are generally very familiar with each other.
And that’s seriously bad. A moment ago I asked for patience after making the possibly wild assertion that even violent men aren’t violent most of the time. If this was a “whut about teh menz” post one could jump into a little victim-blaming and talk about avoiding triggering and all the crap I’m… pretty sure would be the closest Cosmo would come to addressing domestic violence issues.
I’d like to propose instead that rather than coaching each other and ourselves to go tiptoeing around trying not to trigger violent outbursts we consider that a lot of our gender narratives are so wound up with stranger-danger distractions and interpersonal relationship obliviousness denial that when men, and women, run out of script we don’t always improvise, um, competently. Or safely. So I’d like to figure out how to model responding to freaky, high-cortisol-level situations a little less often in favor of preparing people for the situations they’re more likely to wind up in… and in trouble in.
Making up not just fear-mongering stories as Cosmo, home security and, say, firearm vendors do but making up highly gender-enforcing stories about insecure women helplessly “protecting” themselves with cute prickly window boxes, and about insecure men wish-fullfilling violent preemptive-revenge and “protector” fantasies on their way home from work doesn’t just get in the way of solutions, they’re part of our problem.
Hugo Schwyzer made an incredibly valuable point about modern hedonism in a post yesterday. Responding to an assertion by “crunchy conservative” Rod Dreher that churches need to “preach more commandments and fewer affirmations.” (Emphasis his.)
Rod makes a mistake, however, when he writes that our problem is that “we love ourselves and our pleasures entirely too much.” It sounds good, but he misses some key points. First off, a great many people who spend a great deal of time pursuing material things do so not because they love themselves too much, but because they don’t love themselves enough. Much of the reckless consumption that characterizes the modern middle-class lifestyle is rooted in a profound anxiety and unease rather than in genuine self-satisfaction. We consume and consume in order to distract ourselves from ourselves, eating when we’re not really hungry and buying what we don’t really need. Folks in that situation don’t need happy little affirmations that everything is fine, but neither do they need stern admonitions about their own sinfulness; heck, deep down they already suspect they’re plenty sinful enough.
...
God isn’t impressed by the truffle you didn’t eat or the orgasm you didn’t have. ... [S]elf-denial is about quieting down our habits of mindless consumption so that we can listen to the real needs of our bodies and our souls. What deep hunger are we masking by overeating? For what sense of inadequacy are we compensating when we consume compulsively? If stopping a familiar coping strategy helps us confront the real source of our pain, then we’re doing the right kind of therapy  uncovering our garbage, naming our problems, so that we can discard them once and for all in the name of love.
The great mistake we make  and I do believe that the right makes this far more often than the left  is that pleasure is the enemy. Pleasure is sinful only when it does one or both of two things: when it comes at the expense of another creature’s happiness or when it serves to hide our own hurts and fears from ourselves.
I think that’s about right. The other day I was talking one of the “other discoveries” parts of the eponymous book The G Spot: And Other Discoveries about Human Sexuality where Whipple, Perry, and Ladas mention how “the search for the best drives out the good.” That notion seems especially appropriate in the context of excess and/or self-denial as paths to deeper meaning.
Whereas a (non-asexual) man striving mightily to abstain sexuality until his wedding night, as much as a woman striving passionately for g-spot orgasm may discover spiritual meaning along the way, there’s also the possibility first that intensity of their obsession might outweigh the potential virtue achieved… as well as of discovering the attainment may not have been worth the loss of that which was foregone to do so.
Consider further what Lis says in comments to Hugo’s post
This post is part of what prompted me to sit down today and realize that my Lenten fasting was doing the opposite of my intention. Over the past two weeks, I became obsessed with finding loopholes, got self-centred around my inner battle, and lost focus on the really important things. The past couple of days, it’s felt like my entire life revolved around Not Indulging In Forbidden Things. I needed a reminder that Lent is about spiritual practices, not material observances.
Yup. A point overlooked at least as often among faithful conservatives as among godless hedonists.
Oh, and see also Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon raises nother issue with sacrifice as an end in itself.
The louder they wail and moan about how people aren’t sufficiently self-sacrificing to bullshit ideals that serve no purpose, the more extreme they get (like Ken Blackwell just condemning sex outright and suggesting on national television that people who use contraception are animals), the more people are going to be turned off, and the more hysterical the base will get as they get more isolated from the rest of the country.
(It’s obviously not confined to conservatives… see also the increasingly alienating spiral of PETA’s “outreach.”)
And speaking of masturbation and acceptance, can I just say how completely surreal it is to watch a self-made masturbation video clip?
I’m exploring this idea that we’ve got so many misconceptions about ourselves anyway, and so many misconceptions about sex, and so many romance-novel-, literature-, chit-chat-, Hollywood-, television-, and porn-based misconceptions about sex, that (not to caricature any Libertarian readers) the answer might be to watch one’s self!
And no I’m not likely to share it, at least not at this stage of the experiment. (And maybe never since I’m pretty sure that’s not the point. It’s not that I wouldn’t at least consider it after posting about about the importance of acceptance. It’s just that I think other people seeing us probably wouldn’t be the biggest benefit.)
Definitely not what I expected. It’s not what I expected in a good way, or a bad one, just not at all what I expected. Which in a big way is a big point about reality and porn. I may or may not have more to say about this (at least more to say directly) depending on levels of interest. Otherwise I may just fold it into more general conversations about porn vs. reality. If you’ve tried it and care to share what you got from watching I’d like to know what you think or thought.
[Whether reassuring or exasperating, the image behind the “Read more…” link is not otherwise related to this post. :-) —fl]